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. 287314
Baglini, Rebekah
2012The Scalar Source of Stative Passives. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 , vol. 1, 29–41. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
Carden, G. & D. Pesetsky
1977Double-verb constructions, Markedness and a Fake Coordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 82–92.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti
2001“Semi-lexical” motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words (Studies in Generative Grammar 59), 371–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vos, Mark
2004Pseudo coordination is not subordination. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21. 181–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Paul J. E.
2012Dynamic Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Either-Float and the Syntax of Coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
2001The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1992Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J.
1983Plurality and conjunction. In Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, 63–84. Dordrecht, Floris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, Nathan & Daniel Rothschild
2012Connectives without truth tables. Natural Language Semantics 20(2). 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2010The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). 285–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1981The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches to word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and The Lexicon Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Building Resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications (Linguistische Arbeiten 501), 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1986Frame semantic Control of the Coordinate structure Constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2). 152–168.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
2011Locality Domains for Contextual Allosemy. Paper presented at the Columbia Lingusitic society.
Michaelis, Laura A.
2011Stative by Construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1359–1399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno
2014Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme: University of Cambridge dissertation.
2021Superparticles: A Microsemantic Theory, Typology, and History of Logical Atoms (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 98). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno & Uli Sauerland
2016Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(4). 471–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. & M. Rooth
1982Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope. In Daniel P. Flickinger, Marlys Macken & Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 353–362. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
1983Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2011Agreement as a fallible operation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisinger, Drew
2016Ranked ordering sources and embedded modality. Proceedings of LSA 1(36). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. G.
2010Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel
2015Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions. In Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 25 , 225–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967Constraints on variables in syntax: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Shopen, Timothy
1971Caught in the act. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 254–263.Google Scholar
Slade, Benjamin Martin
2011Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of inter-rogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.
Stalnaker, Robert
1984Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
2015What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 159–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad
1995Syncategorematic Conjunction and Structured Meanings. In Mandy Simons & Teresa Galloway (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 5 , Ithaca: Cornell University & Linguistic Society of America. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, Rebecca
2016Investigating the syntax of speech acts: embedding illocutionary force: University of York dissertation.
Zhang, Niina Ning
2010Coordination in Syntax Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar