The Syntax of Information-Structural Agreement

| Goethe University Frankfurt
ISBN 9789027209139 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
ISBN 9789027259738 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
In this research monograph, Johannes Mursell discusses the syntactic impact of information-structural features on agreement. So far, the syntactic contribution of this type of feature has mostly been reduced to movement of topics or foci clause-initial position. Here, the author looks at a different phenomenon, syntactic agreement, and how this process can be dependent on information-structural properties. Based partly on original fieldwork from a typologically diverse set of languages, including Tagalog, Swahili, and Lavukaleve, it is argued that for most areas for which information-structural features have been discussed, it is possible to find cases where these features influence phi-feature agreement. The analysis is then extended to cases of Association with Focus, which does not involve phi-features but can still be accounted for with agreement of information-structural features. The book achieves two main goals: first it provides a uniform analysis for different constructions in unrelated languages. Second, it also gives a new argument that information-structural features should be treated as genuine syntactic features.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 268]  2021.  xii, 280 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of symbols and abbreviations
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Theoretical background
Chapter 3. Long distance agreement
Chapter 4. Object marking in Swahili
Chapter 5. Subject marking in Tagalog
Chapter 6. Focus particles in Lavukaleve
Chapter 7. Association with focus – general discussion
Chapter 8. Association with focus in German
Chapter 9. Conclusion


Aboh, Enoch Oladé
2010Information structuring begins with the numeration. Iberia 2:12–42.Google Scholar
Adger, David
2003Core Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, Robert M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki
2001Introduction. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language, 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
1999Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21:435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith
2004Ergativity and Word order in Austronesian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith
1983Anaphora, cataphora, and topic focusing: Functions of the object prefix in Swahili. In Current Approaches to African Linguistics, Ivan R. Dihoff (ed.), 323–335. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans
1976Die Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Gradpartikelprobleme. Zur Beschreibung von gerade, genau, eben, ausgerechnet, vor allem, insbesondere, zumindest, wenigstens. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1972How to get ’even’. Language 48: 893–905. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus
2010Desintegration und Interpretation. Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29:1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Karlos
2018Focus projection theories. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 185–203. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Asarina, Alya & Jeremy Hartman
2011aGenitive subject licensing in Uyghur subordinate clauses. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic (WAFL), Andrew Simpson (ed.), 17–31. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Asarina, Alya & Hartman, Jeremy
2011bUyghur genitive subjects and the phase impenetrability condition. Presented at CUNY Syntax supper, February 2011.
Ashton, Eric Ormerod
1944Swahili Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick
2020The scrambling paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4):635–669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1985The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar
1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2008The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
2015On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds), 111–135. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bárány, András
2015Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bassi, Itai & Longenbaugh, Nicholas
2019Against Tanglewood by focus movement: A reply to Erlewine and Kotek (2018). Linguistic Inquiry 51(3): 579–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt
2012Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 119–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German. Lingua 136:16–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bax, Anna & Diercks, Michael
2012Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30:185–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef
1996Directionality and Logical Form. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z.
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
2006Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1932Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band IV: Wortstellung. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bell, Sarah
1978Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 17:1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2001Inversion as focalization. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2004Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005Past-participle agreement. In Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 493–521. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans
1983On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
2005Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Keine, Stefan
2016Long distance agreement. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 2291–2321. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio
2016Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 9:1–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Zeijlstra, Hedde
2019Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 527–569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Heather
2009Structuring information in Blackfoot: Against an A-bar-agreement analysis of cross-clausal agreement. In Proceedings of the 2008 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, Susie Jones (ed.). http://​homes​.chass​.utoronto​.ca​/~cla​-acl​/actes2008​/CLA2008​_Bliss​.pdf> (4 February 2021).
Bloomfield, Leonard
1917Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3: 2–4.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
2002A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20:197–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Börjesson, Kristin & Müller, Gereon
2020Long distance agreement and locality: A reprojection approach. In Smith, Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 283–317.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2003Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33:54–96.Google Scholar
2007On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko
1998Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Hendriks, Petra & Hoeksema, Jack
2007Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A comparison of Dutch, English, and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite
2002Altruism, A-bar movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.
1987Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewâ. Language 63: 741–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breul, Carsten
2004Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach [Linguisik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brody, M.
1997Perfect chains. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 139–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2001Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2001QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
1999Topic. In Focus – Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds), 142–165. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2003On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26: 511–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Focus projection and default prominence. In The Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Unalternative semantics. In Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney, & Carol Rose Little (eds), 550–575. Chicago IL: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
2016Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Hartmann, Katharina
1995Is it [only Rock’n Roll] or just like it? In Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), José Camacho, Lina Choueiri, & Maki Watanabe (eds), 63–77. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2001The syntax of focus sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cena, Resty M.
1977Patient primacy in Tagalog. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Chicago.
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
1976Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–350.Google Scholar
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–54. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 223], Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Haman & Simona Matteini (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2019: 263–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
1977Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge MA: The MIT press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colley, Justin & Privoznov, Dmitry
2019On the topic of subjects. Talk given at NELS50 at MIT.
Collins, James N.
2016Composition and definiteness without articles: A case study in Tagalog. In NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol. I, Cristopher Hammerly & Brandon Prickett (eds), 227–241. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2017Structure Sensitve Interpretation: A Case Study in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
2019Definiteness determined by syntax. A case study in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:1367–1420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia
2012Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Bale, Alan
2014The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd 40: 85–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2004Non-canonical applicatives and focalization in Tswana. Paper presented at the Symposium Syntax of the World’s Languages, Leipzig.
Cruschina, Silvio
2019Focus fronting in Spanish: Mirative implicature and information structure. Probus 31:119–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta
2020Agreement across the board: Topic agreement in Ripano. In Smith, Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 235–270.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Angio, Sara
2007Negative polarity items in inverse scope and topicalized clauses. Swarthmore College, Dept. of Linguistics. https://​www​.swarthmore​.edu​/sites​/default​/files​/assets​/documents​/linguistics​/2007​_dangio​_sarah​.pdf> (4 February 2021).
Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus
2020From the Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. http://​www​.ids​-mannheim​.de​/kl​/projekte​/korpora/> (4 February 2021).
De Guzman, Videa P.
1988Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 323–345. Athens OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise
1995Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J.
2009Linear disorder in Bantu reduplication. In Workshop on the Division of Labor between Morphology and Phonology and Fourth Network Meeting, 16–17 January. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernhard
1994Island Constraints and the Syntactic Nature of Focus and Association of Focus [Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Vol. 51]. Heidelberg: Das Wissenschaftliche Zentrum der IBM Deutschland.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Mursell, Johannes
2017The syntax and semantics of discourse particles. In Discourse Particles. Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 15–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio
2012Illocutionary force of non-root sentences. Talk given at University of Venice, March.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
2014Movement out of Focus. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Kotek, Hadas
2018Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 441–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, Ibnbari, Lena & Taube, Sharon
2013Missing objects as topic drop. Lingua 136:145–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
2006On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure). In Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 137–159. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa
2011Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29:169–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline
1993German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines, Hartmann, Katharina, Reineke, Brigitte, Schwarz, Anne & Zimmermann, Malte
2010Subject focus in West African languages. In Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Carolin Féry (eds), 234–257. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Foley, William
1998Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the Third Lexical Functional Grammar Conference.
Foley, William & Van ValinJr., Robert
1984Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2012A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language 40(1):1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Robert
2006Phase theory and tree adjoining grammar. Lingua 116:145–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frantz, Donald G.
1978Copying from complements in Blackfoot. In Linguistic Studies of Native Canada, Eung-Do Cook & Johnathan Kaye (eds), 89–110. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2007Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of null pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland
2007Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca
2012Phasing contrast at the interfaces: A feature-compositional approach to topics. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 55–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner
2004Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German left dislocation. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds), 203–233. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J.
2014Deriving feature inheritance from the copy theory of movement. The Linguistc Review 31: 41–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna
1988Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1998Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 149–188. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1983Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 5–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther
2005The discourse configurationality of scrambling. In The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, Joachim Sabel & Mamoru Saito (eds), 75–135. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther & Sabel, Joachim
1999Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline
1980On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 637–678.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Hung, Henrietta & Travis, Lisa
1992Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
1993Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Malcom
1971Comparative Bantu, Vol. 2: Bantu Prehistory, Inventory and Indexes. London: Gregg International.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
1999Wenn-Sätze im Vor-Vorfeld: Ihre Formen und Funktionen in der gesprochenen Sprache [Technical Report], InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 11. http://​kops​.uni​-konstanz​.de​/handle​/123456789​/3771> (5 February 2020).
Haegeman, Liliane
2012Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo
2012Complementizer agreement and the relation between C and T. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 441–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
2010Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haida, Andreas
2007The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Wh-Words. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert & Rosengren, Inger
1998Scrambling [Sprache & Pragmatik 49]. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth
2002On the Dagur object relative: Some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 109–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, Jakob
2010On the syntax an morphology of double agreement in Lavukaleve. In 2 in Agreement [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 88], Sebastian Bank, Doreen Georgi & Jochen Trommer (eds), 197–225. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel & Romero, Maribel
2004Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Semantics 21: 375–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2013Getting morphemes in order: Merger, affixation and head movement. In Diagnosing Syntax, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 44–75. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte
2007Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A reanalysis of the particle nee/cee. In Focus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds), 241–263. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua 119: 1340–1365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999Long distance agreement in Godoberi (Daghestanian) complement clauses. Folia Linguistica 33: 131–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1991On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian, & Juan Cuartero
2012Long distance agreement in relative clauses. In Local Modelling of Non-local Dependencies in Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Tibor Kiss, & Gereon Müller (eds), 49–85. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Mai, Osa-Gómez, Adriana & Wiltschko, Martina
2014How to do things with particles. In Proceedings of CLA 2014, Laura Teddiman (ed), https://​cla​-acl​.artsci​.utoronto​.ca​/wp​-content​/uploads​/Heim​_Keupdjio​_Lam​_Osa​-Gomez​_Wiltschko​-2014​.pdf> (5 February 2021).
Henderson, Brent Mykel
2006The Syntax and Typology of Bantu Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
2002Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
1991The Philippine challenge to universal grammar. Arbeitspapier, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft 15:1–59. http://​publikationen​.ub​.uni​-frankfurt​.de​/frontdoor​/index​/index​/docId​/24331> (5 February 2021).
Hoeksema, Jack
2000Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope and c-command. In Negation and Polarity, Laurence R. Horn & Yasuhiko Kato (eds), 115–146. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel
2004Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese. London: RoutledgeCurzon. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015A distributed syntax for evaluative ‘only’ sentences. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34: 43–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence Robert
1969A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 98–107. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert
1999Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C-T James
1982Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2009How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31: 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson
2014Introduction. Linguistics 52(2): 271–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Issah, Samuel A.
2019On the Structure of A-bar Constructions in Dagbani: Perspectives of Wh-questions and Fragment Answers. PhD dissertation, Goethe-University Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
1983Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91: 25–58.Google Scholar
1986The syntax of focus and adverbials. In Topic, Focus, and Configurationality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 4], Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds), 103–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan
2001IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Peter
2018Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 501–536. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.
2010Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacritica 24: 25–49.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Miyagawa, Shigeru
2014A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145: 276–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Spyropoulos, Vassilios
2013Feature inheritance, vP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica 67: 185–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Alana & Kučerová, Ivona
2017Towards an information structure analysis of ergative patterning in the Inuit language. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 397–419. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Joswig, Andreas
1996Die grammatischen Rollen des Objekts im Swahili. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln Arbeitspapiere 26:1–67.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit
2002Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit
1990Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 273–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina
2000Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 30], Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 209–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Clitic doubling as differntial object marking. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 161–171.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans
1981A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin B. J. Stokhof (eds), 189–222. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel
2009Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35:1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves
2001New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 107–162. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira
2008Long-distance agreement in Khwarshi. In Proceedings of LingO 2007, Miltiadis Kokkonidis (ed.), 116–124. Oxford: Faculty of Linguistics, Philology,and Phonetics, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
2009A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É.
1995Introduction. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 3–28. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & von Stechow, Arnim
1982Intonation und Bedeutung von Fokus [Sonderforschungsbereich, 99: Linguistik]. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jacklin
2008Subject case and Agr into types of Turkish RCs. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic (WAFL) [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 56], Cedric Boeckx & Suleiman Ulutas (eds). Cambridge MA: MIT, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth
2014Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krapova, Ilyana & Cinque, Guglielmo
2005On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 171–197.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1991The representation of focus. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 6], Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 825–835. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1992A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Swahili. In Syntax. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1397–1418. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1998aAdditive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds), 111–129. Ithaca NY: Cornell University. https://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/proceedings​/index​.php​/SALT​/issue​/view​/101> (5 February 2021) Crossref
1998bScope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Association with focus phrases. In The Architecture of Focus, Valeria Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991aGradpartikeln. In Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 786–803. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991bThe Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1993Focus particles. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 978–987. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja
2011Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2005Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy. Transactions of the Philological Society 103: 339–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne
2005Phases and cyclic agreement. In Perspectives on Phases [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49], Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 147–156. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Juergen
1977Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel
2004Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3:75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Theodore
2019On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 167–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1989Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1991In defence of the correspondence hypothesis: Island effects and parasitic consructions in logical form. In Logical Form and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, C.-T. James Huang & Robert May (eds), 149–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
López, Luis
2009A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maclachlan, Anna & Nakamura, Masonori
1994Case checking and specificity in Tagalog. The Linguistic Review 14: 307–333.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M.
2002Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 157–200. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1991Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Germán Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds), 234–253. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz & Kula, Nancy C.
2012Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. South African Journal of African Languages 30: 237–253.Google Scholar
Maw, Joan
1974Swahili Style. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
1976Focus and morphology of the Swahili verb. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 39: 389–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Tom
2004The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André
1999Topicality and agreement. In Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Vol. II: Case Studies [Studies in Language Companion Series 42], Michael Darnell, Edith Moravscik, Frederick Newmeyer, Michael Noonan & Kathleen Wheatly (eds), 203–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2006Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 42, Jacqueline Bunting, Sapna Desai, Robert Peachey, Christopher Straughn & Zuzana Tomkova (eds), 57–76. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
2019Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds), 19–45. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2010Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121: 1265–1282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Agreement beyond Phi. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnárfi, László
2002Focus and antifocus in modern Afrikaans and West Germanic. Linguistics 40: 1007–1130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1993Zur Pragmatik und Grammtik des Topik-Begriffes. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed.), 155–203. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murrell, Paul
2012The applicative construction and object symmetry as a parameter of variation in Kiswahili and Maragoli. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30: 255–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mursell, Johannes
2016Syntactic association with focus – an agreement-based approach. In Console XXIV: Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Kate Bellamy, Elena Karvovskaya & George Saad (eds), 324–351. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
2018Object marking in Swahili is topic agreement. Jezikoslovlje 19: 427–455.Google Scholar
2020Long distance agreement and information structure. In Smith, Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 251–281.Google Scholar
Mursell, Johannes & Repp, Sophie
2019Encoding varieties of topic and focus: The role of contrast and information status. Talk given at the annual meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) in Bremen.
Mursell, Johannes & Tan, Jennifer
2019Ang-marking and Givenness in Tagalog. In Console XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Astrid van Alem, Mirella De Sisto, Elisabeth J. Kerr & Joanna Wall (eds), 150–174. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2003Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31: 29–62.Google Scholar
2005Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203: 29–62.Google Scholar
2014Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Masonori
1996Economy of Chain Formation. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Naylor, Paz Buenaventura
1995Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In Subject, Voice and Ergativity, David C. Bennett, Theodora Bynon & B. George Hewitt (eds). London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi, Kriszta
2004Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35:149–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & van der Koot, Hans
2008Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 137–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew
2004Derivations without the Activity Condition. In Perspectives on Phases [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49], Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 287–310. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
2011Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4: Phonological Interfaces, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ngonyani, Deo S.
2016Pairwise combinations of Swahili applicative with other verb extensions. Nordic Journal of African Studies 25: 52–71.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
2000The Swahili object marker: Syntax, semantics and mythology. In Proceedings of the World Congress of African Linguistics, Leipzig 1997, H. Ekkehard Wolff & Orin D. Gensler (eds), 679–691. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Nuger, Justin
2016Building Predicates. New York NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, Derek & Philippson, Gérard
2003Introduction. In The Bantu Languages, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds), 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Obata, Kazuko
2003A Grammar of Bilua. A Papuan Language from the Solomon Islands [Pacific Linguistics 50]. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ostrove, Jason
2018When Phi-agreement Targets Topics: The View from San Martin Peras Mixtec. PhD dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Oxford, Will
2014Multiple instances of agreement in the clausal spine: Evidence from Algonquian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), 335–343. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H.
1991Topic, focus and quantification. In Proceedings of SALT 1, Steven Moore & Adam Wyner (eds), 159–187. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Waltraud
2002Sentence-internal topics in Mandarin Chinese: The case of object preposing. Language and Linguistics 3: 695–714.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud & Whitman, John
2017Topic prominence. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 4473–4504. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E.
1982Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Languages 6(1):75–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1978Impersonal passives and the unaccusativity hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeri J. Jaeger, Anthony C. Woodbury, Farrell Ackermann, Christine Chiarelio, Orin D. Gensler, John Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, Henry Thompson & Kenneth W. Whistler (eds), 157–190. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A.
2007Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia
2006Old Italian scrambling: The low left periphery of the clause. In Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 209–229. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013On V2 types. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (ed.), 154–165. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2003Non-canonical agreement is canonical. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 279–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Antipassive. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 308–332. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric
2001Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Yean-Ives
1989Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2009Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30: 491–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer & Polinsky, Maria
2015Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms, University of Maryland. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/002363> (7 February 2021)
Prince, Ellen
1981Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quek, Yihui & Hirsch, Aron
2017Severing focus form and meaning in Standard and Colloquial Singapore English. In Proceedings of NELS 47, Vol. 3, Andrew Lamont & Katarina Tetzloff (eds), 15–25. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea
2002The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin
2005Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistc Inquiry 36: 565–599. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2017The event domains. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds), 233–255. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo
2004Association with focus and choice functions – A binding approach. Research on Language and Computation 2: 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Lawrence, & Liao, Hsiu-Chuan
2004A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5(2):433–490.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga
1995Wer glaubst du hat Recht? On so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache & Pragmatik 36: 27–83.Google Scholar
2005On the syntax of so-called focus sensitive particles. A reply to Büring & Hartmann 2001. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 459–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013”Weil-V2”-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32: 221–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga & Rosengren, Inger
1997A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German auch. Journal of Semantics 14: 237–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2016Contrast: Dissecting an ilusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 270–290. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D.
2007On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
2000Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 49], Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips & Lisa Travis (eds), 105–115. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richter, Frank & Soehn, Jan-Philipp
2006Braucht niemanden zu scheren: A survey of NPI licensing in German. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Müller Stefan (ed.), 421–440. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Riedel, Kristina
2009The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Bantu Perspective. PhD dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1986Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.Google Scholar
1990Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. A Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2003Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael
1978A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussets.Google Scholar
1986Focus in Generative Grammar [Studies in Generative Linguistic Analysis 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Givenness. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 41–64. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts.Google Scholar
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
1991Heads, projections, and category determination. In Views on Phrase Structure, Katherine Leffel & Denis Bouchard (eds), 97–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph
2009Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 675–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Word order and prosodic-structure constraints in Tagalog. Syntax 17: 40–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics 52: 639–688. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Joachim
2002A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19: 271–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Deriving linear order in OV/VO languages: Evidence from Oceanic languages. In Topics in Oceanic Morphosyntax, Claire Moyse-Faurie & Joachim Sabel (eds), 27–65. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018Syntactic effects of verbal morphology in Malagasy. Talk given at the Syntax Colloquim, Goethe-University, Frankfurt.
Sabel, Joachim & Jochen Zeller
2006Wh-question formation in Nguni. In Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, John M. Mugane, John P. Hutchinson & Dee A. Worman (eds), 271–283. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li, 493–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1996The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15]. Los Angeles CA: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe
1972Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, Gregory & Nicolae, Andreea C.
2016Saturating syntax: Linkers and modification in Tagalog. Lingua 149: 17–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, Amanda & Dimitriadis, Alexis
1997The discourse function of object marking in Swahili. In CLS 33: Papers from the Main Session, April 17–19, 1997, Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds), 373–389. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1995aThe prosodic structure of words. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), 439–469. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
1995bSentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 331–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sener, Serkan
2008Non-canonical case licensing is canonical: Accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish. Ms, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner
2004‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ leftperipheral elements in German and English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: 465–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shanon, Benny
1976On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 14(2): 247–249.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1988Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sikuku, Justine, Diercks, Michael & Marlo, Michael
2018Pragmatic effect of clitic doubling: Two kinds of object markers in Lubusku. Linguistic Variation 18: 359–429. lingbuzz​/003653.Google Scholar
Smeets, Liz & Wagner, Michael
2018Reconstructing the syntax of focus operators. Semantics and Pragmatics 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Lawrence R.
1982Labrador Inuktitut (Eskimo) and the theory of morphology. Studies in Language 6: 221–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Peter W., Mursell, Johannes & Hartmann, Katharina
(eds) 2020Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michael
2001Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya, Evans, Bethwyn & Terrill, Angela
2018The Papuan languages of Island Melanesia. In The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area, Bill Palmer (ed.), 775–895. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim
1991Focussing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 37–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F.
1950On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Wolfgang
2017Against information structural heads: A relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa 2: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2010Fokuspartikeln innerhalb von DPn im Deutschen. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Theo Harden & Elke Hentschel (eds), 169–181. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2016Discourse-configurationality. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 422–441. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2002Introduction. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 3–29. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef
1984Message and Emphasis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher Damian
1992Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela
1999A Grammar of Lavukaleve: A Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
2003A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
2007From the Bodleian Libraries University of Oxford on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/> (8 February 2021).
Thiersch, Craig
1978Topics in German syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2001Object shift and scrambling. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Marc Batin & Chris Collins (eds), 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torregrossa, Jacopo
2012Towards a taxonomy of focus types. The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 16:151–172.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2016Focus, intonation and tonal height. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 165–185. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe
2015A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Dinka Bor Case Study. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael
2006Association by movement. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke
2009Word Order and Information Structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2017Flexibility in symmetry: An implicational relation in Bantu double object constructions. In Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure, Michelle Sheehan & Laura R. Bailey (eds.), 115–152. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2020The AWSOM correlation in comparative Bantu object marking. In Smith, Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 185–216.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji
1979The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse in discourse and syntax. Syntax and Semantics 12: 505–524.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
2014The Universal Structure of Categories. Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wold, Dag E.
1996Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT VI, Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds), 311–328. Ithaca NY: Cornell University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
1999Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. In New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages [Trends in African Linguistics 3], Paul Kotey, (ed) 205–215. Trenton NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi
2003Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Agree(ment): Looking up or looking down? Ms.Google Scholar
2016aFeature dependencies – The ups and downs of agree. Lecture notes from a course given at Institute of Linguistics, Cognition and Culture (NYI), St. Petersburg, Russia.Google Scholar
2016bThe ups and downs of agree. Lecture notes from a course given at the Netherlands Graduate School in Linguistics, LOT Summer School, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1985Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2014On the uninterpretability of interpretable features. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 109–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen
2012Object marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30: 219–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Three types of object marking in Bantu. Linguistische Berichte 239: 347–367.Google Scholar
2015Argument prominence and agreement: Explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua 156: 17–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
2016Nuclear stress and information structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 463–483. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1983Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59: 502–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2021016879 | Marc record