Article published in:
Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells
[Typological Studies in Language 116] 2017
► pp. 251292
References

References

Cagri, Ilhan
2005Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1998Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Erteschik, Nomi
1973On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Kim, Jong-Bok
2004Are there double relative clauses in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 315–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Knecht, Laura
1976The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participles in Turkish. Proceedings of NELS 6: 123–135.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1982Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1977Against the universal relevance of the shadow pronoun hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 412–418.Google Scholar
1984Case Marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
1985Infinitival relative clauses and complementation in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, General Session, William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds), 221–235. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
1987Beyond binding conditions: The case of Turkish. In Studies on Modern Turkish, Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo T. Verhoeven (eds), 105–120. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
1991Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In Turkish Linguistics Today, Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo T. Verhoeven (eds), 60–92. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
1996 Turkish and configurationality. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Vol. 1, Bengisu Rona (ed.), 111–125. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar
1997Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000aLocal and long distance reflexives in Turkish. In Long Distance Reflexives, Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & C.-T. James Huang (eds), 197–226. San Diego CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000bSome syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 121–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin, Kuno, Susumu & Sezer, Engin
1980A note on crisscrossing double dislocation. In Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Susumu Kuno (ed.), 185–242. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1963The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington IN & The Hague: Indiana University & Mouton. (Version referred to here: 1968, 5th printing).Google Scholar
1965Turkish nominalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1(2): 112–121.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
1997 Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meral, Hasan Mesut
2006Resumptive pronouns in Turkish. In Advances in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of ICTL 12, Semiramis Yağcıoğlu, S. & Ayşen Cem-Değer (eds), 223–233. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin
1986The unmarked sentential subject constraint in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics [Typological Studies in Language 8], Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds), 123–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, Robert
1972Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry 3(1): 87–99.Google Scholar
Whitman, John
2013The prehead relative clause problem. In Proceedings of WAFL 8, Umut Özge (ed.), 361–380. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar