Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 271286
Aoun, J., E. Benmamoun and D. Sportiche
1994 “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic.” Linguistic Inquiry 25, 195–220.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
Embick, D.
2010Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Vol. 60). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. E.
1984The function of word order in Turkish grammar (Vol. 106). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
(2018, May 2). Evrimimiz üzerine [On our evolution]. 7/23. [URL]
Göksel, A. and Özsoy, A. S.
2000 “Is there a focus position in Turkish?” In A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (eds.) Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages; Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 219–228.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and A. Marantz
1993 “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection,” in K. Hale and S. Keyser, (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 111–176.Google Scholar
1994 “Some key features of Distributed Morphology,” in A. Carnie, H. Harley, and T. Bures, eds., The Morphology-Syntax Connection, MITWPL 21, Cambridge, MA, 275–288.Google Scholar
Hardie, A.
2012 “CQPweb – combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17 (3), 380–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. and Noyer, R.
1999Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4(4), 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E.
2002Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78(3), 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ince, A.
2009Dimensions of ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
Kornfilt, J. and J. Whitman
2011 “Afterword: Nominalizations in linguistic theory.” Lingua 121(7). 1297–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köylü, Y.
2018A compositional approach to conjunct agreement in Turkish. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(1), 17:1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, R. B.
1961The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 6; The Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in 1997, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., A. Nevins and A. Saksida
2007 “Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian,” in R. Compton, M. Goledzinowska and U. Savchenko (eds), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting 2006. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 210–227.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. and B. Bickel
2013 “Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases,” in Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2017-03-14.)
Serova, K.
2019 “Head Movement, Suspended Affixation, and the Turkish Clausal Spine.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic, 4(1), 89–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar