Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario
Edited by Silvia Perpiñán, David Heap, Itziri Moreno-Villamar and Adriana Soto-Corominas
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11] 2017
► pp. 931
References

References

Baunaz, Lena
2015On the various sizes of complementizersProbus 27 (2): 193–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Deconstructing complementizers in Serbo-Croatian, Modern Greek and Bulgarian. Proceedings of NELS 46 (1): 69–77.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, and Genoveva Puskás
2014 “The Selection of French Mood.” In Selected Papers from the 41th LSRL, Ottawa, May 2011, ed. Eric Mathieu et Marie-Hélène Côté, 233–253. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, and Eric Lander
. Under review. Nanosyntax: the basics. Ms. Universiteit Gent.
Becker, Martin G.
2010 “Principles of mood change in evaluative contexts: the case of French.” In Modality and mood in Romance, ed. by Martin G. Becker and Eva-Maria Remberger, 209–234. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009The nanosyntax of case. PhD, University of TromsøGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Costantini, Francesco
2009Interface Perspectives on Clausal Complementation. The Case of Subjunctive Obviation. Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991 “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”, Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egré, Paul
2008Question-Embedding and Factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1): 85–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
2002The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1998Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, special issue on Mood, 883–1908.Google Scholar
Kelepouris, Stavros
2012The syntax and semantics of subject-oriented adverbs. A proposal for a new classification. Ms. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky
1971 “Fact.” In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 345–369. CUP.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2013Modality and the semantics of embedding, slides from presentation at the Amsterdam Colloquium, December 2013.Google Scholar
Léger, Catherine
2006La complémentation de type phrastique des adjectifs en français. PhD, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir
2009Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Puskás, Genoveva
2013Subjunctives – a Family Business. Talk given at the Séminaire de Recherche, University of Geneva, 16.09.2013.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep
2009Twists of mood: The distribution and interpretation of indicative and subjunctive. Lingua 119 (12): 1779–1787. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008aVerb Meaning and the Lexicon. CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bLexical Items in Complex Predications: Selection as Underassociation. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor H.
1973Natural categories, in Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas
1984 Je veux partir / *Je veux que je parte: on the Distribution of Finite Complements and Infinitival Complements in French. In Cahiers de Grammaire 7: 75–138.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
2005The Lazy Frenchman’s Approach to the Subjunctive. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, ed. by Twan Geerts, Ivo Van Ginneken, and Haike Jacobs, 269–309. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Socanac, Tomislav
2011Subjunctive in Serbian/Croatian. GG at G 7: 49–70.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal
2009 “Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language.” In Nordlyd 36.1, special issue on Nanosyntax, ed. by Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke, and Knut Tarald Taraldsen, 1–6. CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
2011Towards an elegant solution to language variation: Variation reduces to the seize of lexically stored trees. Ms. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Tóth, Enikő
2008Mood Choice in Complement Clauses. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Villalta, Elisabeth
2006Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. PhD dissertation, Universität TübingenGoogle Scholar