Chapter published in:
Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 352377
References

References

Andrews, A. D.
(1990) Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In J. Maling & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Thornton, R.
(1994) Distributivity and binding in child grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 165–171.Google Scholar
Baauw, S., Escobar, L., & Philip, W.
(1997) A delay of Principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 97 conference on language acquisition (pp. 16–21). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
(1988) Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunetto, V.
(2012) The pronoun interpretation problem in Italian complex predicates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Clifton Jr., C. & Frazier, L.
(2013) Partition if you must: Evidence for a no extra times principle. Discourse Processes, 50, 616–630.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C.
(2009) Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D., & Woodams, E.
(1996) Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition, 5, 83–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R.
(2001) Reanalysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 371–412.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1990) Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
(1981) Reciprocal interpretation. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 97–117.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1975) On belief-contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 53–93.Google Scholar
(1992) Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 10, 1–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1989Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In P. Beninc (Ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar (pp. 85–103). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J., & Roeper, T.
(1992) Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 89–125.Google Scholar
Labelle, M.
(2008) The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26, 833–876.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J.
(2001) Condition R. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 123–140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Link, G.
(1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language (pp. 127–146). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marelj, M., & Reuland, Eric
(2013) Clitic SE in Romance and Slavonic revisited. In I. Kor Chahine (Ed.), Current studies in Slavic linguistics (pp. 75–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M.
(1999) Reflexive clitics and the specifiers of vP. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 137–160.Google Scholar
Pica, P., & Snyder, W.
(1997) On the syntax and semantics of local anaphors in French and English. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity (pp. 235–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
(2008) Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E.
(1993) Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, E.
(1997) Logophoricity as orientation (Unpublished manuscript). Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. J.
(2011) Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., & Winter, Y.
(2009) Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors. In S. L. Devi & A. B. R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications (pp. 69–79). Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C.
(1996) Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics, 1996. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roeper, T.
(2014) Strict interface principles and the acquisition engine: From unlabeled to labeled and minimal modular contact. Language Sciences, 46, 115–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J., & Vanden Wyngaerd, G.
(1998) The self as other: A minimalist approach to zich and zichzelf in Dutch. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 28, 359–373.Google Scholar
Safir, K. J.
(2004) The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.
(1996) Pluralities: Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zesiger, P., Zesiger, L. C., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Franck, J., Frauenfelder, U. H., Hamann, C., & Rizzi, L.
(2010) The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 571–603.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, S., Avrutin, S., & Vasić, N.
(2002) The syntax-discourse interface and the interpretation of pronominals by Dutch-speaking children. In S. Fish & A. H-J. Do (Eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 781–792). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S., & Vlasveld, I.
(2004) Reference to a ‘guise’ in child language. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), BUCLD 28: Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 681–688). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar