Chapter published in:
Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological verbs at the interfaces
Edited by Bożena Rozwadowska and Anna Bondaruk
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 263] 2020
► pp. 141–212

Chapter 5
The syntax of accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish

| John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
The chapter examines the syntax of accusative and dative Experiencers found with stative Object Experiencer verbs in Polish with a view to determining whether they are associated with an unaccusative structure (Belletti & Rizzi, 1988; Pesetsky, 1995; Landau, 2010a) or are simply transitive (Grafmiller, 2013). Binding and passivization properties of the two types of Experiencer in Polish indicate that they are syntactically special, with accusative Experiencers forming a part of complex unergative structure as in Bennis (2004), and dative Experiencers occupying a Spec,vP position. The analysis of two linear orders of accusative and dative Experiencers with respect to the Target/Subject Matter (hence, T/SM) argument demonstrates that in the Experiencer-first order, the Experiencer is scrambled to an A’-position, whereas the T/SM remains in situ, while in the T/SM-first order, the T/SM comes to occupy the Spec,TP position, while the Experiencer is not affected by movement.
Keywords: binding, passivization, unaccusative, stative object experiencer verbs, scrambling, A-topic, split feature inheritance, the Polish language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish – General characteristics
  • 3.Binding properties of accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish
    • 3.1 Condition A effects with accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish
      • 3.1.1The Anaphor Agreement Effect
      • 3.1.2The way to obviate the AAE
      • 3.1.3Anti-Cataphora Effects
      • 3.1.4Backward binding by accusative and dative Experiencers
      • 3.1.5Forward binding
    • 3.2Pronominal variable binding with accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish
    • 3.3Binding of accusative and dative Experiencers – the summary
  • 4. Passivization of accusative and dative Experiencers in Polish
    • 4.1Verbal and adjectival passives in Polish
    • 4.2Verbal passives formed of OE verbs with accusative Experiencers in Polish
    • 4.3Verbal passives formed of OE verbs with dative Experiencers in Polish
    • 4.4 Why don’t stative OE verbs with accusative and dative Experiencers passivize in Polish?
    • 4.5Adjectival passives formed of stative OE verbs with accusative and dative Experiencers
    • 4.6 Passivization of accusative and dative Experiencers – the summary
  • 5.Derivation of T/SM-first and Experiencer-first orders with stative Class II and Class III OE verbs in Polish
    • 5.1 Arguments against the Spec,ApplP position of dative Experiencers in Polish
    • 5.2Deriving the T/SM-first order with stative Class II and Class III OE verbs in Polish
    • 5.3 Deriving the Experiencer-first order with stative Class II and Class III OE verbs in Polish
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 08 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.263.05bon
References
Adger, D., & Ramchand, G.
(2003) Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 325–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Psych nouns and predication. In C. Davis, A.-R. Deal, & Y. Zabbal (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36 (pp. 89–102). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E.
(2004) Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 116–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Sevdali, C.
(2014) Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 17, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F.
(2015) External arguments in transitivity alternations. A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antonyuk, S.
(2015)  Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sony Brook University.
Arad, M.
(1998) Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 203–223.Google Scholar
Babby, L.
(1989/2002) Subjectless external subcategorization, and the Projection Principle. Zbornik Matice Srpske za Filologiju i Lingvistiku, 32, 7–40 (reprinted in Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10, 341–388).Google Scholar
Bayer, J.
(2004) Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In P. Bhaskararo & K. Vekata Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects (Vol. 1, pp. 49–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
(1988) Psych-verbs and θ theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Moving verbal chunks in the low functional field. In L. Brugé, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads and the cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 7, pp. 129–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H.
(2004) Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 84–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biały, A.
(2005) Polish psychological verbs at the lexicon-syntax interface in cross-linguistic perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J.
(2007)  Phase syntax: The Polish genitive of negation (Habilitation dissertation). Universität Potsdam.
Bondaruk, A.
(2013) Copular clauses in English and Polish. Structure, derivation and interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A., & Szymanek, B.
(2007) Polish nominativeless constructions with dative Experiencers: Form, meaning and structure. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 4, 61–99.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A., & Rozwadowska, B.
(2018a) Heterogeneity of states in Polish stative passives. In W. Guz, & B. Szymanek (Eds.), Canonical and non-canonical structures in Polish (pp. 33–53). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
(2018b) Stative and eventive passives of Subject Experiencer verbs in Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(4), 437–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Stative and eventive passives with Subject and Object Experiencer verbs in Polish. In A. Bondaruk & K. Jaskuła (Eds.), All around the word. Papers in honour of Bogdan Szymanek on his 65th birthday (pp. 47–78). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A., Rozwadowska, B., & Witkowski, W.
(2017a) Passivization of Polish Object Experiencer verbs vs. the unaccusativity hypothesis (Part 1). Studies in Polish Linguistics, 12(2), 57–73.Google Scholar
(2017b) Passivisation of Polish Object Experiencer verbs vs. the unaccusativity hypothesis (Part 2). Studies in Polish Linguistics, 12(3), 123–144.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D.
(1992) Psych constructions and linking to conceptual structure. In P. Hirschbühler & E. F. K. Koerner (Eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory (pp. 25–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brame, M.
(1977) Alternatives to the tensed S and specified subject condition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 381–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B.
(2014) Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 363–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bunčić, D.
(2015) “To mamy wpajane od dziecka” – a recipient passive in Polish? Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 60(3), 411–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1986) Italian syntax: A Government and Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D.
(2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 23–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cetnarowska, B.
(2000) The unergative/unaccusative distinction in Polish. In P. Bański & A. Przepiórkowski (Eds.), Proceedings of GLiP-1 (pp. 35–46). Warszawa: IPIPAN.Google Scholar
(2002) Unaccusativity mismatches and unaccusativity diagnostics from derivational morphology. In P. Boucher & M. Plénat (Eds.), Many morphologies (pp. 48–81). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Cheung, Chi-Han C., & Larson, R. K.
(2015) Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 127–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2008) On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 134–166). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Problems of projection: Extensions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D.
(2019) Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. In Á. J. Gallego & D. Ott (Eds.), Generative syntax: Questions, crossroads, and challenges. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2019. (pp. 229–261). Retrieved from http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/003507​/current​.pdf (18 June 2017). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B.
(2014) Phase Theory. An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B., Germain, A., & Witkoś, J.
(2018) If you cannot agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects. Glossa, 3(1), 28, 1–46.Google Scholar
Collins, C.
(2005) A smuggling approach to passive in English. Syntax, 8, 81–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, M. C.
(2003)  Datives at large (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
(2010) Some dative subjects are born, some are made. In C. Borgonovo, M. Espaňol-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 26–37). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Despić, M.
(2011)  Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
(2013) Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 239–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Phases, reflexives and definiteness. Syntax, 18(3), 201–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dziwirek, K.
(1994) Polish subjects. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Embick, D.
(2004) On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 355–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M.
(1991) Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax. In W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer, & E. J. Reuland (Eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax (pp. 277–305). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A., & Marín, R.
(2017) Datives and stativity in psych predicates. Retrieved from http://​filcat​.uab​.cat​/clt​/datives​/abstractsdat​/fabregasmarin​.pdf (20 April, 2020).
(2020) Initiators, states and passives in Spanish psych verbs. In B. Rozwadowska & A. Bondaruk (Eds.), Beyond Emotions in Language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A., Jiménez Fernández, Á. L., & Tubino-Blanco, M.
(2017) What’s up with dative Experiencers? In R. E. V. Lopes, J. Ornelas de Avelar, & S. M. L. Cyrino (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 12: Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., & Sauerland, U.
(1996) Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In K. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26 (pp. 71–85). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Frąckowiak, E.
(2015)  Understanding situation and viewpoint aspect in Polish through dative anticausative constructions and factual imperfectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa.
Germain, A.
(2017)  Non-nominative subjects in Russian and Lithuanian: Case, argument structure and anaphor binding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
Giorgi, A.
(1984) Toward a theory of long distance anaphors: A GB approach. The Linguistic Review, 3, 307–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gogłoza, A.
(2018) Peeling of subject case: Marked subjects in Polish. In A. Bloch-Rozmej, & A. Bondaruk (Eds.), Studies in formal linguistics: Universal patterns and language specific parameters (pp. 91–111). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gogłoza, A., & Łęska, P.
(2018) Binding by objects in Polish DOCs and please-type double object unaccusatives – Testing theoretical accounts. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(4), 509–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, J.
(2013)  The semantics and syntactic choice. An analysis of English emotion verbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Haegeman, L.
(1986) The double object construction in West Flemish. The Linguistic Review, 5, 281–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
(1985) The case of German. In J. Toman (Ed.), Studies in German grammar (pp. 65–101). Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N.
(1995) Logical form: From GB to minimalism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iwata, S.
(1995) The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis, 1–2, 95–120.Google Scholar
Jiménez Fernández Á. L.
(2020) The information structure of high and low datives and their psychological import. In B. Rozwadowska & A. Bondaruk (Eds.), Beyond Emotions in Language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Fernández Á. L., & Rozwadowska, B.
(2016) The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych verbs. In B. Cetnarowska, M. Kuczok, & M. Zabawa (Eds.), Various dimensions of contrastive studies (pp. 100–122). Katowice: Wydawinctwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
(2017) On subject properties of datives in psych verbs: A comparative approach. Acta Linguistica Academica, 64(2), 233–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johanessen, J. B.
(1993)  Coordination. A minimalist approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo.
(1998) Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jurczyk, R.
(2015) The logical-semantic content of subject: A configurational view from syntax and LF. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 51(1), 89–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibort, A.
(2004)  Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
Kim, K.
(2011) High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua, 121, 487–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Non-oblique syntax for a dative experiencer in Korean. Linguistic Research, 34(1), 77–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klimek, D., & Rozwadowska, B.
(2004) From psych adjectives to psych verbs. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 39, 59–72.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D.
(1982) Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review, 2, 139–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J.
(1978) Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Building statives. Proceedings of Berkley Linguistics Society, 26, 385–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kučerová, I.
(2012) Grammatical marking of givenness. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I.
(2000) Elements of control. Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(2010a) The locative syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2010b) The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(3), 357–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laskowski, R.
(1998) Kategorie morfologiczne języka polskiego – Charakterystyka funkcjonalna [Morphological categories of Polish – Functional characteristics]. In R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, & H. Wróbel (Eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. [Grammar of the contemporary Polish language. Morphology] (pp. 151–221). Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Lavine, J., & Franks, S.
(2008) On accusative first. In A, Antonenko, J. F. Bailyn, C. Y. Bethin, & J. Toman (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16 (pp. 231–247). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D.
(2009) Where does Binding Theory apply? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J.
(2008) Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 55–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luchkina, T., & Ionin, T.
(2015) The effect of prosody on availability of inverse scope in Russian. In M. Szajbel-Keck, R. Burns, & D. Kavitskaya (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, UC Berkley (pp. 418–437). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Maling, J.
(1984) Non-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 211–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Verbal argument structure. Events and participants. Lingua, 130, 152–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín, R., & McNally, L.
(2011) Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 467–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M.
(1998)  Locality in A-movement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
McIntyre, A.
(2013) Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (Eds.), Non-canonical passives (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, K., & Scheffler, P.
(2008) A corpus-based analysis of the peculiar behavior of the Polish verb podobać się . In J. Witkoś & G. Fanselow (Eds.), Elements of Slavic and Germanic grammars. A comparative view (pp. 89–111). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Munn, A. B.
(1987) Coordinate structure and X-bar Theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, L.
(2014)  The secret life of pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Pesetsky, D.
(1982)  Paths and categories (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
(1995) Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
de O A Petersen, M. C.
(2016)  On Experiencers and minimality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Maryland.
Pitteroff, M., & Schäfer, F.
(2019) Implicit control cross-linguistically. Language, 95(1), 136–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poole, E.
(2016) Deconstructing subjecthood. Retrieved from http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/003197 (20 April, 2020).
Postal, P.
(1971) Cross-over phenomena. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
(2008) Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, G.
(2006) Dative Experiencer predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT Publications,Google Scholar
(2015) Psych verbs, anaphors and the configurationality issue in Hungarian. In K. É. Kiss, B. Surányi, & É. Dékány (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 14. Papers from the Piliscsaba conference (pp. 243–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G.
(2008) First phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T.
(1983) Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Experiencing derivations. A paper presented at SALT 11, New York. Crossref
Rizzi, L.
(1990) On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica, 2, 27–42.Google Scholar
(1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–339). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, B.
(2012) On the onset of psych eventualities. In E. Cyran, H. Kardela, & B. Szymanek (Eds.), Sound, structure and sense. Studies in memory of Edmund Gussmann (pp. 533–554). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F., Šereikaitè M., & Pitteroff, M.
(2018) The structural nature of non-structural case: On passivization and case in Lithuanian. Proceedings of LSA, 3.31, 1–15.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N.
(2007) Grammar and information structure. A study with reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S.
(2014) Revisiting the anaphor agreement effect: A new pattern from Tamil. In A. Assmann, S. Bank, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, & E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Topics at InfL (pp. 499–526). Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Szajbel-Keck, M.
(2015)  Secondary predication in Polish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California.
Tajsner, P.
(2008) Aspects of the grammar of focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Temme, A.
(2014) German psych-adjectives. In A. Machicao, A. Nolda, & A. Sioupi (Eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie: Untersuchungen zu Randbereichen in Sprache und Grammatik (pp. 131–156). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Temme, A., & Verhoeven, E.
(2017) Backward binding as a psych effect: A binding illusion? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 36(2), 279–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B.
(2016) Le charme discret of remnant movement: crossing and nesting in Polish OVS sentences. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 11(3), 133–165.Google Scholar
Williams, E.
(2006) Subjects of different heights. In J. Lavine (Ed.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Princeton Meeting 2005 (pp. 409–418). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Willim, E.
(1989) On word order: A government-binding study of English and Polish. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
(2020) The Polish impersonal middle with a dative as a syntactically-derived experience construction. In B. Rozwadowska & A. Bondaruk (Eds.), Beyond Emotions in Language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witkoś, J.
(1993) The theory of X-binding and some aspects of scrambling in Polish. Poznań Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 28, 153–180.Google Scholar
(2003) Movement and reconstruction: Questions and Principle C effects in English and Polish. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2008) On the correlation between A-type scrambling and lack of weak crossover effects. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 44, 297–327.Google Scholar
(2013) Visser’s Generalization and c-command condition on control. In A. Bondaruk, & A. Malicka-Kleparska (Eds.), Ambiguity. Multifaceted structures in syntax, morphology and phonology (pp. 317–345). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Witkoś, J., Łęska, P., & Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, D.
(2017) Positioning the dative and accusative arguments through binding. Paper presented at Linguistics Beyond and Within Conference, 18–19 October, 2017, Lublin.
Witkoś, J., Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, D., & Łęska, P.
(2018a) Binding as Agree and Index Raising: The case of Polish accusative object Experiencers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(4), 469–507. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witkoś, J., Łęska, P., Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, D., Gogłoza, A., & Meyer, R.
(2018b) Datives and accusatives as binders in a grammar of subject-oriented reflexives. Paper presented at FASL conference, Stanford, May 4–6 2018.
Wood, J., & Marantz, A.
(2017) The interpretation of external arguments. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Franco, & Á. Gallego (Eds.), The verbal domain (pp. 255–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woolford, E.
(1993) Symmetric and asymmetric passives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11, 679–728. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Four-way cases systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 181–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2), 257–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zabrocki, T.
(1981) Lexical rules of semantic interpretation. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.Google Scholar
Zoerner, C. E.
(1995)  Coordination: The syntax of andP (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California.
Zribi-Hertz, A.
(1989) A-type binding and narrative point of view. Language, 65, 695–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Żychliński, S.
(2013)  On some aspects of the syntax of Object Experiencers in Polish and English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Adam Mickiewicz University.
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bondaruk, Anna
2020. Argument and case linking of Polish Experiencers. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 65:1 ► pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.
2020.  In Beyond Emotions in Language [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 263], ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Willim, Ewa
2020.  In Beyond Emotions in Language [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 263], ► pp. 245 ff. Crossref logo
Willim, Ewa
2020. On Scalarity in the Verbal Domain. The Case of Polish Psych Verbs. Part 1: Polish Perfective Psych Verbs and Their Prefixes. Studies in Polish Linguistics 15:4 ► pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.