Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 19:2 (2019) ► pp.280351
Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev & J. M. Shukla
1977A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda, Gujarat: Maharaja Sayajirao University, Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith
2009Short wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Shoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia M. Clancy & Sung-Ock Sohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 171, 549–563. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis
2006Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. & T. C. Kumari
1997Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl LeRoy
1968Indirect questions in English. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
1970Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 61.197–219.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria
1994Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 171. 53–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böhtlingk, Otto & Rudolph Roth
eds. 1855 1875 Sanskrit-Wörterbuch St. Petersburg Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Borges, Jorge Luis
[1942] 1999John Wilkins’ analytical language. In Eliot Weinberger (ed.), Borges: Selected non-fictions, 229–232. New York, NY: Penguin. Originally published as “El idioma analítico de John Wilkins”, La Nación 8 February 1942.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Donna Farkas
2011How indefinites choose their scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(1). 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Anna Szabolcsi
2013Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too . In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of 𝜙, ?𝜙 and ⋄𝜙. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stockhof, and Frank Veltman, [URL]
Cable, Seth
2007The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
2010The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo
1932A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics 33(2). 346–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1936An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics 58(2). 345–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1940A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2). 56–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen
2012Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI 2012 Lecture notes. [URL]
2013Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(9). 459–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Information, issues and attention. In D. Gutzmann, J. Köpping & C. Meier (eds.), Approaches to meaning, composition, values, and interpretation. Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics-Interface (CRiSPI) 321, 128–167. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dauenhauer, Nora Marks & Richard Dauenhauer
1990Classics of Tlingit oral literature, volume 2: Haa tuwunáagu yís, for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory. Juneau, AK: Sealaska Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006 Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto
2009The infinity of lists. New York: Rizzoli. Translated by Alastair McEwen.Google Scholar
Fukutomi, Yasuyuki
2006Japanese alternative questions and intervention effects in DP. In Changguk Yim (ed.), Minimalist views on language design: Proceedings of the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 53–60. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar
Gair, James W.
1968 [1998]Sinhalese diglossia. Anthropological Linguistics 10(8). 1–15. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:213–223].Google Scholar
1986 [1998](a)Sinhala diglossiarevisited, or diglossia dies hard. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani KumarSinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 322–336. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:224–236].Google Scholar
1986[1998](b)Sinhala focused sentences: Naturalization of a calque. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 147–164. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:155–169].Google Scholar
1992AGR, INFL, Case and Sinhala diglossia, or Can linguistic theory find a home in variety. In Braj Kachru, Edward C. Dimock & Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (eds.), Dimensions of South Asia as a sociolinguistic area: Papers in memory of Gerald B. Kelley, 179–197. Delhi: Oxford India Book House.Google Scholar
1998Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. & W. S. Karunatilaka
1974Literary Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: South Asia Program and Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. & Lelwala Sumangala
1991What to focus in Sinhala. In Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chase (eds.), ESCOL ‘91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 93–108. Columbus: Ohio State University Working Papers.Google Scholar
Geiger, Wilhelm
1938A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. [reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services 1995].Google Scholar
(ed.) 1941An etymological glossary of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: The Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch. [Reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services 1997].Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Jason Robert
2009Interrogative features. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1998Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard
1973Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1994Questions. Lecture notes, MIT, Fall 1994.Google Scholar
2011Definiteness and indefiniteness. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics. an international handbook of natural language meaning. vol. 21, 996–1025. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1988Review article: Finiteness in Dravidian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2). 211–231.Google Scholar
1989aConjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of Sanskrit relative structures. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1). 93–126.Google Scholar
1989b Review of Steever (1988): The serial verb formation in the Dravidian languages. Language 651. 398–405.Google Scholar
2008Dravidian syntactic typology: A reply to Steever. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 164–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2013Proto-Indo-European verb finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. In Leonid Kulikov & Nikolaos Lavidas (eds.), Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
2001Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2). 63–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Question particles and disjunction. Ms., Hyderabad, English and Foreign Languages University. [URL]
2016Decomposing coordination: The two operators of coordination. Linguistic Analysis 40(3–4). 237–253.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1977Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karunatillake, W. S.
2012Etymological lexicon of the Sinhala language. Colombo: S. Godage & Brothers.Google Scholar
Kawashima, Ruriko
1994The structure of noun phrases and the interpretation of quantificational NPs in Japanese. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2005 Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(1). 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, Heejeong
2005Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge in [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4). 867–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama
2002Indeterminate phrases: the view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
2003The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1965Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas
1989A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar
1998Old Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 75–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John
1960Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I. Communications of the ACM 3(4). 184–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno
2014aDeriving and interpreting ‘ka(karimusubi)’ in premodern Japanese. Acta Lingustica Asiatica 4(3). 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014bMorphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1987LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 362–367.Google Scholar
1998On islands. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard
1970aEnglish as a formal language. In Bruno Visentini et al. (ed.), Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.Google Scholar
1970bUniversal grammar. Theoria 361. 373–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, James, John Simpson & Edmund Weiner et al.
(eds.) 1884–2017The Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narayanapilla, P. K.
(ed.) 1971Prācīna-Malayāḷa-gadya-mātrkakaḷ Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala University.Google Scholar
Nyman, Elizabeth & Jeff Leer
1993Gágiwdul.àt: Brought forth to reconfirm. The legacy of a Taku River Tlingit clan. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Kunihiko
1976Japanese interrogatives: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
1977Where diachronic and synchronic rules meet: A case study from Japanese interrogatives and kakari-musubi. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 51.193–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C.
1992Functional articulation in diglossia: A case study of grammatical and social correspondences in Sinhala. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Paranavitana, Senarat
1956Sigiri graffiti, Sinhalese verses of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H.
1986Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. [Reprinted in Portner and Partee (2002), pp.357–381].Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pillai, P. V.
1973Early Malayalam prose: A study. Trivandrum, Kerala: University of Kerala.Google Scholar
Priyanka, Benille
2010Recently deciphered records from the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya (7th to 13th centuries). Colombo: Godage International Publishers.Google Scholar
Raman Pilla, C. V.
1918Rāmarājabahadur. [Reprinted by Little Prince Publishers, Kottayam, Kerala 1983].Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1994Wh-in-situ: in the framework of the Minimalist Program. University of Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar
1997Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 335–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1). 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris
2015/2017The semantics of declaratives and interrogative lists. Ms., University of Amsterdam. [URL]
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rullman, Hotze & Sigrid Beck
1998Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. In Graham Katz, Shin-Sook Kim & Heike Winhart (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 1271, 233–256. Tübingen and Stuttgart: Universities of Tübingen and Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Sansom, George
1928An historical grammar of Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Serafim, Leon A. & Rumiko Shinzato
2000Reconstructing the Proto-Japonic kakari musubi, … ka …-(a)m-wo. Gengo Kenkyu 1181. 81–118.Google Scholar
Slade, Benjamin
2011Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
2013Question particles and relative clauses in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to early and modern Dravidian. In Shu-Fen Chen & Benjamin Slade (eds.), Grammatica et verba/Glamor and verve: Studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, 245–268. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
2015Sinhala epistemic indefinites with a certain je ne sais quoi . In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, 82–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
under review. The role of Q-particles in the formation of relative clauses in Sinhala and other languages. In Moreno Mitrović ed. Logical vocabulary & logical change John Benjamins
Speijer, J. S.
1886Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E.J. Brill. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1973].Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim
1996Some remarks on choice functions and LF-movement. In Klaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Proceedings of the Konstanz workshop “reference and anaphorical relations”, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Steele, Guy L.
1990Common Lisp: The language. Newton, MA: Digital Press. [2nd rev. edn.].Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang
2001Partial movement constructions, pied piping, and higher order choice functions. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae: a festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 473–486. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
2010Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34.Google Scholar
2015What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 381.159–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, James Doh Whang & Vera Zu
2012Compositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts. Ms., New York University. [URL]
Turner, Ralph Lilley
1962–1966A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1999].Google Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru
2014Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. In Proceedings of SALT 241.Google Scholar
2018A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites, questions and disjunctions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Akira
2002Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 179–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, John
1997Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 61, 161–178. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wickremasinghe, Don Martino De Zilva, Humphry William Codrington & Senarat Paranavitana
(eds.) 1912–1933Epigraphia Zeylanica: being lithic and other inscriptions of Ceylon. London: H. Frowde for the Govt. of Ceylon.Google Scholar
Wijemanne, Piyaseeli
1984Amävatura, a syntactic study. Colombo: Ministry of Higher Education.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad
1995Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meaning. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 51.Google Scholar
1997Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 399–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998Flexible Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko
2006Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(1). 37–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko
2001The distribution of mo and ka and its implications. In Maria Christina Cuervo, Daniel Harbour, Ken Hiraiwa & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 3, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
2009The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17(2). 141–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Keiko & Tomoyuki Yoshida
1996Question marker drop in Japanese. ICU Language Research Bulletin 111. 37–54.Google Scholar
Zermelo, Ernst
1904Beweis, daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann. Mathematische Annalen 591. 514–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar