%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/


%% Created for Kyle Johnson at 2011-06-01 08:47:57 -0400 


%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8) 



@article{Sato:2011,
	Author = {Sato, Yosuke},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:45:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:47:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {356--365},
	Title = {Radical {P}ro {D}rop and Fusional Pronominal Morphology in Colloquial {S}ingapore {E}nglish: Reply to {N}eeleman and {S}zendr{\"o}i},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Potsdam:2011,
	Author = {Potsdam, Eric and Polinsky, Maria},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:42:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:43:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {345--355},
	Title = {Against Covert {A}-Movement in {R}ussian Unaccusatives},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}

@article{Nevins:2011,
	Author = {Nevins, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:41:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:45:42 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {339--344},
	Title = {Convergent Evidence for Rolling Up {C}atalan Adjectives},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Syrett:2042,
	Abstract = {We revisit the purported locality constraint on Quantifier Raising (QR) by investigating children's and adults' interpretation of antecedent- contained-deletion (ACD) sentences, where the interpretation depends on the landing site targeted by QR out of an embedded clause. When ACD is embedded in a nonfinite clause, 4-year-old children and adults access both the embedded and the matrix interpretations. When ACD is embedded in a finite clause, and the matrix interpretation is generally believed to be ungrammatical, children and even some adults access both readings. These findings allow for the possibility that the source of QR's reputed locality constraint may instead be extragrammatical, and they provide insight into the development of the human sentence parser.},
	Author = {Syrett, Kristen and Lidz, Jeffrey},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:39:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:41:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {305--337},
	Title = {Competence, Performance, and the Locality of Quantifier Raising: Evidence from 4-year-old Children},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {42}}}

@article{Sigurdhsson:2011,
	Abstract = {This article pursues the idea that null arguments are derived without any statement or parameter, instead following ``naturally'' from 3rd factor principles and effects (in the sense of Chomsky 2005). The article thus contributes to the program of eliminating statements in grammar in favor of general factors. More specifically, it develops a theory of C/edge linking in terms of syntactically active but silent C-features, where all referential definite arguments, overt and silent, must match these features in order to be successfully C/edge-linked (interpreted). On the approach pursued, radically silent argu- ments---such as Germanic zero topics and controlled 3rd person null subjects in Finnish---commonly raise across a lexical C (a comple- mentizer or a verb-second (V2) verb) into the edge of the C-domain for the purpose of successful C/edge linking (circumventing C-inter- vention), thereby showing A ̄ -behavior not observed for other types of arguments (including the Romance type of pro). Silent arguments are universally available in syntax, whereas their C/edge linking is con- strained by factors (such as Germanic V2) that may or may not be present or active in individual languages and constructions.},
	Author = {Sigur{\dh}sson, Halld{\'o}r {\'A}rmann},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:38:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:39:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {267--304},
	Title = {Conditions on Argument Drop},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Delfitto:2011,
	Abstract = {This article aims at clarifying the role of person at the interface between syntax and the interpretive systems. We argue that first person interpre- tations of third person pronouns (de se readings) stem from the option of leaving the referential index underspecified on the pronoun, thus accounting for the interplay of this phenomenon with the anaphoric usage of first person indexicals (pronoun shifting) and logophoric pro- nouns. The results include proposals on the connection between the semantics of first person and the syntax of the left periphery, a neo- Davidsonian treatment of the semantics of first person indexicals, and a novel view of pronominal anaphora according to which Higgin- botham's (1983) asymmetric relation of linking involves a mechanism of ﰀ-role inheritance tied to the semantics of first person.},
	Author = {Delfitto, Denis and Fiorin, Gaetano},
	Date-Added = {2011-06-01 08:35:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-06-01 08:37:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {193--224},
	Title = {Person Features and Pronominal Anaphora},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@incollection{Bachrach:2009,
	Author = {Bachrach, Asaf and Katzir, Roni},
	Booktitle = {InterPhases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces},
	Date-Added = {2011-04-06 12:07:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-04-06 12:08:36 -0400},
	Editor = {Grohmann, Kleanthes K.},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {Right-Node Raising and Delayed Spellout},
	Year = {2009}}

@incollection{Vries:2011,
	Author = {de Vries, Mark},
	Booktitle = {Ways of Structure Building},
	Date-Added = {2011-04-05 08:07:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-04-05 08:08:30 -0400},
	Editor = {Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam and Valmala, Vidal},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {Unconventional Mergers},
	Year = {to appear}}

@inproceedings{Kluck:2008,
	Author = {Kluck, Marlies},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of Console {XVI}},
	Date-Added = {2011-04-05 07:58:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-04-05 07:59:58 -0400},
	Pages = {77--101},
	Title = {Intertwined clauses, interacting propositions. A note on the interpretive aspects of sentence amalgamation.},
	Year = {2008}}

@article{Ott:2011,
	Author = {Ott, Dennis},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:31:42 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:32:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {183--192},
	Title = {A Note on Free Relative Clauses in the Theory of Phases},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{McCarthy:2011,
	Author = {McCarthy, John J.},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:23:24 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:24:45 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {171--183},
	Title = {Perceptually Grounded Faithfulness in {H}armonic {S}erialism},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Larson:2011,
	Author = {Larson, Bradley},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:19:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:23:21 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {163--171},
	Title = {Problems with a Movement Analysis of {R}ight {N}ode {R}aising in {T}agalog},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Kahnemuyipour:2011,
	Author = {Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan and Megerdoomian, Karine},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:18:49 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:21:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {152--162},
	Title = {Second-Position Clitics in the vP Phase: The Case of the {A}rmenian Auxiliary},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Heestand:2011,
	Author = {Heestand, Dustin and Xiang, Ming and Polinsky, Maria},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:17:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:19:35 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {138--152},
	Title = {Resumption Still Does Not Rescue Islands},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Cable:2011,
	Author = {Cable, Seth},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:16:01 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:17:20 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {131--138},
	Title = {A New Argument for Lexical Decomposition: Transparent Readings of Verbs},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Gebhardt:2011,
	Abstract = {Wu and Bodomo (2009) dispute Cheng and Sybesma's (1999, 2005) analysis of Chinese numeral classifiers as being able to function as definite articles. While I agree with Wu and Bodomo's overall conclu- sion, here I focus on parts of their argument that do not stand up to scrutiny and distract from their main point. In particular, I argue that Wu and Bodomo's conclusion that numeral classifiers are lexical items is incorrect. Also, I question their apparent conclusion that the availability of numeral classifiers in a language indicates that that lan- guage's nouns are inherently mass.},
	Author = {Gebhardt, Lewis},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:14:32 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:15:44 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {125--130},
	Title = {Classifiers are Functional},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Sportiche:2011,
	Abstract = {Starting from Kayne's (1976) motivation for the existence of the French que/qui rule based on the complementizer system of French relative clauses, I show that French in fact has a double paradigm of wh-elements, a weak one and a strong one, much like what is found in the (strong/weak) pronominal system. Although only French is discussed here in any detail, such a split seems to have much wider relevance, in other Romance languages, in some Germanic and Scandinavian languages, and beyond (Wolof). This split in turn shows that the que/qui rule (and its cognates) should be looked at differently---in particular, that they should be uncoupled from constraints on subject extraction.},
	Author = {Sportiche, Dominique},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:12:54 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:14:01 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {83--124},
	Title = {French Relative \emph{Qui}},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Katzir:2011,
	Abstract = {Agreement and concord involve mismatches between the position where a syntactic or semantic contribution is made and where it is expressed morphologically. Such mismatches are often taken to involve either movement or the spreading and realization of features. I examine a number of superficially different instances of this kind of mismatch that seem to resist an account based on realization and movement alone. I argue that the patterns involved should receive a unified account in terms of licensors, elements subject to a condition of structural economy that associate indirectly with semantically contentful heads through features that those heads spread and that require a c-commanding licensor.},
	Author = {Katzir, Roni},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:10:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:12:11 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {45--82},
	Title = {Morphosemantic Mismatches, Structural Economy, and Licensing},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Boskovic:2011,
	Abstract = {The article demonstrates that the rescue-by-PF-deletion account of the amelioration effect of island violations under ellipsis, originally noted by Ross (1969), can be extended to account for the that-trace effect, including the adverb amelioration effect, and the lack of intervention effects with certain null arguments that are otherwise found with their overt counterparts, as well as to deduce the generalizations that traces do not count as interveners for relativized minimality effects and that traces void islandhood. The fact that the rescue-by-PF-deletion analysis makes it possible to unify a number of previously unrelated phe- nomena should be taken as a strong argument in its favor. The current extension of the rescue-by-PF-deletion approach, on which the rescue can arise not only through the deletion process involved in ellipsis but also through regular copy deletion, also accounts for the different behavior of the Superiority Condition and the Wh-Island Condition with respect to the amelioration effect under ellipsis, a surprising difference given that both of these are generally subsumed under relativized minimality effects in current research.},
	Author = {Bo{\v{s}}kovi{\'c}, {\v{Z}}eljko},
	Date-Added = {2011-03-05 13:07:48 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:09:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--44},
	Title = {Rescue by {PF} Deletion, {T}races as (Non)interveners, and the \emph{That}-{T}race Effect},
	Volume = {42},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Gabriele:2011,
	Abstract = {The study investigates whether advanced second language (L2) learners can extend beyond the grammatical properties of the first language (L1) to successfully acquire tense and aspect. We examine the acquisition of the semantics of the imperfective marker te-iru in Japanese by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese, a language that grammatically encodes aspect but not tense. The results of an interpretation task suggest that Chinese learners cannot extend beyond the properties of the L1. However, these results are interpreted in light of a series of related studies that show that Chinese learners can acquire tense and aspect in L2 English and that English native speakers also have difficulty with the imperfective in L2 Japanese. We argue that difficulty with the interpretation of imperfectives in L2 acquisition is not related solely to the properties of the L1, but rather to two properties of the target language: the specific morphological encoding of tense and aspect and the complexity of the semantic computation.},
	Author = {Gabriele, Alison and McClure, William},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 10:09:35 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 10:10:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {39--83},
	Title = {Why Some Imperfectives Are Interpreted Imperfectly: A Study of {C}hinese Learners of {J}apanese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Friedmann:2011,
	Abstract = {In Hebrew, European Portuguese, Palestinian Arabic, and Spanish, both SV and VS orders are possible. However, when children acquire these languages, they do not use the whole array of word orders in their language at the first stage of sentence construction. Interestingly, their word order preference in the early stage of acquisition differs in the different languages: in Hebrew and European Portuguese they use both SV and VS orders with unaccusative verbs, but only SV with unergative and transitive verbs. In Spanish and Palestinian Arabic, children prefer to use VS order with unaccusative, unergative, and transitive verbs in the first stage. We present 11 experiments and 5 spontaneous speech analyses in the four languages, eliciting these word order patterns in 257 different children, and analyzing the patterns in spontaneous speech in 80 more children. Based on these results we propose an account for these cross-linguistic differences and similarities, according to which children at this stage can already move the verb to I, but cannot move the subject outside of the VP yet. As a result, at this stage the subjects stay within the VP. Whether or not the verb moves to I depends on whether the linear order of SV within the VP can be violated---languages in which children assume IP as the Spell-out domain, Spanish and Palestinian Arabic, allow the verb to appear before the subject, whereas Hebrew and European Portuguese, in which the Spell-out domain is initially taken to be VP, do not allow the verb to move to I until the Spell-out domain widens.},
	Author = {Friedmann, Naama and Costa, Jo{\~a}o},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 10:06:36 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 10:08:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--38},
	Title = {Acquisition of {SV} and {VS} {O}rder in {H}ebrew, {E}uropean {P}ortuguese, {P}alestinian {A}rabic, and {S}panish},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2011}}}

@article{Soehn:2010,
	Abstract = {Asthenatureofnegativepolarityitems(NPIs)andtheirlicensingcontexts is still under much debate, a broad empirical basis is an important cornerstone to support further insights in this area of research. The work discussed in this paper is intended as a contribution to realizing this objective. We briefly introduce the phe- nomenon of NPIs and outline major theories about their licensing and also various licensing contexts before discussing our major topics: Firstly, a corpus-based retrieval method for NPI candidates is described that ranks the candidates according to their distributional dependence on the licensing contexts. Our method extracts single-word candidates and is extended to also capture multi-word candidates. The basic idea for automatically collecting NPI candidates from a large corpus is that an NPI behaves like a kind of collocate to its licensing contexts. Manual inspection and interpretation of the candidate lists identify the actual NPIs. Secondly, an online repository for NPIs and other items that show distributional idiosyncrasies is presented, which offers an empirical database for further (theoretical) research on these items in a sustainable way.},
	Author = {Soehn, Jan-Philipp and Trawi\'{n}ski, Beata and Lichte, Timm},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 10:03:16 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 10:04:44 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {931--952},
	Title = {Spotting, collecting and documenting negative polarity items},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Krifka:2010,
	Abstract = {The following contribution was inspired by Cleo Condoravdi's article on NPI licensing in temporal clauses (Condoravdi 2010). Condoravdi gives a coherent and comprehensive account of before which crucially involves coercion of proposi- tions to the earliest or maximal times at which the propositions are true, and a modal component for non-factual interpretations. I argue for a non-modal, non-coercive analysis of clauses like [A before B] as `A is the case when B has not been the case', triggering a conversational implicature that B will be the case later. I will also discuss temporal operators involving measure phrases, like three hours before.},
	Author = {Krifka, Manfred},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 10:01:50 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 10:02:48 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {911--929},
	Title = {\emph{Before} and \emph{After} without coercion: comment on the paper by {C}leo {C}ondoravdi},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Condoravdi:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper offers a systematic semantically-based approach to NPI licens- ing in temporal clauses based on Beaver and Condoravdi (2003, in progress). It mo- tivates the presuppositional nature of temporal clauses and shows how temporal or- dering induces an ordering of semantic strength in each case. The proposed analysis is uniform across veridical and non-veridical readings of before and brings under the semantic fold seemingly exceptional or pragmatically-based cases of NPI licens- ing observed with after, since and until. Crucial throughout is the more restricted, presupposition-dependent notion of entailment, Strawson entailment, proposed by von Fintel (1999). The paper also relates Strawson entailment to the alternative-based analysis of NPIs by Krifka (1995), proposing a particular kind of contextual update, Strawson update, for calculating informational strength.},
	Author = {Condoravdi, Cleo},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 10:00:20 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 10:01:05 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {877--910},
	Title = {{NPI} licensing in temporal clauses},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Giannakidou:2010,
	Abstract = {In this brief commentary, I consider Hoeksema's data on enig and sug- gest that there is actually no shift from non-veridicality to downward entailment, but rather from weak to strong negative polarity. This shift in distribution comes with a change in intonation, observed often with strong NPIs crosslinguistically (Greek, Korean, Japanese). The path of enig to strong NPI-hood can therefore be regarded as grammaticalizing intonational properties as well. In comparing the older versus more modern usages of Dutch enig, I suggest that the two major sources for NPI-hood known from the literature, scalarity and referential deficiency, may correlate with the weak versus strong NPI distinction. Finally, it is suggested that the distributional change comes with a concomitant meaning shift and the emergence of an additional scalar dimension in the Modern Dutch NPI enig (e.g. via an EVEN component).},
	Author = {Giannakidou, Anastasia},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 09:58:56 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 09:59:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {861--875},
	Title = {The dynamics of change in {D}utch \emph{enig}: from nonveridicality to strong negative polarity},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Hoeksema:2010,
	Abstract = {Incombinationswithsingularcountnouns,theDutchindefinitedeterminer enig `some/any' shows a diachronic distributional shift from nonveridical environ- ments in general to a strict subset thereof, namely negative, conditional and interrog- ative contexts. Similarities with Greek indefinites of the kanenas-series are explored, and an argument is given that at some point enig has split into two uses, one of which is currently on its way out. Nonemphatic, nonreferring enig is disappearing, whereas emphatic enig is stable within a set of environments similar to those of English any or ever.},
	Author = {Hoeksema, Jack},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 09:57:15 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 09:58:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {837--859},
	Title = {Dutch \emph{ENIG}: from nonveridicality to downward entailment},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Biberauer:2010,
	Abstract = {This response focuses on two synchronic and two diachronic issues raised by Agnes J{\"a}ger's contribution to this volume. On the synchronic front, we take a closer look at the limits of the featural underspecification approach adopted by J{\"a}ger, arguing for the need to draw a featural distinction between ``ordinary'' indefinites and positive polarity items, and also highlighting that the [affective] feature appears to play a rather central role not only in the domain of indefinites, but also beyond. In the diachronic domain, we briefly take issue with the feasibility of constraint reranking as an explanation for change, and then turn to a consideration of how a reinterpre- tation of Roberts and Roussou's (2003) analysis of ``increasing negativity'' may be captured in terms of an Agree-based system (cf. Biberauer and Roberts 2010b). Like J{\"a}ger's proposed system, this alternative does not predict that indefinite-related de- velopments should always be unidirectional, as has sometimes been supposed (cf. i.a. also Hoeksema 2010).},
	Author = {Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 09:55:11 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 09:56:41 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {823--836},
	Title = {Comments on J{\"a}ger ``\emph{Anything} is \emph{nothing} is \emph{something}'': on the diachrony of polarity types of indefinites},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Jager:2010,
	Abstract = {Three main types of syntactic contexts and accordingly three types of in- definites may be distinguished with respect to negation and polarity. This paper in- vestigates diachronic changes of indefinites from one polarity type to another. A dis- cussion of the development of the indefinites in German illustrates the effect these changes may have on the entire indefinite system of a language and crucially pro- vides evidence for changes towards both `more negative' as well as `more positive'. Additional data from a wide range of languages further supports the conclusion that polarity-type changes are not unidirectional. The observed changes are analyzed in terms of lexical underspecification theory as the result of one of only two possible diachronic operations: introduction of a plus-valued feature or complete loss of a feature in the lexical entries of the respective indefinites.},
	Author = {J{\"a}ger, Agnes},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 09:53:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 09:54:35 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {787--822},
	Title = {\emph{Anything} is \emph{nothing} is \emph{something}},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Penka:2010,
	Abstract = {This introduction addresses some key issues and questions in the study of negation and polarity. Focussing on negative polarity and negative indefinites, it summarizes research trends and results. Special attention is paid to the issues of syn- chronic variation and diachronic change in the realm of negative polarity items, which figure prominently in the articles and commentaries contained in this special issue.},
	Author = {Penka, Doris and Zeijlstra, Hedde},
	Date-Added = {2011-02-22 09:51:32 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-02-22 09:52:30 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {771--786},
	Title = {Negation and Polarity: an introduction},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@incollection{Grice:1989,
	Author = {Grice, Paul},
	Booktitle = {Studies in the Way of Words},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 18:13:51 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 18:15:17 -0500},
	Pages = {22--40},
	Publisher = {Harvard University Press},
	Title = {Logic and Conversation},
	Year = {1989}}

@incollection{Bolinger:1979,
	Address = {New York},
	Author = {Bolinger, Dwight},
	Booktitle = {Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 17:01:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 17:06:01 -0500},
	Editor = {Giv{\'o}n, Talmy},
	Pages = {289--309},
	Publisher = {Academic Press},
	Title = {Pronouns in Discourse},
	Year = {1979}}

@incollection{Heim:1991b,
	Address = {Berlin},
	Author = {Heim, Irene},
	Booktitle = {Semantik: Ein internationales {H}andbuch der zeitgenossischen {F}orschung},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 16:43:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 16:45:11 -0500},
	Pages = {487--535},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Title = {Artikel und Definitheit},
	Year = {1991}}

@inproceedings{Kanzanina:2001,
	Address = {Somerville, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Kanzanina, Nina and Phillips, Colin},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 16:01:23 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 16:03:23 -0500},
	Editor = {Do, Anna H.-J. and Dom{\'\i}nguez and Johansen, Aimee},
	Pages = {413--424},
	Publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	Title = {Coreference in child {R}ussian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints},
	Year = {2001}}

@article{Lust:1980,
	Author = {Lust, Barbara and Loveland, Katherine A. and Kornet, R.},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:59:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 16:01:00 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Analysis},
	Pages = {359--391},
	Title = {The Development of Anaphora in First Language: Syntactic and Pragmatic Constraints},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1980}}

@inproceedings{Crain:1986,
	Address = {Amherst, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Crain, Stephen and McKee, Cecil},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of {N}orth {E}ast {L}inguistics {S}ociety 16},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:53:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:58:54 -0500},
	Editor = {Berman, Stephen and Choe, Jae--Woong and McDonough, Joyce},
	Organization = {Graduate Linguistic Student Association},
	Pages = {94--110},
	Title = {The Acquisition of Structural Restrictions on Anaphora},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Lust:1992,
	Author = {Lust, Barbara and Eisele, Julie and Mazuka, Reiko},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:51:55 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:53:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Language},
	Pages = {333--358},
	Title = {The Binding Theory Module: Evidence from First Language Acquisition for Principle {C}},
	Volume = {68},
	Year = {1992}}

@article{McDaniel:1990,
	Author = {McDaniel, Dana and Cairns, Helen Smith and Hsu, Jennifer},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:50:16 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:51:47 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Pages = {121--139},
	Title = {Binding Principles in the Grammars of young Children},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1990}}

@article{Runner:2003a,
	Author = {Runner, Jeffre and Sussman, Rachel S. and Tanenhaus, Michael K.},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:48:45 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:50:10 -0500},
	Journal = {Cognition},
	Pages = {B1--B13},
	Title = {Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye-movements},
	Volume = {89},
	Year = {2003}}

@book{Solan:1983,
	Author = {Solan, Lawrence},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:47:42 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:48:41 -0500},
	Publisher = {Dordrecht: Reidel},
	Title = {Pronominal Reference: Child Language and the theory of grammar},
	Year = {1983}}

@article{Guasti:1999,
	Author = {Guasti, Maria Teresa and Chierchia, Gennaro},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-22 15:46:48 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 15:47:38 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Pages = {129--170},
	Title = {Reconstruction in Child Grammar},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1999/2000}}

@article{Schlenker:2004a,
	Author = {Schlenker, Philippe},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-16 21:40:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-16 21:45:33 -0500},
	Journal = {Italian Journal of Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {155--218},
	Title = {Person and {B}inding: A Partial Survey},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2004}}

@inproceedings{Stechow:2003,
	Address = {Amherst, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Stechow, Arnim von},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-16 21:37:06 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-16 21:39:32 -0500},
	Editor = {Kadowaki, Makoto and Kawahara, Shigeto},
	Organization = {Graduate Linguistic Student Association},
	Pages = {377--403},
	Publisher = {University of Massachusetts at Amherst},
	Title = {Feature deletion under semantic binding},
	Volume = {33},
	Year = {2003}}

@inproceedings{Partee:1989a,
	Address = {Chicago Illinois},
	Author = {Partee, Barbara},
	Booktitle = {Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Part One},
	Date-Added = {2011-01-16 21:21:32 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-16 21:24:08 -0500},
	Editor = {Wiltshire, Caroline R. and Graczyk, Randolph and Music, Bradley},
	Organization = {Chicago Linguistics Society},
	Pages = {342--365},
	Publisher = {University of Chicago},
	Title = {Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts.},
	Year = {1989}}

@article{Hiraiwa:2010,
	Abstract = {This article aims to elucidate the true nature of the so-called Double-o Constraint (DoC) in Japanese. The nature of the DoC has long been discussed in the literature since Harada's work back in the 1970's, but it has eluded a principled explanation. The DoC has been known to apply to certain domains and a careful study presented in this article shows that these domains correspond to phases. Thus, the DoC reduces to a PF constraint against realizing multiple occurrences of the accusative Case value within a single Spell-Out domain. Specifically, I argue that the DoC applies cyclically phase-by-phase and thus that the DoC provides solid evidence for the cyclic phase-based computation in the current minimalist theorizing (Chomsky 2001, 2004, 2008). If correct, Case in Japanese has two facets: a Case is valued in narrow syntax but its value is only realized at Spell-Out, at which point PF interface conditions apply. It is further suggested that the DoC reduces to a syntactic OCP (Obligatory Contour Principle). The DoC, therefore, is considered to be a case in which an apparently language-particular and hence peripheral phenomenon provides empirical support for the architecture of the Universal Grammar.},
	Author = {Hiraiwa, Ken},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:28:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:29:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {723--770},
	Title = {Spelling out the {D}ouble-\emph{o} {C}onstraint},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Heck:2010,
	Abstract = {Southern Tiwa (Tanoan) exhibits agreement with up to three arguments (ergative, absolutive, dative). This agreement is subject to certain restrictions resembling the Person-Case Constraint paradigm (Bonet 1991). Moreover, there is a cor- relation between agreement restrictions and conditions on (the obviation of) noun- incorporation in Southern Tiwa, as explicitly and elegantly captured by Rosen (1990) in terms of a heterogeneous feature hierarchy and rules of association. We attempt to recast Rosen's central insights in terms of Anagnostopoulou's probe-sharing model of Person-Case Constraint effects (Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2006), to show that the full range of Southern Tiwa agreement and (non-)incorporation restrictions can be given a single, unified analysis within the probe-goal-Agree framework of Chomsky (2001). In particular, we argue that Southern Tiwa's triple-agreement system is characterized by (a) an independent class probe located on the heads T and v, and (b) a rule that allows this class probe to be deleted in the context of local-person T- agreement. The various restrictions on agreement and non-incorporation then reduce to a single source: failure of class-valuation with DP (as opposed to NP) arguments.},
	Author = {Heck, Fabian and Richards, Marc},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:26:48 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:27:46 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {681--721},
	Title = {A probe-goal approach to agreement and non-incorporation restrictions in {S}outhern {T}iwa},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Pajak:2010,
	Abstract = {Bakovic ́ (2005) analyzes the avoidance of `sufficiently similar' adjacent consonants as the interaction of independent antigemination and assimilation processes. We present evidence from the phonology of monoconsonantal proclitics in Polish in support of the primary consequence of this analysis, that any conditions on antigemination or assimilation will also be conditions on `sufficient similarity' avoidance. These conditions concern the segmental contexts in which geminates are disallowed in Polish and the variability of one of the assimilation processes involved. The analysis is further corroborated by the coincidence of two changes in progress: as the rate of variable assimilation has gone down, so has the rate of `sufficient similarity' avoidance.},
	Author = {Pajak, Bozena and Bakovi{\'c}, Eric},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:23:58 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:31:04 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {643--680},
	Title = {Assimilation, antigemination, and contingent optionality: The phonology of monoconsonantal proclitics in {P}olish},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Baker:2010,
	Abstract = {Two distinct ideas about how morphological case is assigned exist in the recent generative literature: the standard Chomskyan view that case is assigned by designated functional heads to the closest NP via an agreement relationship, and an alternative view in which case is assigned to one NP if there is a second NP in the same local domain (Marantz 1991). We claim that these two ways of assigning case are complementary, based on data from the Turkic language Sakha. Accusative case and dative case in this language are assigned by Marantz-style configurational rules that do not refer directly to functional categories. This is shown by evidence from passives, agentive nominalizations, subject raising, possessor raising, and case assignment in PPs. In contrast, there is evidence that nominative and genitive are as- signed by functional heads in the Chomskyan way, as shown by the distribution of nominative case and the relationship between case marking and agreement. The two methods of case assignment thus coexist, not only in Universal Grammar, but even in the grammar of a single language.},
	Author = {Baker, Mark C. and Vinokurova, Nadya},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:21:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:22:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {593--642},
	Title = {Two modalities of case assignment: case in {S}akha},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Arregi:2010,
	Abstract = {Split questions such as What tree did John plant, an oak? contain a wh-question part and a tag. Drawing on Spanish, Basque and English data, this article argues that these two parts of a split question are independent clauses. The tag is in fact an elliptical non-wh-question, where ellipsis is licensed in the same way as in other sentence fragments. I provide detailed argumentation that the tag involves movement of a correlate of the wh-phrase, followed by ellipsis of the remnant, thus contributing to the growing body of evidence that sentence fragments (sluicing, fragment answers, etc.) are syntactically full clauses. The syntax proposed provides a simple account of the intonation patterns found in split questions and of their semantics. Furthermore, it is argued that the only existing alternative analysis of split questions cannot account for many of the properties of this construction.},
	Author = {Arregi, Karlos},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:01:58 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:20:58 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {539--592},
	Title = {Ellipsis in split questions},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Albright:2010,
	Author = {Albright, Adam},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 14:00:27 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 14:01:55 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {475--537},
	Title = {Base-driven leveling in {Y}iddish verb paradigms},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Rivero:2010,
	Author = {Rivero, Mar{\'\i}a Luisa and Arregui, Ana and Frackowiak, Ewelina},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:53:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:54:46 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {704--714},
	Title = {Variation in Circumstantial Modality: {P}olish versus {S}t'{\'a}t'imcets},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Larson:2010,
	Author = {Larson, Richard K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:49:52 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:50:36 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {701--704},
	Title = {On Pykk{\"a}nen's Semantics for Low Applicatives},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Drummond:2010,
	Author = {Drummond, Alex and Hornstein, Norbert and Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:48:24 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:49:17 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {689--692},
	Title = {A Puzzle about {P}-Stranding and a Possible Solution},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Clifton:2010,
	Author = {Clifton, Charles, Jr. and Frazier, Lyn},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:46:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:47:56 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {681--689},
	Title = {When Are Downward-Entailing Contexts Identified? The Csae of the Domain Widener \emph{ever}},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Koizumi:2010,
	Abstract = {The question of whether the subject stays in its thematic position within the VP or moves to Spec,TP is difficult to answer with respect to free word order languages such as Japanese because the surface constituent orders in these languages do not necessarily provide sufficient information to determine syntactic positions. In this article, we present psycho-linguistic evidence for the theoretical hypothesis that, in Japanese, the subject must move to Spec,TP in sentences with the subject-object- verb word order, but may stay within the VP in sentences with the object-subject-verb word order.},
	Author = {Koizumi, Masatoshi and Tamaoka, Katsuo},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:45:03 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:46:11 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {663--680},
	Title = {Psycholinguistic Evidence for the {VP}-Internal Subject Position in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Heinz:2010,
	Abstract = {This article shows that specific properties of long-distance phonotactic patterns derived from consonantal harmony patterns (Hansson 2001, Rose and Walker 2004) follow from a learner that generalizes only on the basis of the order of sounds, not the distance between them. The proposed learner is simple, efficient, and provably correct, and does not require an a priori notion of tier or projection (contra the model in Hayes and Wilson 2008); nor does it rely on the additional structure provided by Optimality Theory grammars (Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2004) or grammars in the principles-and-parameters framework (Chomsky 1981, Dresher and Kaye 1990, Gibson and Wexler 1994). Not only does the noncounting nature of nonlocal dependencies automatically follow from the way the learner generalizes, it also explains the absence of blocking patterns from the typology. Finally, the learner lends support to the idea that long-distance phonotactic patterns are phenomenologically distinct from spreading patterns, contra the hypothesis of Strict Locality (Gafos 1999, et seq.).},
	Author = {Heinz, Jeffrey},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:43:46 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:44:32 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {623--661},
	Title = {Learning Long-Distance Phonotactics},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Haegeman:2010a,
	Abstract = {By analogy with the movement analysis of temporal clauses, some authors have proposed that conditional clauses be derived by leftward operator movement (Bhatt and Pancheva 2002, 2006, Arsenijevic ́ 2009, Tomaszewicz 2009). This movement analysis of conditional clauses is shown to account for the incompatibility of main clause phenomena and conditional clauses in terms of intervention effects. The cartographic implementation of this analysis predicts that conditional clauses will be incompatible with speaker-oriented modal expressions and that conditional clauses will lack the low-construal reading found in temporal clauses (Bhatt and Pancheva 2002, 2006). Thus, the absence of low construal in conditional clauses, which was initially taken to be an obstacle for the movement account of conditional clauses (see Citko 2000), becomes an argument in its favor.},
	Author = {Haegeman, Liliane},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:35:08 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:43:17 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {595--621},
	Title = {The Movement Derivation of Conditional Clauses},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Bruening:2010a,
	Abstract = {This article discusses three asymmetries in ditransitives---quantifier scope, nominalizations, and idioms---and argues that an asymmetric theory like that advocated by Marantz (1993) and Bruening (2001) is correct. A symmetric theory like that proposed by Harley (1997, 2002) cannot account for the asymmetries. The article also proposes a com- plete theory of idiom formation based on selection. It also proposes a formal semantics for double object constructions that includes a mechanism for composing complex predicates. This semantics can account for the different readings of again and other modifiers, and can also be extended to nonalternating verbs like deny, spare, envy, and cost, with correct predictions about their behavior.},
	Author = {Bruening, Benjamin},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:32:49 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:33:39 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {519--562},
	Title = {Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Vicente:2010a,
	Author = {Vicente, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:12:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:13:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {509--517},
	Title = {A Note on the Movement Analysis of {G}apping},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Rezac:2010,
	Author = {Rezac, Milan},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:11:23 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:12:26 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {496--508},
	Title = {$\phi$-Agree Versus $\phi$-Feature Movement: Evidence from Floating Quantifiers},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Costantini:2010,
	Author = {Costantini, Fracesco},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:08:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:10:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {487--496},
	Title = {On Infinitives and Floating Quantification},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Hazout:2010,
	Abstract = {Present tense verbless sentences involve a full clausal structure and not a reduced structure of the kind familiar under the term small clause. This article presents two new arguments in favor of this view. These arguments are based on differences between root verbless sentences and familiar instances of small clauses (rather than on similarities between present tense verbless sentences and verbal sentences in other tenses, as in Benmamoun 2008). The arguments presented in this article provide substantial evidence bearing on the fundamental issue of what a clausal structure needs to have in order to qualify as an independent nonelliptical utterance.},
	Author = {Hazout, Ilan},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:07:29 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:08:24 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {471--485},
	Title = {Verbless Sentences and Clause Structure},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Torrego:2010,
	Abstract = {Taking Folli and Harley's (2007) analysis of Italian fare-causatives as a starting point, and focusing on Spanish, I examine variation in the distribution of the subject of the embedded infinitive in so-called faire-causatives, and I suggest that there is a robust correlation between the size of the embedded complement and the licensing of particular arguments. I reach this conclusion by investigating syntactic complexity in the domain of hacer-causatives, showing that richer structures obtain when Case factors associated with dative-case-marked arguments are considered. I further show that the specific conditions imposed by these arguments are language particular and arise in the language independently of analytical causatives.},
	Author = {Torrego, Esther},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:05:54 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:06:52 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {445--470},
	Title = {Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in {R}omance and Its Implications},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Pescarini:2010,
	Abstract = {This article focuses on sequences of Romance clitics wherein a pro- nominal form is replaced by another clitic exponent, which is prima facie morphologically unmotivated. Bonet (1991) and Harris (1994) among others have argued that these synthetic clusters can be due to the insertion of an elsewhere clitic: a default, nonspecified item that is inserted as a last resort whenever the insertion of other clitics is ruled out. In this article, independent pieces of evidence gathered from Italian and Italian dialects are shown to support this hypothesis.},
	Author = {Pescarini, Diego},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:04:14 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:05:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {427--444},
	Title = {Elsewhere in {R}omance: Evidence from Clitic Clusters},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{McFadden:2010,
	Abstract = {In this article, we investigate the peculiar distribution of the auxiliaries have and be in Earlier English and its consequences for theories of the perfect and auxiliary selection. We argue on the basis of a large-scale corpus study that the periphrastic construction with be was restricted to a stative resultative interpretation, whereas that with have developed a wider range of uses, crucially including the experiential perfect in addition to resultatives. Support comes from comparing the Earlier English patterns with related ones in Norwegian and German for which native-speaker judgments are available. On the basis of this insight, we propose distinct formal analyses for the two constructions and show how they account for the attested patterns and changes in Middle and Early Modern English. Of particular theoretical relevance is the premise that what has been called the ``perfect'' is not a homogeneous, monolithic category, and that certain kinds of variation can only be understood by teasing apart the pieces involved. Earlier English and German auxiliaries have distinct distributions because their ``perfects'' have distinct syntactic and semantic makeups.},
	Author = {McFadden, Thomas and Alexiadou, Artemis},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 11:00:22 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:03:36 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {389--425},
	Title = {Perfects, Resultatives, and Auxiliaries in {E}arlier {E}nglish},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Landau:2010a,
	Abstract = {Although they participate in control relations, implicit arguments are standardly viewed as unprojected theta-roles, absent from the syntax. I challenge this view and argue that implicit arguments are syntactically represented. The argument rests on the observation that implicit arguments can exercise partial control, and the claim that partial control must be encoded in the syntax (given plausible assumptions on the limits of lexical relations). I further argue that the syntactic constitution of implicit arguments is more impoverished than that of pro, explaining their differential visibility to various syntactic processes.},
	Author = {Landau, Idan},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-17 10:58:40 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 10:59:30 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {357--388},
	Title = {The Explicit Syntax of Implicit Arguments},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Schutze:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper examines two issues concerning nonagreeing don't in child English, e.g., He don't fit. (1) Do children know that don't consists of auxiliary do plus sentential negation, or do they misanalyze it simply as negation? I argue that the former claim yields both empirical (distributional) and conceptual advantages, while the latter does not explain what it was designed to explain. (2) If it is not misanalyzed, why does this form fail to agree? I consider two accounts that assume it is part of the Root Infinitive stage---one based on a missed parameter involving how agreement is spelled out (Guasti & Rizzi 2002), and the other based on underspecification of Infl features in syntax (my alternative proposal)---and explore their divergent predictions. I argue that the underspecification approach requires fewer stipulations about how children differ from adults, particularly for capturing do-omissions in ``medial neg'' environments.},
	Author = {Sch{\"u}tze, Carson},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 19:00:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 19:01:40 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {235--271},
	Title = {The Status of Nonagreeing \emph{Don't} and Theories of Root Infinitives},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Kline:2010,
	Abstract = {Researchers have long debated the mechanisms underlying the learning of syntactic structure. Of significant interest has been the fact that passive constructions appear to be learned earlier in Sesotho than English. This paper provides a comprehensive, quantitative analysis of the passive input Sesotho-speaking children hear, how it differs from English input, and the implications for learning the passive. The findings indicate that the more frequent use of both the passive and the by-phrase in Sesotho child-directed speech, in conjunction with the non-ambiguous passive morpheme, may together facilitate earlier access to thematic roles (agent, patient), thereby promoting early implicit learning of the passive. The implications for the acquisition of syntactic structure more generally are discussed.},
	Author = {Kline, Melissa and Demuth, Katherine},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:59:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 19:00:11 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {220--234},
	Title = {Factors Facilitating Implicit Learning: The Case of the {S}esotho Passive},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@incollection{Zwart:2005a,
	Address = {Oxford},
	Author = {Zwart, Jan-Wouter},
	Booktitle = {The {O}xford Handbook of Comparative Syntax},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:58:51 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:58:53 -0500},
	Editor = {Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard S.},
	Pages = {903--946},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {Continental {W}est-{G}ermanic Languages},
	Year = {2005}}

@article{Gavarro:2010,
	Abstract = {The literature generally assumes that object clitic omission is equally allowed in all child languages. In this paper we challenge this claim by means of an elicitation experiment carried out with children acquiring two closely related languages, Catalan and Spanish. Our results show that while omission is high in young Catalan-speaking children, it is very low in Spanish-speaking children. We argue that this difference can be attributed to a property of their respective grammars (the presence or otherwise of past participle agreement when objects cliticize) under the Unique Checking Constraint of Wexler (1998). In a second experiment, we confirm the robustness of early sensitivity to past participle agreement; through a grammaticality judgment task we find a statistically significant difference between the two languages. We show that the parametric approach postulated can be extended, for mandatory, overt objects, beyond Catalan and Spanish, broadening the empirical scope of the Unique Checking Constraint.},
	Author = {Gavarr{\'o}, Anna and Torrens, Vicen{\c c} and Wexler, Ken},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:56:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:58:19 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {192--219},
	Title = {Object Clitic Omission: Two Language Types},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Minai:2010,
	Abstract = {Research on children's computation of meanings involving the focus operator only has provided an equivocal conclusion as to whether children's semantic representation of only is adult-like. The present study discusses the importance of assessing children's knowledge about only in light of its semantic interaction with other logical words in a sentence. The meaning of only involves two components, each of which affects the interpretation of another logical word, such as the scalar term some, in a sentence containing only. Demonstrating that young children are sensitive to the interaction among only and some would suggest that children possess adult-like knowledge of the lexical semantics of only. We report a new experiment that examines children's interpretation of sentences involving only and some, revealing that children indeed do not ignore the contribution of only when interpreting sentences with only and some.},
	Author = {Minai, Utako and Fiorentino, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:54:30 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:55:46 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {183--190},
	Title = {The Role of the Focus Operator \emph{only} in Children's Computation of Sentence Meaning},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Hodgson:2010,
	Abstract = {This article presents a study of a between-subjects design experiment on the comprehension of telicity in simple telic predicates (e.g., John filled the bucket) and locatum predicates (e.g., the water filled the bucket) in L1 Spanish. Weist, Wysocka, and Lyytinen (1991) for English and Finnish, and Van Hout (1997, 1998b) for English and Dutch have shown that children up to age 6;06 allow simple telic predicates to have both telic and atelic interpretations. The main objective of this article is to show that children aged 3;09 allow locatum structures to be interpreted as telic, like adults, but allow simple telic predicates to have telic and atelic interpretations. The central claim is that in simple telic predicates, telicity is checked by covert movement, while in locatum predicates, telicity is checked by overt movement. Children misinterpret simple telic predicates because covert movement is an operation that takes place after the branching off to the PF component, but perform like adults when overt movement is involved.},
	Author = {Hodgson, Miren},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:52:27 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:53:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {155--182},
	Title = {Locatum Structures and the Acquisition of Telicity},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Gruter:2010,
	Abstract = {While L1 transfer and L2 learnability have been studied extensively in the domain of syntax and the syntax/semantics interface, purely semantic phenomena have received little attention in the L2 literature. This paper presents two experiments examining the relative scope assigned to disjunction and negation by English-speaking learners of Japanese (Experiment 1) and Japanese-speaking learners of English (Experiment 2). Previous evidence from L1 acquisition shows a protracted initial default for the interpretation of the relative scope of disjunction and negation. Our results show no such default in L2 acquisition, contra the predictions of Epstein et al. (1996). Instead, we find evidence of L1 transfer, suggesting `Full Transfer' at the L2 initial state extends to the domain of semantics. Results also show uneven success in the two L2 groups, which is explained through the different learnability scenarios that arise as a result of transfer and the availability of positive evidence in the L2 input.},
	Author = {Gr{\"u}ter, Theres and Lieberman, Moti and Gualmini, Andrea},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:50:09 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:51:49 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {127--154},
	Title = {Acquiring the Scope of Disjunction and negation in {L2}: A Bidirectional Study of Learners of {J}apanese and {E}nglish},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Ruys:2010,
	Abstract = {It has recently been claimed (Hazout 2004) that the English expletives it and there do not differ in their theta-properties. This paper argues that Dutch het and er do differ: all instances of het bear a (quasi-)theta-role; no instance of er does. Evidence comes from an analysis of expletive selection in constructions with seem-type verbs.},
	Author = {Ruys, E. G.},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:44:58 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:45:45 -0500},
	Journal = {The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {141--178},
	Title = {Expletive selection and {CP} arguments in {D}utch},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Corver:2010,
	Abstract = {We discuss ellipsis of the possessee in both pronominal possessor constructions (Dutch: zijn boek `his book') and possessor doubling constructions (Dutch: John z'n boek, John his book `John's book') from a micro-comparative perspective. More specifically we show, on the basis of an in-depth study of the nominal system of 57 Dutch dialects, that there are two types of possessee ellipsis. In the first type there is a pro which needs to be licensed by gender agreement. In the second type there is an overt pro-form, similar to English one, and hence no ellipsis. Dialects that have the first type of possessee ellipsis can be further divided into two subtypes. The first has gender agreement on the possessive pronoun, the second one does not. Interestingly, possessee ellipsis can take place in the possessor doubling construction only in the former subtype of dialect. We implement this striking generalization by arguing that in the latter type of dialect pro has to move to Spec,DP in order to be licensed. The doubling possessor also has to be merged in Spec,DP. As a consequence, pro and a doubling possessor cannot co-occur and hence possessee ellipsis and possessor doubling are incompatible. In the former type of dialect, i.e., those dialects that do express gender on the possessive pronoun, pro can be licensed by the gender agreement on the possessive pronoun in a position lower than Spec,DP. Hence, in these dialects Spec,DP is available for a doubling possessor and, consequently, possessee ellipsis and possessor doubling can co-occur.},
	Author = {Corver, Norbert and Koppen, Marjo van},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:42:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:43:54 -0500},
	Journal = {The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {99--140},
	Title = {Ellipsis in {D}utch possessive noun phrases: a micro-comparative approach},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Roehrs:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates the demonstrative-reinforcer construction, combinations of a demonstrative and a (usually) adverbial element, in the different Germanic and Romance languages. Documenting that there are four different types, I argue that demonstratives are phrasal elements that are merged in the Specifier position of an intermediate phrase. Depending in part on the different inner makeup, demonstratives may or must move to Spec,DP. Furthermore, reinforcers come in two types: `bare' reinforcers are merged in the same Specifier as demonstratives; PP- reinforcers are right-adjoined. Assuming that there is no Subextraction out of Specifiers or Adjuncts, we can also explain a number of patterns that, although logically conceivable, do not occur in any language.},
	Author = {Roehrs, Dorian},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:40:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:41:43 -0500},
	Journal = {The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {225--268},
	Title = {Demonstrative-reinforer constructions},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Caha:2010,
	Abstract = {I investigate the locative-directional alternation in German, expressed by the change of case on the complement of a preposition, and its consequences for the theory of case in general. I argue that oblique cases and structural cases are assigned in a uniform manner, but they are distinct in the amount of functional structure: oblique case contains structural case. Follow- ing Starke (2005), I claim that oblique cases can be promoted to structural cases by stranding layers of oblique case.},
	Author = {Caha, Pavel},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:38:31 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:40:39 -0500},
	Journal = {The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {179--223},
	Title = {The {G}erman locative-directional alternation: A Peeling Account},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@book{Bowers:2010,
	Author = {Bowers, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:30:55 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:31:17 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Arguments ad Relations},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Embick:2010,
	Author = {Embick, David},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:29:42 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:30:09 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Richards:2010,
	Author = {Richards, Norvin},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:28:10 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:28:26 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Uttering Trees},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Landau:2010,
	Author = {Landau, Idan},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:27:28 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:28:03 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {The Locative Syntax of Experiencers},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Cinque:2010,
	Author = {Cinque, Guglielmo},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:26:35 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:27:13 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Roberts:2010,
	Author = {Roberts, Ian},
	Date-Added = {2010-12-05 18:25:46 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-05 18:26:22 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals},
	Year = {2010}}

@book{Pylkkanen:2008,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Pylkk{\"a}nen, Liina},
	Date-Added = {2010-11-10 16:44:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-11-10 16:46:45 -0500},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Introducing Arguments},
	Year = {2008}}

@inproceedings{Levinson:2005,
	Address = {Philadelphia, Pennsylvania},
	Author = {Levinson, Lisa},
	Booktitle = {The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1)},
	Date-Added = {2010-11-10 08:08:18 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-11-10 08:10:10 -0500},
	Editor = {Arunachalam, Sudha and Scheffler, Tatjana and Sundaresan, Sandhya and Tauberer, Joshua},
	Organization = {University of Pennsylvania},
	Pages = {155--168},
	Title = {`To' in two places in the dative alternation},
	Year = {2005}}

@article{Hovav:2008,
	Abstract = {We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings: a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like give and sell only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like throw and send have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like give, even in the to variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a `have' relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb--argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb's own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so many languages lack a true dative alternation.},
	Author = {Hovav, Malka Rappaport and Levin, Beth},
	Date-Added = {2010-11-10 07:59:31 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-11-10 08:05:58 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {129--167},
	Title = {The {E}nglish dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity},
	Volume = {44},
	Year = {2008}}}

@book{Halliday:1976,
	Author = {Halliday, Michael and Hasan, Ruqiaya},
	Date-Added = {2010-11-22 14:54:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-11-22 14:56:02 -0500},
	Publisher = {Longmans},
	Title = {Cohesion in {E}nglish},
	Year = {1976}}

@unpublished{Fox:2009,
	Author = {Fox, Danny and Pesetsky, David},
	Date-Added = {2010-09-29 16:19:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-09-29 16:20:15 -0400},
	Month = {July},
	Note = {talk delivered at Ben Gurion University},
	Title = {Rightward Movement, Covert Movement, and Cyclic Linearization},
	Year = {2009}}

@incollection{Sternefeld:2001,
	Author = {Sternefeld, Wolfgang},
	Booktitle = {Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for {A}rnim von {S}techow},
	Date-Added = {2010-09-29 11:08:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-09-29 11:10:02 -0400},
	Editor = {F{\'e}ry, Caroline and Sternefeld, Wolfgang},
	Publisher = {Acadamie Verlag},
	Title = {Partial Movement Constructions, Pied-Piping and Higher Order Choice Functions},
	Year = {2001}}

@article{Cable:2010a,
	Abstract = {I argue that pied-piping, as traditionally understood, might not exist. I reanalyze classic examples from English and other well-studied languages in light of new data from Tlingit, an understudied and endangered language of Alaska. I argue that the initial appearance of pied- piping in Tlingit is misleading and actually reflects structures where no true pied-piping occurs. I then show that a similar analysis is possible for putative cases of pied-piping in other, well-known languages. Consequently, both the phenomenon of pied-piping and the grammatical mechanisms introduced to derive it might be eliminable from the theory of grammar.},
	Author = {Cable, Seth},
	Date-Added = {2010-09-29 10:58:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-12-17 11:42:07 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {563--594},
	Title = {Against the Existence of {P}ied-{P}iping: Evidence from {T}lingit},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@book{Cable:2010,
	Author = {Cable, Seth},
	Date-Added = {2010-09-29 10:54:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-09-29 10:55:57 -0400},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {The Grammar of {Q}: {Q}-Particles, {W}h-{M}ovement and {P}ied-{P}iping},
	Year = {2010}}

@incollection{Abney:1996,
	Author = {Abney, Steven},
	Booktitle = {The Balancing Act: Combining Symbolic and Statistical Approaches to Language},
	Date-Added = {2010-09-07 07:15:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-09-07 07:17:11 -0400},
	Editor = {Klavans, Judith and Resnik, Philip},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Statistical Methods and Linguistics},
	Year = {1996}}

@article{Zuraw:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper presents a case of patterned exceptionality. The case is Tagalog nasal substitution, a phenomenon in which a prefix-final nasal fuses with a stem-initial obstruent. The rule is variable on a word-by-word basis, but its distribution is phonologically patterned, as shown through dictionary and corpus data. Speakers appear to have implicit knowledge of the patterning, as shown through experimental data and loan adaptation. A grammar is proposed that reconciles the primacy of lexical information with regularities in the distribution of the rule. Morphologically complex words are allowed to have their own lexical entries, whose use is preferred to on-the-fly morphological concatenation. The grammar contains lower-ranked markedness constraints that govern the behavior of novel words. Faithfulness for lexicalized full words is ranked high, so that an established word will have a stable pronunciation. But when a word is newly coined through affixation, the outcome varies according the lexical trends. A crucial aspect of the proposal is that the ranking of the ''subterranean'' markedness constraints can be learned despite training data in which all words are pronounced faithfully, using Boersma's (1997, 1998) Gradual learning algorithm. The paper also shows, by summarizing the rule's behavior in related languages, that the same constraints, in different rankings, seem to be at work even in languages reported to lack variation.},
	Author = {Zuraw, Kie},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:44:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:45:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {417--472},
	Title = {A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to {T}agalog nasal substitution},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Vicente:2010,
	Abstract = {A series of studies have distinguished two types of but, namely, corrective and counterexpectational. The difference between these two types has been considered largely semantic/pragmatic. This article shows that the semantic difference also translates into a different syntax for each type of but. More precisely, corrective but always requires clause-level coordination, with apparent counterexamples being derived through ellipsis within the second conjunct. On the other hand, counterexpectational but is not restricted in this way, and offers the possibility of coordination of both clausal and subclausal constituents. From this difference, it is possible to derive a number of syntactic asymmetries between corrective and counterexpectational but.},
	Author = {Vicente, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:42:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:43:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {381--415},
	Title = {On the syntax of adversative coordination},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Takahashi:2010,
	Abstract = {I propose that a moved clausal complement must involve a DP structure headed by a covert determiner. This proposal explains the fact that the base-generated position of a moved clausal complement must show properties of DPs even though the moved constituent appears to be a CP. I argue that the necessity of the DP structure comes from properties of an independently motivated mechanism for interpreting structures involving a movement dependency under the copy theory of movement. Together with a particular theory of counter-cyclic merger, the proposed analysis also captures (anti-)reconstruction effects exhibited by movement of a clausal complement.},
	Author = {Takahashi, Shoichi},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:41:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:42:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {343--380},
	Title = {The hidden side of clausal complements},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Otsuka:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper proposes that syntactic ergativity should be understood as a construction-based phenomenon rather than a parametric property that defines a subset of morphologically ergative languages. It argues that syntactic ergativity arises when the relevant operation is sensitive to (abstract) Case. Since not all syntactic operations are sensitive to Case, it is expected that some morphologically ergative languages do not show syntactic ergativity, or even demonstrate syntactic split ergativity. As an illustration, two types of coordination reduction in Tongan (Polynesian) are examined: pea-coordination showing an ergative/absolutive pattern and mo-coordination showing a nominative/accusative pattern. It is argued that DP ellipsis in pea-coordination is a Case-sensitive operation, i.e., PF deletion based on featural identity, whereas mo-coordination involves a null pronoun and LF copying, which is based on positional identity, regardless of Case.},
	Author = {Otsuka, Yuko},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:38:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:40:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {315--342},
	Title = {{DP} ellipsis in {T}ongan: is syntactic ergativity real?},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Hofmeister:2010,
	Abstract = {To account for the linear freedom of either in disjunction constructions, I expand upon the focus-based account of den Dikken (2006). Word order constraints, in contrast to movement rules or base-generation constraints, provide the mechanism for explaining the distributional data. I argue that all positional variability exhibited by either ultimately derives from a licensing construction that enables either to be shuffled about disjunct-internally, yet simultaneously prevents either from entering into linear precedence relations with disjunct-external constituents. Restrictions on the surface realization of either result from a linear precedence rule ordering either before the contrastive focus, language particular constraints on word order, and general constraints on coordinate ellipsis. Overall, this analysis presents an account of either . . . or constructions that introduces only a single linear precedence rule and a licensing construction for combining either with disjunctions to account for the data, relying on independently-motivated constraints to carry the rest of the analytical burden.},
	Author = {Hofmeister, Philip},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:36:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:37:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {275--314},
	Title = {A linearization accout of \emph{either}...\emph{or} constructions},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Camacho:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper discusses switch-reference (SR) systems in Pano and Muskogean languages, and proposes that grammatical CASE plays an essential role in licensing same-subject SR constructions in these languages. Specifically, CASE activates an agreement relationship between two clauses, allowing for transmission of information about participant coreference. different-subject SR, on the other hand, does not involve CASE concord, but signals the activation of a discourse participant that was either inactive in the background or not present.},
	Author = {Camacho, Jos{\'e}},
	Date-Added = {2010-07-02 10:34:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-07-02 10:35:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {239--274},
	Title = {On case concord: the syntax of switch-reference clauses},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Heycock:2010,
	Abstract = {In this article we investigate the status of two different types of movement in subordinate clauses in Faroese: the movement of the finite verb to a position below the subject but above negation and medial adverbs (V-to- I), and the movement of some XP and the finite verb to positions above the subject (V2). The exact status of these phenomena in contemporary Faroese, a language that has been argued to be undergoing syntactic change, is a matter of dispute; we attempt to clarify this using the methodology of Magnitude Estimation (ME). We extend what is known by presenting the results of a systematic comparison of judgment data from Icelandic (where the finite verb obligatorily moves to a high position within the clause, and embedded V2 has been claimed to be possible quite generally), Danish (where the finite verb obligatorily remains in a low position, and embedded V2 has been claimed to be restricted), and Faroese (where the status of verb movement is precisely at issue, and the availability of embedded V2 has been little explored).},
	Author = {Heycock, Caroline and Sorace, Antonella and Zakaris, Svabo Hansen},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-30 11:30:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-30 11:31:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {61--97},
	Title = {V-to-{I} in subordinate clauses: an investigation of {F}aroese in relation to {I}celandic and {D}anish},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Hoekstra:2010,
	Abstract = {In this paper I will take the special properties of the Modern West Frisian impersonal pronoun men `one' (obligatory inclusiveness, 1st person singular reading, strength) and the typology of impersonal pronouns in Frisian as the starting point for a discussion of the referential status of impersonal pronouns in general. I will claim that impersonal pronouns are the pronominal counterpart of generic DPs and, like these, definite, but non-specific. Further, it will be argued that the most important typological distinction with impersonal pronouns, viz. that between inclusive and exclusive, is a consequence of their non-specificity. With respect to Modern West Frisian men I will contend that this element, in addition to being a genuine (weak) impersonal pronoun, can be a (strong) quasi-personal pronoun. I will provide some further evidence for this subclass of impersonal pronouns and show how its existence is predicted by my general theory of impersonal pronouns.},
	Author = {Hoekstra, Jarich},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-30 11:28:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-30 11:29:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {31--59},
	Title = {On the impersonal pronoun \emph{men} in {M}odern {W}est {F}risian},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Kleemann-Kramer:2010,
	Abstract = {It is well known that the distribution of focus particles such as only, also and even varies across languages. Focus particle placement is less restricted, for example, in English, which features adverbial as well as adnominal focus particles. That is opposed to German which only has adverbial focus particles. According to B{\"u}ring and Hartmann's (Nat Lang Linguist Theory 19:229--281, 2001) Particle Theory, German focus particles only adjoin to nodes which are non-arguments. The correctness of the Particle Theory is not uncontroversial. It has been argued that the Particle Theory makes the wrong predictions about focus particle placement within NPs. The aim of this paper is to show that apparent counterexamples, in fact, provide new evidence in favor of B{\"u}ring and Hartmann's Particle Theory. It argues that NP-internal focus particles adjoin to extra non-nominal functional projections which do count as focus particle adjunction sites according to the Particle Theory. Evidence comes from German as well as Dutch NP-internal focus particles.},
	Author = {Kleemann-Kr{\"a}mer, Anja},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-30 11:26:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-30 11:27:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--29},
	Title = {On apparent {NP}-internal focus particles in {G}erman},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Yoshida:2010,
	Author = {Yoshida, Masaya},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 13:05:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 13:06:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {348--356},
	Title = {``Antecedent-Contained'' Sluicing},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Wiland:2010,
	Author = {Wiland, Bartosz},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 13:04:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 13:05:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {335--347},
	Title = {Overt Evidence from Left-Branch Extraction in {P}olish for Punctuated Paths},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Baltin:2010,
	Author = {Baltin, Mark},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 13:02:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 13:03:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {331--335},
	Title = {The Nonreality of Doubly Filled Comps},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Lin:2010,
	Abstract = {Sybesma (2007) argues for the existence of a syntactic T node in Chinese on the basis of general theoretical considerations and parallel empirical data from Dutch and Chinese. This reply shows that a tenseless analysis of Chinese is an equally viable alternative or even a better one, given some empirical problems that the tensed analysis has to face. The tenseless analysis is backed up not only by its ability to explain the data in a more elegant way but also by syntactic facts that seem to be unrelated coincidences under a tensed analysis but are natural consequences under a tenseless alternative.},
	Author = {Lin, Jo-Wang},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 13:00:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 13:02:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {305--329},
	Title = {A Tenseless Analysis of {M}andarin {C}hinese Revisited: A Response to {S}ybsema 2007},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Bruening:2010,
	Abstract = {Recent work by Bresnan and colleagues (Bresnan 2007, Bresnan et al. 2007, Bresnan and Nikitina 2007) has argued that double object and prepositional dative constructions are essentially identical, the choice between them being conditioned by various factors. I argue against this conclusion, showing that the grammar clearly distinguishes double object from prepositional dative constructions. Under certain circumstances, the first object of a double object construction can shift to the right, with the preposition to appearing, but the grammar still distinguishes this from a prepositional dative construction that looks identi- cal on the surface. The phenomena that I investigate are scope interactions with quantifiers and locative inversion. In addition, the rightward reordering operations investigated here indicate that constraints on variable binding, including weak crossover, must be formulated in terms of linear order rather than hierarchy.},
	Author = {Bruening, Benjamin},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 12:59:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 13:00:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {281--305},
	Title = {Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Lahrouchi:2010,
	Abstract = {This article examines the internal structure of triconsonantal roots in Tashlhiyt Berber. It is proposed that these roots have a binary-branching head-complement structure, built upon the sonorant and the segment immediately to its left. Evidence for this structure is provided by the imperfective formation. It is argued that only roots that display such a structure undergo gemination in the imperfective. This permits an account for a number of forms that are traditionally ascribed to lexical idiosyncrasy, including verbs that are made up entirely of obstruents and those whose only sonorant is in initial position.},
	Author = {Lahrouchi, Mohamed},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 12:57:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 12:58:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {255--285},
	Title = {On the Internal Structure of {T}ashlhiyt {B}erber Triconsonantal Roots},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Ko:2010,
	Abstract = {This article investigates the role of presuppositionality (defined as the presupposition of existence) in the second language (L2) acquisition of English articles. Building upon the proposal in Wexler 2003 that young English-acquiring children overuse the with presuppositional indefinites, this article proposes that presuppositionality also influ- ences article (mis)use in adult L2 acquisition. This proposal is supported by experimental results from the L2 English of adult speakers of Korean, a language with no articles. The experimental findings indicate that presuppositional indefinite contexts trigger overuse of the with indefinites in adult L2 acquisition, as in child L1 acquisition (cf. Wexler 2003). The effects of presuppositionality are teased apart from the effects of other semantic factors previously examined in acquisition, such as scope (Schaeffer and Matthewson 2005) and specificity (Ionin, Ko, and Wexler 2004). The results provide evidence that over- use of the in L2 acquisition is a semantic rather than pragmatic phenomenon. Implications of these findings for overuse of the in L1 acquisition are discussed. This article also has implications for the study of access to Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition, as well as for the number and type of semantic universals underlying article choice crosslinguistically.},
	Author = {Ko, Heejeong and Ionin, Tania and Wexler, Ken},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 12:55:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 12:57:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {213--254},
	Title = {The Role of Presuppositionality in the Second Language Acquisition of {E}nglish Articles},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Haegeman:2010,
	Abstract = {This article examines the formalization of negative concord in terms of the Minimalist Program, focusing entirely on negative concord in West Flemish. It is shown that a recent analysis of negative concord that advocates Multiple Agree is empirically inadequate. Instead of Multiple Agree, a particular implementation of the simpler and less powerful binary Agree proves superior in deriving the data in question.},
	Author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Lohndal, Terje},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-28 12:53:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 12:55:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {181--211},
	Title = {Negative Concord and (Multiple) {A}gree: A Case Study of {W}est {F}lemish},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@incollection{Krifka:2006,
	Author = {Krifka, Manfred},
	Booktitle = {The Architecture of Focus},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-21 21:33:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-21 21:35:17 -0400},
	Editor = {Moln{\'a}r, V. and Winkler, Susanne},
	Pages = {105--135},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Series = {Studies in Generative Grammar},
	Title = {Association with Focus Phrases},
	Volume = {82},
	Year = {2006}}

@incollection{Cheng:2007,
	Author = {Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen},
	Booktitle = {The Copy Theory of Movement},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-20 15:56:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-20 15:59:04 -0400},
	Editor = {Corver, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo},
	Pages = {151--174},
	Publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Company},
	Title = {Verb copying in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Year = {2007}}

@phdthesis{Kobele:2006,
	Address = {Los Angeles, CA},
	Author = {Kobele, Gregory Michael},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-20 12:41:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-20 12:43:04 -0400},
	School = {University of California, Los Angeles},
	Title = {Generating Copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar},
	Year = {2006}}

@incollection{Hohle:2000,
	Author = {H{\"o}hle, Tilman N.},
	Booktitle = {Wh-Scope Marking},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-19 11:14:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-19 11:16:44 -0400},
	Editor = {Lutz, Uli and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Stechow, Arnim von},
	Pages = {249--270},
	Publisher = {John Benjamins},
	Title = {The w...w construction: Appositive or Scope Indicating?},
	Year = {2000}}

@article{Lahiri:2002a,
	Author = {Lahiri, Utpal},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-18 16:48:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-18 16:49:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Lingua},
	Number = {7},
	Pages = {501--540},
	Title = {On the proper treatment of ``expletive \emph{wh}'' in {H}indi},
	Volume = {112},
	Year = {2002}}}

@incollection{Fanselow:2000,
	Author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Anoop},
	Booktitle = {Wh-Scope Marking},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-18 10:51:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-18 10:53:51 -0400},
	Editor = {Lutz, Uli and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Stechow, Arnim von},
	Pages = {195--230},
	Publisher = {John Benjamins},
	Title = {Towards a Minimalist Theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity},
	Year = {2000}}

@incollection{Villiers:1990,
	Author = {de Villiers, Jill and Roeper, Tom and Vainikka, Anne},
	Booktitle = {Language Processing and Language Acquisition},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-17 17:34:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-17 17:36:17 -0400},
	Editor = {Frazier, Lyn and de Villiers, Jill},
	Pages = {257--297},
	Publisher = {Kluwer},
	Title = {The Acquisition of Long-Distance Rules},
	Year = {1990}}

@incollection{Fanselow:2001a,
	Address = {Berlin},
	Author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and {\'C}avar, Damir},
	Booktitle = {Competition in Syntax},
	Date-Added = {2010-06-16 17:42:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-16 17:47:40 -0400},
	Editor = {M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang},
	Pages = {107--150},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Title = {Remarks on the economy of pronunciation},
	Year = {2001}}

@incollection{Pesetsky:1997,
	Address = {Malden, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Pesetsky, David},
	Booktitle = {Optimality Theory: An Overview},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-25 10:53:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-25 10:54:25 -0400},
	Editor = {Archangeli, Diana and Langendoen, D. Terence},
	Pages = {134--170},
	Publisher = {Blackwell Publishers},
	Title = {Optimality {T}heory and Syntax: Movement and pronunciation},
	Year = {1997}}

@article{Gartner:1998,
	Author = {G{\"a}rtner, Hans-Martin},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-25 10:50:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-25 10:51:48 -0400},
	Journal = {{GLOT} International},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {16--20},
	Title = {Review of ``The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the {M}inimalist {P}rogram''},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1998}}

@book{Boskovic:2001a,
	Address = {Amsterdam},
	Author = {Bo{\v{s}}kovi{\'c}, {\v{Z}}eljko},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-25 10:46:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-25 10:48:12 -0400},
	Publisher = {Elsevier Science},
	Title = {On the nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and related phenomena},
	Year = {2001}}

@incollection{Fanselow:1995,
	Address = {University of T{\"u}bingen},
	Author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Anoop},
	Booktitle = {Papers on \emph{Wh}-Scope Marking},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-25 10:41:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-25 10:44:32 -0400},
	Editor = {Lutz, Uli and M{\"u}ller, Gereon},
	Pages = {131--161},
	Publisher = {Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen f{\"u}r die Computer Linguistik},
	Title = {Partial movement and successive cyclicity},
	Year = {1995}}

@article{Moltmann:1992a,
	Author = {Moltmann, Friederike},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-23 12:16:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-23 12:17:25 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	Pages = {411--462},
	Title = {Reciprocals and Same/Different: Towards a Semantic Analysis},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {1992}}

@article{Beck:2000c,
	Author = {Beck, Sigrid},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-23 12:15:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-23 12:15:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {101--139},
	Title = {The Semantics of \emph{Different}: Comparison Operator and Relational Adjective},
	Volume = {23},
	Year = {2000}}

@article{Carlson:1987,
	Author = {Carlson, Greg},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-23 12:10:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-23 12:13:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {531--566},
	Title = {Same and Different: Some Consequences for Syntax and Semantics},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1987}}

@article{Phillips:2010,
	Abstract = {The 1990s witnessed a major expansion in research on children's morphosyntactic development, due largely to the availability of computer-searchable corpora of spontaneous speech in the CHILDES database. This led to a rapid emergence of parallel findings in different languages, with much attention devoted to the widely attested difficulties in inflectional morphology in the speech of two- year-olds. First written in 1995, and framed within the terms of contemporary syntactic theories, this article argues that cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of children's morphosyntactic errors provide important clues to the source of the errors, in particular whether they are morphological or syntactic in origin. The article takes as its starting point some striking previous findings that children's verb inflection errors are systematically correlated, on a sentence-by-sentence basis, with errors in the use of overt subjects, and with the use of syntactically complex constructions such as wh-questions. The article shows that these correlations are found in some languages but not in others, and argues that these differences are predictable, based on the verb movement and case licensing properties of individual languages. The article argues that children's errors reflect a combination of grammatical and speech production deficits.},
	Author = {Phillips, Colin},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-20 09:38:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-20 09:40:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1-2},
	Pages = {70--120},
	Title = {Syntax at Age Two: Cross-Linguistic Differences},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Lillo-Martin:2010,
	Author = {Lillo-Martin, Diane and Snyder, William},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-20 09:36:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-20 09:37:47 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1-2},
	Pages = {66--69},
	Title = {Commentary on ``Syntax at Age Two''},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Verbuk:2010,
	Abstract = {We argue that the debate over the delay of Principle B effects needs to include an additional class of contexts: Evans-style or Exceptional Coreference contexts (ECCs) (e.g., ``It's not true that no one voted for John. John1 voted for him1''). Our experiment compares acquisition of regular Principle B contexts (B-contexts) and ECCs by English-speaking children. Thornton and Wexler (1999) predict that there will be no age at which the acceptance of the disjoint reference reading is significantly higher in ECCs than in B-contexts, while Reinhart (in press), in contrast, predicts gradual trends towards more adult-like performance in each condition; we tested each of these predictions. Our experimental results are incompatible with Thornton and Wexler (1999) and are compatible with Reinhart (in press). Our results are also compatible with our own account on which ECCs pose additional pragmatic challenges compared to B-contexts.},
	Author = {Verbuk, Anna and Roeper, Thomas},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-20 09:34:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-20 09:35:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1-2},
	Pages = {51--65},
	Title = {How Pragmatics and Syntax Make Principle {B} Acquirable},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Viau:2010,
	Abstract = {Though preschoolers in certain experimental contexts strongly prefer to interpret ambiguous sentences containing quantified NPs and negation on the basis of surface syntax (e.g., Musolino's 1998 ``observation of isomorphism''), contextual manipulations can lead to more adult-like behavior. But is isomorphism a purely pragmatic phenomenon, as recently proposed? In Experiment 1, we begin by isolating the contextual factor responsible for children's improvement in Musolino & Lidz (2006). We then demonstrate in Experiment 2 that this factor can be used to prime inverse scope interpretations. To remove pragmatics from the equation to the extent possible, we show in Experiment 3 that the same effect can be achieved via semantic priming. Our results represent the first clear evidence for priming of the abstract logico-syntactic structures underlying these interpretations and, thus, highlight the importance of language processing alongside pragmatic reasoning during children's linguistic development.},
	Author = {Viau, Joshua and Lidz, Jeffrey and Musolino, Julien},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-20 09:32:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-20 09:33:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1-2},
	Pages = {26--50},
	Title = {Priming of Abstract Logical Representations in 4-year-olds},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Castilla:2010,
	Abstract = {This study examined the existence of an object omission stage and the interaction between object omissions and substitution errors in the early stages of the development of Spanish syntax. One hundred and three Spanish-speaking children from Colombia completed an elicitation task evaluating the production of direct object pronouns. Results indicated that 3-year-olds were producing 35% of transitive structures with object omission, and 4- and 5-year-olds were producing around 15% of transitive structures with object omission. The production of clitic pronouns increased with age, and the change happened primarily between the ages of three and four. The results failed to find a relation between omissions and substitutions. These results suggest that there is an early object optionality stage for young Spanish-speaking children and are compatible with approaches that predict some degree of object optionality for all languages.},
	Author = {Castilla, Anny P. and P{\'e}rez-Leroux, Ana T.},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-20 09:28:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-20 09:30:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {1-2},
	Pages = {2--25},
	Title = {Omissions and Substitutions in {S}panish Object Clitics: Developmental Optionality as a Property of the Representational System},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2010}}}

@book{Emonds:2000,
	Address = {Berlin and New York},
	Author = {Emonds, Joseph E.},
	Date-Added = {2010-05-19 12:28:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-05-19 12:30:37 -0400},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Series = {Studies in Generative Grammar},
	Title = {Lexicon and Grammar: The {E}nglish {S}yntacticon},
	Year = {2000}}

@incollection{Kandybowicz:2006,
	Author = {Kandybowicz, Jason},
	Booktitle = {The Copy Theory of Movement on the {PF} Side},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-27 12:22:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-27 12:23:32 -0400},
	Editor = {Nunes, Jairo and Corver, Norbert},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {On Fusion and Multiple Copy Spell-Out: The Case of Verb Repetition},
	Year = {2006}}

@phdthesis{Pranka:1983,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Pranka, Paula},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-25 11:07:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-25 11:08:08 -0400},
	School = {Massachusetts Institute of Technology},
	Title = {Syntax and Word Formation},
	Year = {1983}}

@article{McCloskey:1986a,
	Author = {McCloskey, James},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-21 11:27:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-21 11:55:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {245--281},
	Title = {Inflection and conjunction in {M}odern {I}rish},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Borer:1984,
	Author = {Borer, Hagit},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 16:53:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:54:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {219--260},
	Title = {Restrictive relatives in modern {H}ebrew},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1984}}

@article{Pullum:1983b,
	Author = {Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 16:32:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:33:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {201--206},
	Title = {Watch out for the current},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1983}}

@article{Anderson:1984,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 16:30:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:52:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {157--218},
	Title = {On representations in morphology case, agreement and inversion in {G}eorgian},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1984}}

@article{Perlmutter:1983a,
	Author = {Perlmutter, David M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 16:28:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 09:12:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {141--200},
	Title = {Personal vs. impersonal constructions},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1983}}}

@article{Haider:1986,
	Author = {Haider, Hubert},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 16:06:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:12:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {113--126},
	Title = {Affect $\alpha$: A reply to {L}asnik and {S}aito, ``On the Nature of Proper Government''},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Browne:1986,
	Author = {Browne, Allen C.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 14:54:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 14:55:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {751--754},
	Title = {Univocal \emph{or} -Again},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Grimshaw:1986a,
	Author = {Grimshaw, Jane},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 14:53:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 14:53:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {745--749},
	Title = {A morphosyntactic explanation for the {M}irror {P}rinciple},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Schein:1986,
	Author = {Schein, Barry and Steriade, Donca},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-20 14:51:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 14:51:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {691--744},
	Title = {On Geminates},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Van-Valin:1986,
	Author = {Van Valin, Robert D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 16:28:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 16:30:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {581--586},
	Title = {An empty category as the subject of a tense {S} in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Pulleyblank:1986,
	Author = {Pulleyblank, Douglas},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 16:27:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 16:28:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {573--580},
	Title = {Rule application on a noncyclic stratum},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Malone:1986,
	Author = {Malone, Joseph L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 16:25:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 16:27:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {568--573},
	Title = {Servo-features, [+distributed], and {O}ld {I}rish {S}onorant {L}enition},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Barrett-Keach:1986,
	Author = {Barrett-Keach, Camillia N.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 16:23:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 16:24:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {559--564},
	Title = {Word-internal evidence from {S}wahili for aux/infl},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Rizzi:1986b,
	Author = {Rizzi, Luigi},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 15:19:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 15:24:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {501--557},
	Title = {Null {O}jects in {I}talian and the Theory of \emph{pro}},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Hayes:1986,
	Author = {Hayes, Bruce},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 15:14:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 15:19:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {467--499},
	Title = {Assimilation as spreading in {T}oba {B}atak},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Borer:1986,
	Author = {Borer, Hagit},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:41:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-06-28 08:42:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {375--416},
	Title = {{I}-subjects},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Kiragawa:1986,
	Author = {Kitagawa, Yoshihisa},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:40:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:40:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {177--184},
	Title = {More on bracketing paradoxes},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Comorovski:1986,
	Author = {Comorovski, Ileana},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:38:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:39:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {171--177},
	Title = {Multiple \emph{Wh} Movement in {R}omanian},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Trommelen:1986,
	Author = {Trommelen, Mieke and Zonneveld, Wim},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:32:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:38:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {147--169},
	Title = {Dutch Morphology: Evidence for the {R}ight-hand {H}ead {R}ule},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Steriade:1986,
	Author = {Steriade, Donca},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:23:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:24:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {129--146},
	Title = {Yokuts and the Vowel Plane},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Lasnik:1986,
	Author = {Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:20:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:22:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {126--129},
	Title = {On Accessibility},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Lightfoot:1986,
	Author = {Lightfoot, David W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:19:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:20:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {111--113},
	Title = {A Brief Response},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Postal:1986a,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:18:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:19:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {104--110},
	Title = {Misgovernment},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Bouchard:1986,
	Author = {Bouchard, Denis},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:17:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:18:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {95--104},
	Title = {Empty Categories and the Contraction Debate},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Liejiong:1986,
	Author = {Liejiong, Xu},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:17:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:17:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {75--93},
	Title = {Free Empty Category},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Ito:1986,
	Author = {It{\^{o}}, Junko and Mester, Ralf-Armin},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:15:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:09:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {49--73},
	Title = {The phonology of voicing in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Gunnarson:1986,
	Author = {Gunnarson, Kjell-{\AA}ke},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:11:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-20 16:18:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {13--47},
	Title = {Predicative Structures and Projections of Lexical Dependencies},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Guerssel:1986,
	Author = {Guerssel, Mohamed},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-16 14:08:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-16 14:10:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--12},
	Title = {Glides in {B}erber and Syllabicity},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {1986}}

@article{Stephens:1979,
	Author = {Stephens, Lawrence},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:24:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:25:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {365--369},
	Title = {Once Again {L}achmann's {L}aw},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Joseph:1979,
	Author = {Joseph, Brian},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:24:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:25:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {363--365},
	Title = {Lachmann's {L}aw once again},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Klausenburger:1979,
	Author = {Klausenburger, Jurgen},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:23:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:24:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {362--363},
	Title = {Is {L}achmann's {L}aw a rule?},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Pullum:1979a,
	Author = {Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:22:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:23:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {356--362},
	Title = {The nonexistence of the {T}race-{B}inding {A}lgorithm},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Munro:1979,
	Author = {Munro, Allen},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:22:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:22:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {353--356},
	Title = {Indirect speech acts are not strictly conventional},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Goldsmith:1979,
	Author = {Goldsmith, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:20:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:21:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {347--352},
	Title = {On the thematic nature of \emph{See}},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Cushing:1979,
	Author = {Cushing, Steven},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:18:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:20:30 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {327--345},
	Title = {Lexical functions and lexical decomposition: an algebraic approach to lexical meaning},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Feinstein:1979,
	Author = {Feinstein, Mark H.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:15:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:18:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {245--278},
	Title = {Prenasalization and syllable structure},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Emonds:1979,
	Author = {Emonds, Joseph},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 16:13:09 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:14:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {211--243},
	Title = {Appositive relatives have no properties},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Clements:1979,
	Author = {Clements, George N. and Ford, Kevin C.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:56:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 16:10:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {179--210},
	Title = {Kikuyu tone shift and it's synchronic consequences},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1979}}

@article{Bresnan:1978,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan and Grimshaw, Jane},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:55:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:56:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {331--391},
	Title = {The syntax of free relatives in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Cushing:1978a,
	Author = {Cushing, Steven},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:51:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:52:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {327--330},
	Title = {A note on node self-dominance},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Pullum:1978,
	Author = {Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:49:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:50:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {326--327},
	Title = {Self-domination},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Johnson:1978,
	Author = {Johnson, David E.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:48:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:49:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {325},
	Title = {A note on self-dominance},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Schreiber:1978,
	Author = {Schreiber, Peter A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:47:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:48:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {318--325},
	Title = {\emph{There}-Insertion and number agreement},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Nanni:1978,
	Author = {Nanni, Debbie L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:47:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:47:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {310--318},
	Title = {Three remarks on {P}ied {P}iping},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Manaster-Ramer:1978a,
	Author = {Manaster-Ramer, Alexis},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:46:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:47:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {308--310},
	Title = {Comparatives and factives},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Kupin:1978,
	Author = {Kupin, Joseph J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:45:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:46:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {303--308},
	Title = {A motivated alternative to phrase markers},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Aronoff:1978,
	Author = {Aronoff, Mark},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:43:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:44:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {299--303},
	Title = {An {E}nglish spelling convention},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Ard:1978,
	Author = {Ard, Josh},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:40:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:40:47 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {297--299},
	Title = {Word order templates in ergative languages},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Andor:1978,
	Author = {Andor, J{\'o}zsef},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:35:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:39:08 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {294--297},
	Title = {Some notes on stativeness},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Amastae:1978,
	Author = {Amastae, Jon},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:30:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:33:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {291--294},
	Title = {A Note on {N}atural {G}enerative {P}honology and {P}aradigm {L}eveling},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Castel:1978,
	Author = {du Castel, Bertrand},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:28:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:30:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {275--289},
	Title = {Form and interpretation of relative clauses in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Chomsky:1978,
	Author = {Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:26:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:27:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {268--274},
	Title = {A remark on contraction},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Andrews:1978,
	Author = {Andrews, Avery},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-13 15:00:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 15:28:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {261--268},
	Title = {Remarks on \emph{To} Adjunction},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {1978}}

@article{Wagner:2010,
	Abstract = {Generalizations about relative prosodic boundary strength are recursive. Initial evidence comes from the fragment of English consisting only of proper names and ``and'' and ``or.'' A systematic relation between the semantics, the syntactic combinatorics, and the prosodic phrasing of coordinate structures can be captured by recursively building up their prosody, in tandem with assembling their compositional meaning. Alternative edge-based approaches to prosodic phrasing fail to capture the recursive nature of the generalization, a result independent of whether or not prosodic representation itself is assumed to be recursive. The pattern generalizes beyond the grammar of coordination, despite two types of apparent counterexamples: Structures that are prosodically flat but syntactically articulated, and structures with an apparent outright mismatch between prosody and syntax. Closer inspection suggests that the syntax might actually be quite in tune with prosody. In both cases, natural language employs strategies to construe complex meaning with list-like structures rather than nested ones. The privileged status of lists may be due to processing factors.},
	Author = {Wagner, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:15:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:16:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {183--237},
	Title = {Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Levinson:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper addresses the compositionality puzzle presented by a class of `pseudo-resultative' predicates, such as tight in the sentence She braided her hair tight. The analysis proposed reveals that the modification involved also provides insight into the nature of the lexical roots of verbs and their role in compositional semantics. Pseudo-resultative predicates superficially resemble resultative secondary predicates and resultative adverbs. However, it is shown that they do not modify any `word' in the syntax. Rather, these predicates modify the root of the verb in a configuration which is licensed by the semantic type of the root and the structure of root creation verbs. The modification of such roots provides evidence that they are syntactically active, as proposed in the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993; Marantz 1997; Arad 2003). It is shown that the roots are syntactically well-behaved and can be modified just like other `larger' constituents. Syntactic parallels between the root creation verbs which license pseudo-resultative predicates and other structures further provide evidence for a syntactic decomposition of these verbs whereby the object is related to the root in a prepositional structure in a manner reminiscent of proposals for other classes of verbs in Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002).},
	Author = {Levinson, Lisa},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:12:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:14:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {135--182},
	Title = {Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Legate:2010,
	Abstract = {This article examines a construction in English which has hitherto escaped attention in the linguistic literature, whereby a declarative embedded clause is introduced by \emph{how} rather than \emph{that}. We investigate the properties of this construction, revealing that it consists of a definite DP, rather than a simple embedded CP.},
	Author = {Legate, Julie Anne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:10:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:12:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {121--134},
	Title = {On how \emph{how} is used instead of \emph{that}},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Deal:2010,
	Abstract = {Ergative case, the special case of transitive subjects, raises questions not only for the theory of case but also for theories of subjecthood and transitivity. This paper analyzes the case system of Nez Perce, a ``three-way ergative'' language, with an eye towards a formalization of the category of transitive subject. I show that it is object agreement that is determinative of transitivity, and hence of ergative case, in Nez Perce. I further show that the transitivity condition on ergative case must be coupled with a criterion of subjecthood that makes reference to participation in subject agreement, not just to origin in a high argument-structural position. These two results suggest a formalization of the transitive subject as that argument uniquely accessing both high and low agreement information, the former through its (agreement-derived) connection with T and the latter through its origin in the specifier of a head associated with object agreement (v). In view of these findings, I argue that ergative case morphology should be analyzed not as the expression of a syntactic primitive but as the morphological spell-out of subject agreement and object agreement on a nominal.},
	Author = {Deal, Amy Rose},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:08:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:10:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {73--120},
	Title = {Ergative Case and the transitive subject: a view from {N}ez {P}erce},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{DAlessandro:2010,
	Abstract = {In this paper, we present an analysis of the ``person-driven'' auxiliary-selection system of one variety of the Upper Southern Italo-Romance dialect Abruzzese, along with an account of the pattern of past participle agreement in this variety, which differs somewhat from what is found in more familiar Romance languages. Our account relies on the technical mechanisms of agreement as outlined in Chomsky (1995, 2001), in particular a variant of Chomsky's (2008) proposal regarding feature inheritance by non-phase heads of features belonging to phase heads, combined with Gallego's (2006) notion of phase-sliding. We also utilise some aspects of Mueller's (2004) analysis of ergativity, and propose an account of a typological generalisation regarding the absence of person-driven auxiliary selection first put forward in Kayne (2000:127) in the Germanic languages. To the extent that the analyses proposed successfully apply the mechanisms put forward in the recent versions of the minimalist program, the postulation of these mechanisms is supported by our analysis with evidence from a new empirical domain. We also offer some general speculations regarding auxiliary selection in general.},
	Author = {D'Alessandro, Roberta and Roberts, Ian},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:05:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:07:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {41--72},
	Title = {Past participle agreement in {A}bruzzese: Split Auxiliary Selection and the null-subject parameter},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Boneh:2010,
	Abstract = {The paper argues that clausal possession is to be decomposed into three distinct, independently attested, syntactic configurations, each associated with its own meaning. These include Location, represented as an ordinary small clause, the Part- Whole relation, which always has a complement structure within DP as its source, and an applicative structure ApplP, the source of (in)alienable possession, where humans are treated as special. The analysis we propose focuses on Palestinian Arabic and extends to English clausal possession and its realizations across HAVE and BE. Pales- tinian Arabic overtly distinguishes a number of ingredients which in other languages enter into possession less transparently: It marks Location and Part-Whole relations by distinct prepositions, it features a full-agreement/no-agreement distinction associated with scope, and, lacking HAVE, it keeps separate P and BE, the ingredients often assumed to enter into its composition. The picture which emerges is partly familiar and partly new. We argue that the notion possession is never linguistically encoded as such, since none of the underlying representations proposed is associated exclusively with possession. We also argue that the subject in possessive clauses is a derived subject with both HAVE and BE. We attribute the differences between Palestinian Arabic and English to a difference in their agreement systems, which in conjunction with Economy, forces P to extract from its PP, and leads to the formation of HAVE. If we are correct, the cross-linguistic distribution of HAVE and BE may further reduce to parametric differences in agreement systems.},
	Author = {Boneh, Nora and Sichel, Ivy},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-12 10:02:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-12 10:05:30 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--40},
	Title = {Deconstructing Possession},
	Volume = {28},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Kornfilt:1977a,
	Author = {Kornfilt, Jaklin},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:35:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:36:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {412--418},
	Title = {Against the universal relevance of the {S}hadow {P}ronoun {H}ypothesis},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Cinque:1977,
	Author = {Cinque, Guglielmo},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:32:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:33:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {299--412},
	Title = {The movement nature of left dislocation},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Rosenbaum:1977,
	Author = {Rosenbaum, Harvey},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:30:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:31:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {379--395},
	Title = {Zapotec gapping as counterevidence to some universal proposals},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Dresher:1977,
	Author = {Dresher, Bezalel Elan},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:22:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:24:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {351--378},
	Title = {Logical representations and linguistic theory},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Bellert:1977,
	Author = {Bellert, Irena},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:18:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:19:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {337--351},
	Title = {On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Liberman:1977,
	Author = {Liberman, Mark and Prince, Alan},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:17:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:18:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {249--336},
	Title = {On stress and linguistic rhythm},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Kiparsky:1977,
	Author = {Kiparsky, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:16:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:17:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {189--247},
	Title = {The rythmic structure of {E}nglish verse},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Sommerstein:1977,
	Author = {Sommerstein, Alan H.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 13:00:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:01:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {184--188},
	Title = {A nonargument for derivational history},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Rodman:1977,
	Author = {Rodman, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:58:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 13:00:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {181--184},
	Title = {Concerning the {NP} constraint},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Morreall:1977,
	Author = {Morreall, John S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:57:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:58:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {179--181},
	Title = {Postal's ``reminds''},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Kirsner:1977,
	Author = {Kirsner, Robert S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:56:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:57:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {173--179},
	Title = {On the passive of sensory verb complement sentences},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Joseph:1977,
	Author = {Joseph, Brian},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:55:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:56:25 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {169--173},
	Title = {On the cyclicity of extraposition-from-the claim},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Christie:1977,
	Author = {Christie, William M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:54:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:54:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {168--169},
	Title = {Help},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Carden:1977a,
	Author = {Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:53:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:54:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {163--168},
	Title = {Performatives and quantifiers},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Stevens:1977,
	Author = {Stevens, Alan M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:52:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:53:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {155--162},
	Title = {On local ordering in {S}undanese},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Postal:1977,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:45:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:52:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {141--154},
	Title = {About ``Nonargument'' for raising},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Keenan:1977a,
	Author = {Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:40:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:45:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {63--99},
	Title = {Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Dixon:1977a,
	Author = {Dixon, R. M. W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:38:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-14 11:48:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--34},
	Title = {Some phonological rules in {Y}idin$^{y}$},
	Volume = {8},
	Year = {1977}}

@article{Kohrt:1976,
	Author = {Kohrt, Manfred},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:33:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:34:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {729--732},
	Title = {Extraposition in {G}erman: evidence for global rules},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Sobin:1976,
	Author = {Sobin, Nicholas},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:31:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:32:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {726--728},
	Title = {Pragmatics of lurking},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Shanon:1976a,
	Author = {Shanon, Benny},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:30:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:31:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {724--726},
	Title = {Overseas calls},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Roca:1976,
	Author = {Roca, Ignacio M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:30:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:30:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {718--724},
	Title = {Ordering evidence from counterfeeding},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Maling:1976a,
	Author = {Maling, Joan M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:27:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:30:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {708--718},
	Title = {Notes on quantifier-postposing},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Morin:1976,
	Author = {Morin, Yves Charles},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:21:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:27:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {706--707},
	Title = {\emph{De Ces}: the lexicalization of a syntactic expression},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Reinhart:1976a,
	Author = {Reinhart, Tanya},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:19:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:20:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {697--705},
	Title = {Polarity {R}eversal: logic or pragmatics?},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Gouet:1976,
	Author = {Gouet, Michel},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:14:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:19:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {693--697},
	Title = {On a class of circumstantial deletion rules},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Cole:1976,
	Author = {Cole, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:11:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:13:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {686--693},
	Title = {Relativization in {H}ebrew: a reply to {G}rosu},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Enee:1976,
	Author = {c, Roger},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:09:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-14 11:52:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {677--686},
	Title = {A counterexample to the {Q} replacement and {COMP} substitution universals},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Cartmill:1976,
	Author = {Cartmill, Matt},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:06:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:08:47 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {675--677},
	Title = {Welsh vowel mutation: surface phonology and underlying forms},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Vago:1976a,
	Author = {Vago, Robert M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:02:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:06:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {671--675},
	Title = {More evidence for the feature [Grave]},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Sag:1976b,
	Author = {Sag, Ivan A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 12:01:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:02:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {664--671},
	Title = {A note on verb phrase deletion},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Zaenen:1976,
	Author = {Zaenen, Annie},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:58:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 12:00:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {652--664},
	Title = {The discovery of another island},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Iwakura:1976,
	Author = {Iwakura, Kunihiro},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:57:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:58:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {646--652},
	Title = {Another constraint on sentential subjects},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Grosu:1976,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:54:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:56:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {642--645},
	Title = {A note on subject raising to object and right node raising},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Abbott:1976a,
	Author = {Abbott, Barbara},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:51:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:53:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {639--642},
	Title = {Right {N}ode {R}aising as a test for constituenthood},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Schindler:1976,
	Author = {Schindler, Jochem},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:49:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:50:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {622--637},
	Title = {Diachronic and synchronic remarks on {B}artholomae's and {G}rassman's {L}aws},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Sag:1976a,
	Author = {Sag, Ivan A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:47:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:48:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {609--622},
	Title = {Pseudosolutions to the pseudoparadox: {S}anskrit diaspirates revisited},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Quicoli:1976,
	Author = {Quicoli, A. Carlos},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:45:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:46:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {583--607},
	Title = {Conditions on quantifier movement in {F}rench},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Lightfoot:1976,
	Author = {Lightfoot, David},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:43:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:43:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {559--582},
	Title = {Trace {T}heory and twice moved {NP}s},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Kiparsky:1976,
	Author = {Kiparsky, Paul and O'Neil, Wayne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-09 11:41:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-09 11:42:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {527--557},
	Title = {The phonology of {O}ld {E}nglish inflections},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Zonneveld:1976,
	Author = {Zonneveld, Wim},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:43:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:45:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {520--525},
	Title = {Destressing in {H}alle's {E}nglish stress rules},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Shanon:1976,
	Author = {Shanon, Benny},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:42:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:43:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {518--519},
	Title = {Semantic and syntactic features in the context of dreams},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Morreall:1976,
	Author = {Morreall, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:41:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:42:40 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {516--518},
	Title = {The nonsynonymy of \emph{Kill} and \emph{Cause to Die}},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{LeSourd:1976,
	Author = {LeSourd, Philip},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:40:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:41:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {509--516},
	Title = {\emph{Got} Insertion},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Joseph:1976,
	Author = {Joseph, Brian},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:34:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:40:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {503--508},
	Title = {{ENVY}: A functional analysis},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Bresnan:1976,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:29:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:32:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {485--501},
	Title = {Nonarguments for Raising},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Williams:1976,
	Author = {Williams, Edwin S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:14:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:20:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {463--484},
	Title = {Underlying Tone in {M}argi and {I}gbo},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Miller:1976,
	Author = {Miller, D. Gary},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:09:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:10:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {383--388},
	Title = {On {M}irror-{I}mage {R}ules},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Karttunen:1976,
	Author = {Karttunen, Frances},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:04:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:09:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {380--383},
	Title = {Nahuatl Nasals},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Vago:1976,
	Author = {Vago, Robert M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 14:01:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 14:04:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {243--263},
	Title = {Theoretical implications of {H}ungarian {V}owel {H}armony},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Hagege:1976,
	Author = {Hagege, Claude},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:49:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:50:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {198--201},
	Title = {Relative clause, center-embedding, and comprehensibility},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Epee:1976,
	Author = {Ep{\'e}e, Roger},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:46:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 14:54:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {193--198},
	Title = {On some rules that are not {S}uccessive {C}yclic in {D}uala},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Fiengo:1976,
	Author = {Fiengo, Robert and Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:41:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:46:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {182--191},
	Title = {Some issues in the {T}heory of {T}ransformations},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Postal:1976,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:39:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:41:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {151--191},
	Title = {Avoiding reference to subject},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Jackendoff:1976,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:38:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:39:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {89--150},
	Title = {Toward an {E}xplanatory {S}emantic {R}epresentation},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Chung:1976,
	Author = {Chung, Sandra},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:31:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:38:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {41--87},
	Title = {An {O}bject-{C}reating {R}ule in {B}ahasa {I}ndonesia},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Bresnan:1975a,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 13:25:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 13:30:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--40},
	Title = {On the form and functioning of transformations},
	Volume = {7},
	Year = {1976}}

@article{Wojcik:1975,
	Author = {Wojcik, Richard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:42:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:43:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {605--613},
	Title = {Wuzzywant},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Suner:1975,
	Author = {Su{\~{n}}er, Margarita},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:37:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:40:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {602--605},
	Title = {Spanish adverbs: support for the {P}honological {C}ycle},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Kaye:1975,
	Author = {Kaye, Jonathan},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:35:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:37:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {599--602},
	Title = {Klamath and {S}trict {C}yclicity},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Grosu:1975a,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:34:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:35:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {588--599},
	Title = {The position of fronted \emph{WH} phrases},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Dowty:1975,
	Author = {Dowty, David R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:28:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:34:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {579--588},
	Title = {The stative in the progressive and other essence/accident contrasts},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Liddell:1975,
	Author = {Liddell, Scott K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:27:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:28:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {568--578},
	Title = {What about the fact that ``on certain ambiguities'' says what it says?},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Fauconnier:1975a,
	Author = {Fauconnier, Gilles},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:24:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:27:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {555--567},
	Title = {Do quantifiers branch?},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Langendoen:1975,
	Author = {Langendoen, D. Terence},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:20:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:24:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {533-554},
	Title = {Finite-{S}tate {P}arsing of {P}hrase-{S}tructure {L}anguages and the status of {R}eadjustmen {R}ules in grammar},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Fodor:1975a,
	Author = {Fodor, J. D. and Fodor, J. A. and Garrett, M. F.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:18:09 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:20:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {515--531},
	Title = {The psychological unreality of semantic representations},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Yasui:1975,
	Author = {Yasui, Izumi},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:16:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:17:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {511--512},
	Title = {Can the {I}ndefinite {A}rticle be derived from \emph{One}?},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Schmerling:1975,
	Author = {Schmerling, Susan F.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:15:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:16:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {501--511},
	Title = {Imperative {S}ubject {D}eletion and some related matters},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Pullum:1975,
	Author = {Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:14:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:15:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {494--501},
	Title = {On a nonargument for the cycle in {T}urkish},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Lehrer:1975,
	Author = {Lehrer, Adrienne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:11:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:14:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {489--494},
	Title = {Complement-oriented adverbs},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Johnson:1975,
	Author = {Johnson, David E.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:10:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:11:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {481--489},
	Title = {Why delete tense?},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Herslund:1975,
	Author = {Herslund, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:08:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:10:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {475--481},
	Title = {A note on {O}ld {F}rench phonology: the source of [{\"u}]},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Grosu:1975,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:07:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:07:45 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {468--475},
	Title = {A note on analogy},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Phelps:1975,
	Author = {Phelps, Elaine},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:04:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:06:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {447--464},
	Title = {Sanskrit diaspirates},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Jackendoff:1975a,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:02:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:04:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {437--447},
	Title = {\emph{Tough} and the {T}race {T}heory of {M}ovement {R}ules},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Napoli:1975,
	Author = {Napoli, Donna Jo},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 12:00:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:01:42 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {413--435},
	Title = {A global agreement phenomenon},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Keyser:1975,
	Author = {Keyser, Samuel Jay},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:57:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 12:00:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {377--411},
	Title = {Metathesis and {O}ld {E}nglish phonology},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Silva:1975,
	Author = {Silva, Clare M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:54:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:57:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {346--350},
	Title = {Adverbial \emph{-ING}},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Roldan:1975,
	Author = {Rold{\'a}n, Mercedes},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:51:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 14:52:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {342--345},
	Title = {Clitic climbing and unrelated matters},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Martin:1975,
	Author = {Martin, John N.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:50:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:50:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {339--341},
	Title = {Karttunen on possibility},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Lieberman:1975,
	Author = {Lieberman, Philip},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:48:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:49:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {335--339},
	Title = {More discussion of {N}eanderthal speech},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Hinds:1975,
	Author = {Hinds, John and Okada, Nobuo},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:43:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:48:45 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {330--335},
	Title = {Backward pronominalization across coordinate structures},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Casson:1975,
	Author = {Casson, Ronald W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:40:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:43:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {323--329},
	Title = {Kinship semantics in linguistics and anthropology},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Armstrong:1975,
	Author = {Armstrong, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:38:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:40:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {317--323},
	Title = {A note on {I}nitial {M}utation in {M}odern {I}rish},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Truitner:1975,
	Author = {Truitner, Kenneth L. and Dunnigan, Timothy},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:33:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:37:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {301--316},
	Title = {Palatalization in {O}jibwa},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Allen:1975,
	Author = {Allen, Margaret Reece},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-07 11:26:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-07 11:33:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {181--201},
	Title = {Vowel mutation and word stress in {W}elsh},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Miller:1975,
	Author = {Miller, D. Gary},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 17:02:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 17:02:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {171--177},
	Title = {All rules precede all syntagmatic natural processes},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Kohrt:1975a,
	Author = {Kohrt, Manfred},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 17:01:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 17:02:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {167--171},
	Title = {A note on {B}ounding},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Hurford:1975,
	Author = {Hurford, James R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 17:00:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 17:01:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {166--167},
	Title = {A polite {S}urface {S}tructure {C}onstraint},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Hirschbuhler:1974,
	Author = {Hirschb{\"u}hler, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:59:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 17:00:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {155--165},
	Title = {On the source lefthand {NP}s in {F}rench},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Harnish:1975,
	Author = {Harnish, Robert M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:56:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:58:45 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {145--154},
	Title = {The argument from \emph{Lurk}},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Browne:1975,
	Author = {Browne, Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:51:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 14:39:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {136--140},
	Title = {Theme-{R}heme {S}tructure and {Z}en{\'e}yze {C}litics},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Allan:1975,
	Author = {Allan, Edward Jay},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:47:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:51:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {131--136},
	Title = {``Verbing things'' in {B}uem},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{Clements:1974,
	Author = {Clements, George N.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:44:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:46:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--51},
	Title = {Analogical reanalysis in syntax: the case of {E}we {T}ree-{G}rafting},
	Volume = {6},
	Year = {1975}}

@article{McCawley:1974a,
	Author = {McCawley, James D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:42:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:43:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {632--635},
	Title = {\emph{If} and \emph{Only If}},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Laferriere:1974,
	Author = {Laferriere, Martha},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:41:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:42:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {628--633},
	Title = {A note on {A}lternate {R}ule {O}rdering},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Knowles:1974,
	Author = {Knowles, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:40:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:41:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {622--629},
	Title = {On acceptable agrammatically},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Gross:1974,
	Author = {Gross, Maurice},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:35:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:40:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {620--622},
	Title = {A remark about plural agreement between determiner and noun},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Browne:1974,
	Author = {Browne, Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:35:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:35:42 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {619--620},
	Title = {On the topology of {A}naphoric {P}eninsulas},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Bresnan:1974,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:34:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:35:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {614--619},
	Title = {The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Bach:1974a,
	Author = {Bach, Emmon and Bresnan, Joan W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:31:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:32:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {609--614},
	Title = {``Sloppy identity'': an unnecessary and insufficient criterion for deletion rules},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Sag:1974,
	Author = {Sag, Ivan A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:29:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:30:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {591--607},
	Title = {The {G}rassman's {L}aw {O}rdering {P}seudoparadox},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Selkirk:1974,
	Author = {Selkirk, Elisabeth},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:26:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-13 14:36:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {573--590},
	Title = {French {L}iaison and the X$'$ Notation},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Lasnik:1974,
	Author = {Lasnik, Howard and Fiengo, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:25:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:26:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {535--571},
	Title = {Complement {O}bject {D}eletion},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kaufman:1974,
	Author = {Kaufman, Ellen S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:24:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:25:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {507--533},
	Title = {Navajo {S}patial {E}nclitics: a case for {U}nbounded {R}ightward {M}ovement},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Jackendoff:1974,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:22:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:24:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {481--505},
	Title = {A {D}eep {S}tructure {P}rojection {R}ule},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kuno:1974b,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:17:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:18:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {469--477},
	Title = {Lexical and {C}ontextual {M}eaning},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Grosu:1974a,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:16:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:17:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {464--469},
	Title = {On self-embedding and {D}ouble {F}unction},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Garvey:1974,
	Author = {Garvey, Catherine and Caramazza, Alfonso},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:15:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:16:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {459--464},
	Title = {Implicit causality in verbs},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Barkai:1974,
	Author = {Barka{\"\i}, Malachi},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:14:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:15:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {456--459},
	Title = {On duration and spirantization in {B}iblical {H}ebrew},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Ayres:1974,
	Author = {Ayres, Glenn},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:13:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:14:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {454--456},
	Title = {I daresay!},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Anderson:1974a,
	Author = {Anderson, Anders-B{\"o}rje},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:02:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:13:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {451--453},
	Title = {Against the {P}enthouse {P}rinciple},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Anderson:1974,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:02:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:02:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {445--451},
	Title = {On dis-agreement rules},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Cole:1974,
	Author = {Cole, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 16:00:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:02:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {425--443},
	Title = {Backward pronominalization and analogy},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Postal:1974a,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:58:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 16:00:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {367--424},
	Title = {On certain ambiguities},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Olofsson:1974,
	Author = {Olofsson, Arne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:57:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:57:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {320--322},
	Title = {Latin rules in {E}nglish phonology?},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Hurford:1974,
	Author = {Hurford, James R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:56:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:57:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {319--320},
	Title = {More \emph{gh}-words},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Grosu:1974,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:55:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:56:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {308--319},
	Title = {On the nature of the {L}eft {B}ranch {C}ondition},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Gee:1974,
	Author = {Gee, James Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:54:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:55:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {304--308},
	Title = {Jackendoff's {T}hematic {H}ierarchy {C}ondition and the {P}assive {C}onstruction},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Furbee:1974,
	Author = {Furbee, N. Louanna},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:52:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:54:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {299--304},
	Title = {Identity in gapping and the lexical insertion of verbs},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Brame:1974a,
	Author = {Brame, Michael K. and Bordelois, Ivonne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:49:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:52:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {282--298},
	Title = {Some controversional questions in {S}panish phonology},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Harris:1974a,
	Author = {Harris, James W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:48:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:50:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {271--282},
	Title = {On certain claims concerning {S}panish phonology},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Wilkinson:1974,
	Author = {Wilkinson, Robert W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:47:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:48:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {251--270},
	Title = {Tense/lax vowel harmony in {T}elugu: the influence of {D}erived {C}ontrast on {R}ule {A}pplication},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Moyne:1974,
	Author = {Moyne, John and Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:42:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:46:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {205--249},
	Title = {Subject Reduplication in {P}ersian},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kean:1974,
	Author = {Kean, Mary-Louise},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:42:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:42:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {179--203},
	Title = {The strict cycle in Phonology},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Hintikka:1974,
	Author = {Hintikka, Jaako},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:41:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:42:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {153--177},
	Title = {Quantifiers vs. {Q}uantification {T}heory},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Morris:1974,
	Author = {Morris, Donald H.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:39:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:40:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {144--150},
	Title = {Neanderthal speech},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kuno:1974a,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:38:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:39:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {137--144},
	Title = {A note on {S}ubject {R}aising},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kuno:1974,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:36:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:37:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {117--136},
	Title = {The position of relative clauses and conjunctions},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Hyman:1974,
	Author = {Hyman, Larry M. and Schuh, Russell G.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:35:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:38:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {81--115},
	Title = {Universals of {T}one {R}ules: evidence from {W}est {A}frica},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Harris:1974,
	Author = {Harris, James W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:33:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:34:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {61--80},
	Title = {Evidence from {P}ortuguese for the ``{E}lsewhere {C}ondition'' in Phonology},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Brame:1974,
	Author = {Brame, Michael K.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:30:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:38:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {39--60},
	Title = {The cycle in phonology: stress in {P}alestinian, {M}altese, and {S}panish},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Berman:1974,
	Author = {Berman, Arlene},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-06 15:19:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:34:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--38},
	Title = {On the {VSO} {H}ypothesis},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1974}}

@article{Kuno:1973b,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:51:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:59:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {363--385},
	Title = {Constraint on {I}nternal {C}lauses and {S}entential {S}ubjects},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Bresnan:1973a,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:49:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:51:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {275--343},
	Title = {Syntax of {C}omparative {C}lause {C}onstruction in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Reis:1973,
	Author = {Reis, Marga},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:19:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:20:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {261--271},
	Title = {Entanglement on {F}actives},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Hankamer:1973b,
	Author = {Hankamer, Jorge and Postal, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:19:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:19:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {261},
	Title = {Whose Gorilla?},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Katz:1973,
	Author = {Katz, Jerrold J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:18:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:19:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {256--260},
	Title = {On Defining ``Presupposition''},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Hudson:1973,
	Author = {Hudson, R. A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:17:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:18:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {251--256},
	Title = {Tense and time reference in {R}educed {R}elative {C}lauses},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Hamp:1973,
	Author = {Hamp, Eric P.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:16:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:16:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {246--251},
	Title = {A Semantic Archaism},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Grosu:1973a,
	Author = {Grosu, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:08:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:15:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {243--246},
	Title = {Another Remark on {D}ragging},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Ehrenkranz:1973,
	Author = {Ehrenkranz, Jean},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 12:06:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:11:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {241--242},
	Title = {Somes, Or = And},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{McCawley:1973,
	Author = {McCawley, James D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:57:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 12:06:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {221--240},
	Title = {External {NP}s versus Annotated Deep Structures},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Karttunen:1973a,
	Author = {Karttunen, Lauri},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:55:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:56:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {169--193},
	Title = {Presuppositions of Compound Sentences},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Brame:1973a,
	Author = {Brame, Michael K. and Bordelois, Ivonne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:53:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:54:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {111--168},
	Title = {Vocalic Alternations in {S}panish},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Vetter:1973,
	Author = {Vetter, David C.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:51:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:51:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {104--108},
	Title = {Someone Solves This Problem Tomorrow},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Sampson:1973,
	Author = {Sampson, Geoffrey},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:50:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:51:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {101--104},
	Title = {Duration in {H}ebrew Consonants},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Pulte:1973,
	Author = {Pulte, William},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:50:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:50:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {100--101},
	Title = {A Note on Gapping},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Morin:1973,
	Author = {Morin, Yves Ch.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:49:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:49:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {97--100},
	Title = {Tag Questions in {F}rench},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Haraguchi:1973,
	Author = {Haraguchi, Shosuke},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:45:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:46:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {95--97},
	Title = {``Dragging'' Reconsidered},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Hall:1973,
	Author = {Hall, Robert A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:42:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:45:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {93--94},
	Title = {The Transferred Epithet},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Contreras:1973,
	Author = {Contreras, Heles},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:41:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:42:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {83--88},
	Title = {Grammaticality Versus Acceptability: The {S}panish \emph{Se} Case},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Koutsoudas:1973,
	Author = {Koutsoudas, Andreas},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:38:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:40:42 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {69--81},
	Title = {Extrinsic Order and the Complex {NP} Constraint},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Halle:1973a,
	Author = {Halle, Morris},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:37:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:38:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--16},
	Title = {Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation},
	Volume = {4},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Thorne:1972,
	Author = {Thorne, James Peter},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:34:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:34:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {552--556},
	Title = {On Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Mithun:1972,
	Author = {Mithun, Marianne},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:33:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:34:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {549--552},
	Title = {The Respective Interpretations of Distribution and Sequence},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Milsark:1972,
	Author = {Milsark, Gary},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:32:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:33:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {542--549},
	Title = {Re: Doubl-ing},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Lilje:1972,
	Author = {Lilje, Gerald W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:31:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:31:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {540--542},
	Title = {Uninvited Inferences},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Langendoen:1972,
	Author = {Langendoen, D. Terence},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:30:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:31:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {538},
	Title = {When Optional Copula Deletion Isn't},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{King:1972,
	Author = {King, Robert D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:29:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:30:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {535--539},
	Title = {A Note on Opacity and Paradigm Regularity},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Fodor:1972,
	Author = {Fodor, Janet Dean},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:29:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:29:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {528--535},
	Title = {Beware},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Fiengo:1972,
	Author = {Fiengo, Robert and Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:28:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:29:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {528},
	Title = {On Nonrecoverable Deletion in Syntax},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Cruse:1972,
	Author = {Cruse, D. A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:27:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:28:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {520--528},
	Title = {A Note on {E}nglish Causatives},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Chvany:1972,
	Author = {Chvany, Catherine V.},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:27:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:27:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {516--520},
	Title = {On Movement Out of a Tensed {S}},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Chung:1972,
	Author = {Chung, Sandra},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:26:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:27:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {510--516},
	Title = {On Conjunct Splitting in Samoan},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Christie:1972,
	Author = {Christie, William},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:25:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:26:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {508--510},
	Title = {A Non-Non-Source for Comparatives},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Catlin:1972,
	Author = {Catlin, Jane-Carol and Catlin, Jack},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:15:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:23:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {504--508},
	Title = {Intentionality: A Source of Ambiguity in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Aissen:1972,
	Author = {Aissen, Judith and Hankamer, Jorge},
	Date-Added = {2010-04-02 11:13:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 11:14:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {501--504},
	Title = {Shifty Subjects: A Conspiracy in Syntax?},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kirsner:1972,
	Author = {Kirsner, Robert S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:42:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:43:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {489--499},
	Title = {About ``About'' and the Unity of ``Remind''},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kuno:1972a,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu and Robinson, Jane J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:39:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:41:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {463--487},
	Title = {Multiple Wh Questions},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Keenan:1972,
	Author = {Keenan, Edward L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:38:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:39:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {413--461},
	Title = {On Semantically Based Grammar},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Wilson:1972,
	Author = {Wilson, Deirdre},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:33:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:34:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {405--410},
	Title = {Presuppositions on Factives},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Walker:1972,
	Author = {Walker, Douglas C.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:32:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 09:42:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {402--404},
	Title = {On the Source of {O}ld {F}rench},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Sommerstein:1972a,
	Author = {Sommerstein, Alan H.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:31:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 09:42:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {400--402},
	Title = {An Implicationally Determined Rule in {G}reek},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Postal:1972e,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:30:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:31:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {396--400},
	Title = {A Few Factive Facts},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kisseberth:1972a,
	Author = {Kisseberth, Charles W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:27:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:30:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {393--396},
	Title = {An Argument Against the Principle of Simultaneous Application of Phonological Rules},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Householder:1972,
	Author = {Householder, Fred W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:25:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:27:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {392--393},
	Title = {A Problem in Rule Ordering??},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Contreras:1972,
	Author = {Contreras, Heles and Rojas, Jorge Nelson},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:22:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:25:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {385--392},
	Title = {Some Remarks on {S}panish Clitics},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Borkin:1972,
	Author = {Borkin, Ann},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:21:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:22:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {378--385},
	Title = {Two Notes on \emph{Want} and \emph{Desire}},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Barkai:1972,
	Author = {Barka{\"\i}, Malachi},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:19:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:37:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {377--378},
	Title = {On the Shiftability of Past Participles in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Akmajian:1972,
	Author = {Akmajian, Adrian},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:19:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:19:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {373--377},
	Title = {Getting Tough},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Postal:1972,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:17:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 09:41:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {349--371},
	Title = {Some Further Limitations of Interpretive Theories of Anaphora},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Schreiber:1972,
	Author = {Schreiber, Peter A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:16:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:17:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {321--347},
	Title = {Style Disjuncts and the Performative Analysis},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kuno:1972,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:15:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:16:45 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {269--320},
	Title = {Functional Sentence Perspective: A Case Study from {J}apanese and {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Anderson:1972,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:14:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:15:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {253--268},
	Title = {On Nasalization in {S}undanese},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Cornulier:1972a,
	Author = {de Cornulier, Benoit},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:08:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:09:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {249},
	Title = {Metalinguistic Autoreference},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Phelps:1972,
	Author = {Phelps, E.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:07:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:08:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {246--249},
	Title = {Catalan Vowel Reduction-Alpha, Braces, or Angled Brackets?},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Perlmutter:1973,
	Author = {Perlmutter, David M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:04:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:07:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {243--246},
	Title = {A Note on Syntactic and Semantic Number in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Otero:1972,
	Author = {Otero, Carlos},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 14:00:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:07:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {233--242},
	Title = {Acceptable Ungrammatical Sentences in {S}panish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Menn:1972,
	Author = {Menn, Lise},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:59:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:00:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {228--233},
	Title = {On Me},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Hudson:1972a,
	Author = {Hudson, R. A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:59:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:59:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {227},
	Title = {Evidence for Ungrammaticality},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kajita:1972,
	Author = {Kajita, Masaru},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:57:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:58:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {227--228},
	Title = {Transformationally Underivable Pseudo-Cleft Sentences},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Cornulier:1972,
	Author = {de Cornulier, Benoit},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:52:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:57:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {226--227},
	Title = {A Peeking Rule in {F}rench},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Browne:1972,
	Author = {Browne, E. Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:51:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:52:40 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {223--226},
	Title = {Conjoined Question Words and a Limitation on {E}nglish Surface Structures},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Postal:1972c,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:50:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:51:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {211--222},
	Title = {On Some Rules That Are Not Successive Cyclic},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Sommerstein:1972,
	Author = {Sommerstein, Alan H.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:49:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:50:40 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {197--209},
	Title = {On the So-Called Definite Article in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kuno:172,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:48:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:49:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {161--195},
	Title = {Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Hasegawa:1972,
	Author = {Hasegawa, Kinsuke},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:45:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:47:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {141--159},
	Title = {Transformations and Semantic Interpretation},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Smith:1972,
	Author = {Smith, Carlota S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:44:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:45:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {136--138},
	Title = {On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Postal:1972b,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:43:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:44:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {130--136},
	Title = {Two Remarks on Dragging},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Pope:1972,
	Author = {Pope, Emily},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:42:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-02 09:41:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {125--130},
	Title = {{GH}-Words},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Lakoff:1972a,
	Author = {Lakoff, George and Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:41:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:42:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {121--125},
	Title = {A Note on Anaphoric Islands and Causatives},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Jackendoff:1972a,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:40:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:41:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {119--120},
	Title = {Any vs. Every},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Hudson:1972,
	Author = {Hudson, R. A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:39:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:39:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {116--118},
	Title = {Why It Is That That That That Follows the Subject Is Impossible},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Gallagher:1972,
	Author = {Gallagher, Mary},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:38:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:39:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {115},
	Title = {The {S}quid, The {S}quib, and Others},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Bolinger:1972,
	Author = {Bolinger, Dwight},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:34:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:38:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {108--114},
	Title = {What Did John Keep the Car That Was In},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Maling:1972a,
	Author = {Maling, Joan M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:33:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:34:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {101-108},
	Title = {On ``Gapping and the Order of Constituents''},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Underhill:1972,
	Author = {Underhill, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:30:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:33:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {87--99},
	Title = {Turkish Participles},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Ross:1972,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:26:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:28:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {61--86},
	Title = {Doubl-ing},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Postal:1972a,
	Author = {Postal, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:21:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:25:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {34--59},
	Title = {A Global Constraint on Pronominalization},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Kisseberth:1972,
	Author = {Kisseberth, Charles W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 13:17:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 13:20:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--33},
	Title = {Cyclical Rules in {K}lamath Phonology},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1972}}

@article{Ross:1970f,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:38:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:39:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {146},
	Title = {\emph{Whether}-Deletion},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Postal:1970b,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M. and Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:37:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:38:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {145--146},
	Title = {A Problem of Adverb Preposing},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Zwicky:1970c,
	Author = {Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:36:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:37:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {145},
	Title = {\emph{Usually} and \emph{Unsually}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Morgan:1970,
	Author = {Morgan, Jerry L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:36:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:36:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {144--145},
	Title = {If and When},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Ross:1970e,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:35:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:36:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {144},
	Title = {Two Types of Idioms},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970g,
	Author = {Lakoff, George},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:34:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:35:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {140},
	Title = {Two Kinds of Nominalizations},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Hall:1970,
	Author = {Hall, R. M. R. and Hall, Beatrice L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:33:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:34:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {138--139},
	Title = {A Note on \emph{Will} vs. \emph{Going To}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Baker:1970a,
	Author = {Baker, C. L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:32:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:33:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {136--138},
	Title = {A Note on Scope of Quantifiers and Negation},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{King:1970a,
	Author = {King, Harold V.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:31:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:32:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {134--136},
	Title = {On Blocking Rules for Contraction in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Harris:1970,
	Author = {Harris, James W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:30:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:30:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {129--134},
	Title = {Sequences of Vowels In {S}panish},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970f,
	Author = {Lakoff, Robin T.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:29:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:30:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {128--129},
	Title = {Another Non-Source for Comparatives},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Ross:1970d,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert and Perlmutter, David M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:28:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:29:40 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {127--128},
	Title = {A Non-Source for Comparatives},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Green:1970,
	Author = {Green, Georgia M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:28:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:33:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {126--127},
	Title = {More {X} Than Not {X}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970e,
	Author = {Lakoff, George and Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:27:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:28:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {126},
	Title = {Comparatives and (N)ever},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Akmajian:1970b,
	Author = {Akmajian, Adrian and Jackendoff, Ray},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:25:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:27:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {124--126},
	Title = {Coreferentiality and Stress},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bresnan:1970a,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:19:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:25:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {122--123},
	Title = {An Argument Against Pronominalization},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bach:1970,
	Author = {Bach, Emmon},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:17:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:19:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {121--123},
	Title = {Problominalization},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Langendoen:1970,
	Author = {Langendoen, D. Terence},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:16:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:16:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {25--35},
	Title = {The `Can't Seem to' Construction},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Jakobson:1970,
	Author = {Jakobson, Roman},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 12:14:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:15:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--23},
	Title = {On the Verbal Art of {W}illiam {B}lake and Other Poet-Painters},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{McCawley:1970a,
	Author = {McCawley, James D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:48:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:49:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {278--280},
	Title = {One the Applicability of \emph{Vice Versa}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Fraser:1970a,
	Author = {Fraser, Bruce},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:47:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:48:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {277--278},
	Title = {Vice Versa},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Dixon:1970,
	Author = {Dixon, R. M. W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:46:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:35:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {273--276},
	Title = {Olgolo {S}yllable {S}tructure and What They Are Doing About It},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Ross:1970c,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:45:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:46:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {273},
	Title = {Metalinguistic Anaphora},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Browne:1970,
	Author = {Browne, Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:44:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:45:47 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {267--270},
	Title = {Noun Phrase Definiteness in Relatives and Questions: Evidence from {M}acedonian},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970b,
	Author = {Lakoff, George},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:44:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:44:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {265--267},
	Title = {A Derived Nominal Requiring a Sentential Source},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Fraser:1970,
	Author = {Fraser, Bruce},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:43:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:43:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {264--265},
	Title = {Idioms and Unspecified {NP} Deletion},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Zwicky:1970,
	Author = {Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:42:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:39:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {262--264},
	Title = {Class Complements In Phonology},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bresnan:1970,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:41:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:42:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {261--262},
	Title = {A Grammatical Fiction},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Ross:1970b,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:41:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:41:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {261},
	Title = {Chance},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Sampson:1970,
	Author = {Sampson, Geoffrey},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:40:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:41:08 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {257--260},
	Title = {Good},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Baker:1970,
	Author = {Baker, C. L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:31:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:38:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {169--186},
	Title = {Double Negatives},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Staal:1970,
	Author = {Staal, J. F.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:28:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:58:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {373--381},
	Title = {Performatives and Token-Reflexives},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Wilson:1970,
	Author = {Wilson, Deirdre},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:28:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:58:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {369--373},
	Title = {If That},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Browne:1970a,
	Author = {Browne, Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:25:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:55:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {359--363},
	Title = {More on Definiteness Markers: Interrogatives in {P}ersian},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970c,
	Author = {Lakoff, George},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:24:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:55:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {357--359},
	Title = {A Note on Vagueness and Ambiguity},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Schiebe:1970,
	Author = {Schiebe, Traugott},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:23:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:39:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {351--357},
	Title = {On a {G}lobal {D}erivational {C}onstraint Involving Quantifiers in {G}erman},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Perlmutter:1970d,
	Author = {Perlmutter, David M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:23:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:39:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {350},
	Title = {Relative {C}lauses with Split Antecedents},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bailey:1970,
	Author = {Bailey, Charles-James N.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:19:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:53:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {347--349},
	Title = {Toward Specifying Constraints on Phonological Metathesis},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Kisseberth:1970a,
	Author = {Kisseberth, Charles W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:18:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:52:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {337--345},
	Title = {Review Article},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Zwicky:1970a,
	Author = {Zwicky, Arnald M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:16:57 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:40:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {323--336},
	Title = {Auxiliary {R}eduction in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lieberman:1970,
	Author = {Lieberman, Philip},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:16:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:51:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {307--322},
	Title = {Towards a Unified Phonetic Theory},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Kisseberth:1970,
	Author = {Kisseberth, Charles W.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:11:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:50:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {291--306},
	Title = {On the Functional Unity of Phonological Rules},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Carden:1970,
	Author = {Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-31 11:09:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:50:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {281--290},
	Title = {A Note on Conflicting Idiolects},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Wolf:1970,
	Author = {Wolf, Meyer},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:53:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:14:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {561},
	Title = {A Note on the Surface Verb ``Remind''},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bowers:1970,
	Author = {Bowers, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:52:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:13:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {559--560},
	Title = {A Note on ``Remind''},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{McCawley:1970b,
	Author = {McCawley, James D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:52:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:13:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {556--559},
	Title = {Similar in That {S}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Carden:1970c,
	Author = {Carden, Guy and Miller, Anthony G.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:51:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:13:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {555--556},
	Title = {More Problominzalizations},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Zwicky:1970b,
	Author = {Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:49:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:12:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {549--555},
	Title = {Greek-letter Variables and the {S}anskrit \emph{ruki} Class},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Brame:1970,
	Author = {Brame, Michael K. and Lasnik, Howard},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:48:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:43:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {547--549},
	Title = {A {D}erived {N}ominal Requiring a Nonsentential Source},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Anderson:1970a,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:47:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:11:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {545--547},
	Title = {Two Notes on Split Antecedents},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Naro:1970,
	Author = {Naro, Anthony J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:46:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:11:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {543--545},
	Title = {A Note on Elision of {Y}od in {S}panish},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Lakoff:1970d,
	Author = {Lakoff, George},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:45:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:43:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {539--542},
	Title = {An Example of a Descriptively Inadequate {I}nterpretive {T}heory},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Hill:1970,
	Author = {Hill, Jane Hill},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:36:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:38:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {534--539},
	Title = {A Peeking Rules in {C}upe{\~{n}}o},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Carden:1970b,
	Author = {Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:35:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:09:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {527--533},
	Title = {A Problem with Primacy},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Watkins:1970,
	Author = {Watkins, Calvert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:34:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:44:08 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {525--527},
	Title = {A Case of {N}onchronological {R}ule {I}nsertion},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Kimball:1970,
	Author = {Kimball, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:32:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:05:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {511--523},
	Title = {``Remind'' Remains},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Huddleston:1970,
	Author = {Huddleston, Rodney},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:31:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:51:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {501--511},
	Title = {Some Remarks on {C}ase-{G}rammar},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Postal:1970a,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:29:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:51:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {439--500},
	Title = {On {C}oreferential {C}omplement {S}ubject {D}eletion},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Fodor:1970,
	Author = {Fodor, J. A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:28:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:02:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {429--438},
	Title = {Three Reasons for Not Deriving ``Kill'' from ``Cause to Die''},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Carden:1970a,
	Author = {Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:27:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:01:48 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {415--427},
	Title = {On Post-Determiner Quantifiers},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bierwisch:1970,
	Author = {Bierwisch, Manfred},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:26:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 12:01:25 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {397--414},
	Title = {Fehler-linguistik},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Anderson:1970,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:24:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:51:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {387--396},
	Title = {On {G}rassmann's {L}aw in {S}anskrit},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1970}}

@article{Bresnan:1971c,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:23:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 19:34:06 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {117--124},
	Title = {On ``A Non-Source for Comparatives''},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Cantrall:1971,
	Author = {Cantrall, William R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:22:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:23:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {116--117},
	Title = {Versatile, Vice},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Huddleston:1971a,
	Author = {Huddleston, Rodney},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:21:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:53:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {115--116},
	Title = {A Problem in {R}elative {C}lause {R}eduction},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Kravif:1971,
	Author = {Kravif, Diane},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:20:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:54:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {112--115},
	Title = {Weak Generative Capacity and {E}monds' {C}onstraint},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Grinder:1971c,
	Author = {Grinder, John T.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:19:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:20:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {110--112},
	Title = {A Global Constraint on Deletion},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Carstairs:1971,
	Author = {Carstairs, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:17:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:19:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {107--110},
	Title = {Syncategorematic Words},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Anderson:1971,
	Author = {Anderson, Stephen R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:16:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 19:33:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {103--107},
	Title = {On the Description of ``Apacalized'' Consonants},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Schreiber:1971,
	Author = {Schreiber, Peter A.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:15:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:16:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {83--101},
	Title = {Some Constraints on the Formation of {E}nglish Sentence Adverbs},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Pope:1971,
	Author = {Pope, Emily},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:15:30 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:15:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {69--82},
	Title = {Answers to Yes-No Questions},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Naro:1971,
	Author = {Naro, Anthony J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:14:45 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:15:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {57--67},
	Title = {Directionality and Assimilation},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Kaye:1971,
	Author = {Kaye, Jonathan D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:13:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:14:24 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {37--56},
	Title = {Nasal Harmony in {D}esano},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Jackendoff:1971b,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:12:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:13:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {21--35},
	Title = {Gapping and Related Rules},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Halle:1971,
	Author = {Halle, Morris},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:10:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:12:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--19},
	Title = {Remarks on {S}lavic Accentology},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Binnick:1971,
	Author = {Binnick, Robert I.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:09:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:09:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {260--265},
	Title = {Bring and Come},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Browne:1971,
	Author = {Browne, Wayles},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:08:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:09:04 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {259--260},
	Title = {Verbs and Unspecified {NP} Deletion},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Mittwoch:1971,
	Author = {Mittwoch, Anita},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:06:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:07:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {255--259},
	Title = {Idioms and Unspecified {NP} Deletion},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Maratsos:1971,
	Author = {Maratsos, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:04:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:04:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {254},
	Title = {A Note on {NP}'s Made Definite by Entailment},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Huddleston:1971,
	Author = {Huddleston, Rodney},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:03:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:04:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {252--255},
	Title = {A Comparative Tautology},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Andrews:1971b,
	Author = {Andrews, Avery D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:01:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:03:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {250--252},
	Title = {Against Conjunct Movement},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bolinger:1971b,
	Author = {Bolinger, Dwight},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:00:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:01:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {246--250},
	Title = {The Nominal in the Progressive},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Kimball:1971,
	Author = {Kimball, John and Aissen, Judith},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 16:00:12 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 16:00:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {241--246},
	Title = {I Think, You Think, He Think},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Kayne:1971,
	Author = {Kayne, Richard S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:56:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:57:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {237--241},
	Title = {A Pronominalization Paradox in {F}rench},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Vogt:1971,
	Author = {Vogt, Eric E.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:55:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:59:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {233--237},
	Title = {Caralan {V}owel {R}eduction and the {A}ngled {B}racket {N}otation},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Zwicky:1971,
	Author = {Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:53:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:55:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {223--233},
	Title = {In a Manner of Speaking},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Lieberman:1971,
	Author = {Lieberman, Philip and Crelin, Edmund S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:52:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:53:42 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {203--222},
	Title = {On the Speech of {Neanderthal} {Man}},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Grinder:1971b,
	Author = {Grinder, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:52:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 19:34:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {183--202},
	Title = {Chains of Coreference},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Baker:1971,
	Author = {Baker, C.L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:51:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:58:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {167--181},
	Title = {Stress Level and Auxiliary Behavior in {E}nglish},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bach:1971,
	Author = {Bach, Emmon},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:50:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:50:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {153--166},
	Title = {Questions},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Andrews:1971a,
	Author = {Andrews, Avery D.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:49:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:00:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {127--151},
	Title = {Case {A}greement of Predicate Modifiers in {A}ncient {G}reek},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Carden:1971,
	Author = {Carden, Guy},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:47:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:49:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {423--426},
	Title = {A Dialect Argument For Not-Transportation},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Schnitzer:1971,
	Author = {Schnitzer, Marc L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:45:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:46:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {422},
	Title = {A Problem in Rule Ordering},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Stevens:1971,
	Author = {Stevens, Alan M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:45:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:45:45 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {420--421},
	Title = {Fixed Morpheme Order},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Leben:1971,
	Author = {Leben, William R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:44:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 19:34:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {419--420},
	Title = {``Remind'' Once More},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Daniels:1971,
	Author = {Daniels, William J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:32:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:44:25 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {416--419},
	Title = {Greek-Letter Variables and the {Russian} \emph{{\v{s}}{\v{z}}c} Class},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bickerton:1971,
	Author = {Bickerton, Derek},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:29:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:32:08 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {415--416},
	Title = {When is a Singular Not?},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Fraser:1971,
	Author = {Fraser, Bruce},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:28:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:00:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {604--607},
	Title = {A Note on the {S}pray {P}aint {C}ases},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Baldi:1971,
	Author = {Baldi, Philip},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:26:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:28:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {603--604},
	Title = {Conjunction of Reflexives: Syntax or Semantics},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Andrews:1971,
	Author = {Andrews, Avery},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:25:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:26:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {602--603},
	Title = {Nonrestrictive Dream},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Green:1971a,
	Author = {Green, Georgia M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:24:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:25:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {601--602},
	Title = {Unspeakable Sentences: Book 2},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Dressler:1971,
	Author = {Dressler, Wolfgang},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:22:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:01:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {597--599},
	Title = {An Alleged Case of {N}onchronological {R}ule {I}nsertion: Floralis},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Ross:1971a,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:22:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:01:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {599--600},
	Title = {The Superficial Nature of {A}naphoric {I}sland {C}onstraints},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bresnan:1971,
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:20:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 14:03:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {589--597},
	Title = {A Note on the Notion ``Identity of Sense Anaphora''},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Sampson:1971,
	Author = {Sampson, Geoffrey},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:19:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:10:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {587--589},
	Title = {Subordinate {F}uture {D}eletion and Hyperclauses},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Lightner:1971,
	Author = {Lightner, Theodore M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:19:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:10:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {586--587},
	Title = {A Problem in {C}oexistent {P}honological {S}ystems},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bolinger:1971a,
	Author = {Bolinger, Dwight},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:18:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:19:00 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {584--586},
	Title = {A Further Note on the Nominal in the Progressive},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Wilkinson:1971a,
	Author = {Wilkinson, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:16:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:10:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {575--584},
	Title = {Complement {S}ubject {D}eletion and Subset Relations},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Cantrall:1971,
	Author = {Cantrall, William R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:15:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:16:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {573--575},
	Title = {Comparison and Presupposition},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Alford:1971,
	Author = {Alford, Danny},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:15:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:15:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {573},
	Title = {Kicking the Habit},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Grinder:1971a,
	Author = {Grinder, John},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:14:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:15:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {572--573},
	Title = {Double Indices},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Ross:1971,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:12:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:13:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {569--572},
	Title = {Mirror-Image Rules and {VSO} Order},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Karttunen:1971,
	Author = {Karttunen, Lauri},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:11:46 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:12:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {566--569},
	Title = {Counterfactual Conditionals},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Geis:1971,
	Author = {Geis, Michael L. and Zwicky, Arnold M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:10:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:11:40 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {561--566},
	Title = {On Invited Inferences},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Green:1971,
	Author = {Green, Georgia M.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:09:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:09:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {560--561},
	Title = {Unspeakable Sentences: Book 1},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Wilkinson:1971,
	Author = {Wilkinson, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:08:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:09:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {558--559},
	Title = {It Seems},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Harada:1971,
	Author = {Harada, S. I.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:06:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:08:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {546--557},
	Title = {A Non-Source for Reflexives},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Postal:1971a,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M. and Ross, John R.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:04:43 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:06:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {544--545},
	Title = {Tough Movement Si, Tough Deletion No!},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Morris:1971,
	Author = {Morris, Halle},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 15:01:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:04:34 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {540--544},
	Title = {Word Boundaries as Environments in Rules},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Chiba:1971,
	Author = {Chiba, Shuji},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 14:46:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 15:11:30 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {539--540},
	Title = {A Note on {E}quip-{NP} {D}eletion},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Black:1971,
	Author = {Black, Max},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 14:40:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 15:02:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {515--538},
	Title = {Review Article: The Structure of Symbol Systems},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Jackendoff:1971a,
	Author = {Jackendoff, Ray S.},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 14:37:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 14:43:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {479--514},
	Title = {Modal Structure in Semantic Representation},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Cook:1971,
	Author = {Cook, Eung-Do},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 14:29:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 14:31:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {465--478},
	Title = {Phonological Constraint and Syntactic Rule},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Bever:1970,
	Author = {Bever, Thomas G. and Langendoen, D. Terence},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-30 14:23:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-30 14:33:01 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {433--463},
	Title = {A Dynamic Model of the Evolution of Language},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1971}}

@article{Modesto:2010,
	Abstract = {In an article in this journal, Boeckx & Hornstein (2006a) present data from Brazilian Portuguese (BP) as an argument in favor of the Movement Theory of Control (MTC). In this reply, I show that the data presented by those authors do not necessarily argue for a movement analysis of BP finite subjects nor of nonfinite control. I also show that BP provides arguments against the MTC when inflected infinitives are considered. Inflected infinitives may be used in BP in partial control structures, which makes it explicit that a singular matrix argument may control a syntactically plural null subject and shows that these two positions cannot be related by movement. Additionally, I show that the MTC makes the wrong predictions when a language with inflected infinitives is considered.},
	Author = {Modesto, Marcello},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-29 10:07:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-29 10:08:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {78--96},
	Title = {What {B}razilian {P}ortuguese Says about {C}ontrol: Remarks on {B}oeckx \& {H}ornstein},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Watanabe:2010,
	Abstract = {This paper proposes that numerals are licensed by the feature [+/-augmented]. This proposal accommodates the dissociation of numerals from the plural morphology and accounts for the phenomenon of 1-deletion. The [+/-augmented] feature is located in the # head and selects a numeral in its specifier. In contrast to numerals and measure phrases accompanied by numerals, vague-quantity expressions are shown to be placed in a position higher than #P.},
	Author = {Watanabe, Akira},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-29 10:05:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-29 10:06:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {37--77},
	Title = {Vague {Q}uantity, {N}umerals, and {N}atural {N}umbers},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Georgi:2010,
	Abstract = {In this paper we argue that the concept of reprojection, often applied in the verbal domain, should be extended to the nominal domain. We develop an analysis according to which a moved N does not adjoin to a functional category; rather, it moves out of its projection and remerges with it. This movement is (indirectly) triggered by a certain kind of categorial probe feature that we call a ''Muenchhausen feature'' (Fanselow 2003). In this way, conceptual problems resulting from head movement conceived as adjunction of one head to another are avoided. Furthermore, one of the main arguments for D as the head of the nominal projection (namely, that evidence for N movement is also evidence for DP on top of NP) is refuted. In addition to showing that an NP approach to nominal projections is viable (given reprojection), we also provide one independent argument for it: the reprojection approach to NP structure turns out to automatically derive a core assumption that must otherwise be stipulated in the theories of word-order variation in nominal projections developed by Cinque (2005) and Abels & Neeleman (2006) (namely, that only those projections can undergo movement within nominal projections that contain N).},
	Author = {Georgi, Doreen and M{\"u}ller, Gereon},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-29 10:01:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-29 10:02:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--36},
	Title = {Noun-Phrase Structure by Reprojection},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2010}}}

@inproceedings{Gartner:2001,
	Author = {G{\"a}rtner, Hans-Martin},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of {WCCFL} 18},
	Date-Added = {2010-03-14 10:33:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-14 10:34:36 -0400},
	Title = {Phase-linking Meets {M}inimalism},
	Year = {2001}}

@article{Walker:2010,
	Author = {Walker, Rachel},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:58:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:59:45 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {169--179},
	Title = {Nonmyopic Harmony and the Nature of Derivations},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Niinuma:2010,
	Author = {Niinuma, Fumikazu},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:57:42 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:58:42 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {163--169},
	Title = {Across-the-Board Parasitic Gap Constructions in {R}omanian},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Jurgec:2010,
	Author = {Jurgec, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:54:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:56:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {149--161},
	Title = {Disjunctive Lexical Stratification},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Sobin:2010,
	Abstract = {English echo questions present numerous challenges to the analysis of interrogatives, including (a) simple wh-in-situ (You saw who?); (b) apparent Superiority violations (What did who see?); (c) apparent verb movement without wh-movement (Has Mary seen what?); and (d) requisite wide scope only for echo-question-introduced wh-phrases (underlined in these examples---only who in What did who see? is being asked about). Such apparently contrary features may be explained in terms of independently necessary scope assignment mechanisms and a complementizer that subordinates the utterance being echoed and ``freezes'' its CP structure. No norms of question formation are violated.},
	Author = {Sobin, Nicholas},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:53:22 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:54:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {131--148},
	Title = {Echo Questions in the {M}inimalist {P}rogram},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Boeckx:2010,
	Abstract = {This article discusses the challenges that Bobaljik and Landau (2009) pose to Boeckx and Hornstein's (2006) movement-based analysis of control in Icelandic. We show in detail that contrary to what Bobaljik and Landau claim, the movement theory of control (with a modification to accommodate quirky Case, a specialty of Icelandic) makes the right empirical cuts regarding the issues they raise, namely, (a) the differences in Case agreement between control and raising construc- tions, (b) the different patterns of Case transmission (un)available, and (c) the fact that allegedly Case-marked PROs are phonetically null. We argue that rather than being problematic, the data bearing on these issues actually provide independent support to the movement theory of control.},
	Author = {Boeckx, Cedric and Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:50:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:51:29 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {111-130},
	Title = {Icelandic {C}ontrol Really Is {A}-Movement: Reply to {B}obaljik and {L}andau},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Takano:2010,
	Abstract = {This article argues for two points: that scrambling out of a control clause patterns with scrambling out of a finite clause and that obligatory control is derived by movement of the controller. The argument is based on hitherto unnoticed facts about binding effects with scram- bling out of a control clause in Japanese. It is proposed that those facts can only be accounted for by looking at an interaction of long-distance scrambling and movement of the controller. It is also shown that the proposal has important consequences for the nature of scrambling, pronominal variable binding, and subject control.},
	Author = {Takano, Yuji},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:48:37 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:49:32 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {83--110},
	Title = {Scrambling and {C}ontrol},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Muller:2010,
	Abstract = {This article shows that a version of the Condition on Extraction Do- main (Huang 1982) can be derived from the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; Chomsky 2001, 2008) if the following assumptions are made: (a) All syntactic operations are driven by features of lexical items. (b) These features are ordered on lexical items. (c) All phrases are phases. (d) Edge features that trigger intermediate movement steps can only be added before the phase head becomes inert. Given (a--d), it follows from the PIC that extraction from XP is blocked if the operation that has merged XP is the final operation taking place in a phase: a last-merged specifier is a barrier because no edge feature can be inserted that might extract some item out of it; this induces a PIC violation on the following cycle. The analysis can be extended to cover freezing effects. Furthermore, it predicts the existence of the melting effect, illustrated in German and Czech: local scrambling in front of what would otherwise qualify as a last-merged specifier renders the specifier transparent for extraction. The most important assumption made here is that the timing of edge feature insertion is crucial (before vs. after in (d)). Accordingly, the analysis can be viewed as an argument supporting a strictly derivational organization of grammar.},
	Author = {M{\"u}ller, Gereon},
	Date-Added = {2010-02-07 10:46:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-02-07 10:47:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {35--82},
	Title = {On Deriving {CED} Effects from the {PIC}},
	Volume = {41},
	Year = {2010}}}

@article{Kroeger:2009,
	Abstract = {This commentary primarily addresses G{\"a}rtner's critique of the ``pseudo- cleft'' analysis for Malagasy. First, it is shown that this analysis is almost certainly correct for focus constructions in three other Western Malayo-Polynesian languages. Next, it is shown that certain unexpected semantic patterns observed in Malagasy (including the potential for strong quantifiers to occur within the focused predicate phrase, and the non-entailment of exhaustivity) hold in these other languages as well. Thus, the semantic arguments against the pseudo-cleft analysis for Malagasy are not conclusive. Finally, on the basis of comparative evidence from Tagalog, it is suggested that the structure of adjunct-focus in Malagasy may actually be quite different from that of subject-focus, even though both constructions must satisfy the same morphological constraints.},
	Author = {Kroeger, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:46:45 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:48:21 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {817--838},
	Title = {Malagasy clefts from a {W}estern {M}alayo-{P}olynesian perspective: Commentary on the paper by {H}ans-{M}artin {G}{\"a}rtner},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Gartner:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper explores the pros and cons of assimilating Malagasy ``Focusing'' No-Constructions (FNCs) to Temporal No-Constructions (TNCs), which arise from the combination of two full-fledged clauses. The particle no functions as a clause-linker introducing an adverbial clause. It is shown that a neo-Davidsonian semantics assimilating FNCs to TNCs can be developed. Among the attractive consequences of this is the possibility of giving pre-no quantifiers a standard (non predicative) semantics. The clause combining approach also squares well with the finding that the ``focusing'' nature of FNCs is less regular than often assumed. In particular, non-backgrounded (non-``presupposed'') no-clauses can be found. Among the drawbacks of a clause combining approach is its apparent inability to properly constrain ``binding'' relations between the two clauses. In particular, locality restrictions typical for movement relations are unpredicted. The paper discusses these features in some detail against the backdrop of rivaling movement and pseudocleft approaches. My hope is that it helps in clarifying their strengths and weaknesses. Also, I show that formal semantics is a useful, hitherto often neglected, tool with some potential of furthering our understanding the nature of Malagasy FNCs.},
	Author = {G{\"a}rtner, Hans-Martin},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:43:56 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:45:55 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {789--816},
	Title = {On the prospects of a clause combining approach to ``focusing'' \emph{no}-constructions in {M}alagasy},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hermon:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper is a critical review and discussion of a novel approach to de- riving typological universals directly from UG based principles and parameters. (See Potsdam 2009), this issue.) It points out the pluses and minuses of such a research program and provides additional examples from Western Malayo-Polynesian languages (Indonesian and Batak), which illustrate the issues involved in extending the approach to a larger number of languages.},
	Author = {Hermon, Gabriella},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:42:42 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:43:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {773--787},
	Title = {Langauge typology and universal grammar: a commentary on the paper by {E}ric {P}otsdam},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Potsdam:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper presents a research agenda for investigating possible implicational universals connecting the syntactic strategy that a verb-initial language uses to derive verb-initial word order (verb raising, VP raising, verb lowering, right hand subjects, etc.) and its strategy for forming wh-questions (wh-in-situ, clefting, wh-fronting, etc.). The Austronesian language family, with its over 1000 members, is taken as a starting point for the investigation because of its abundance of verb-initial languages. The existing analyses of Austronesian languages support one potential universal in this domain: Languages that derive verb-initial word order by VP raising do not have wh-movement. Possible theoretical explanations for this pattern are evaluated. The paper then considers Fijian, a potential counterexample. Further analysis suggests that Fijian is unlikely to be a problem, however, it highlights a main claim of the paper: Careful, in-depth analyses are required to yield robust results in such a typological study.},
	Author = {Potsdam, Eric},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:41:00 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:41:58 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {737--771},
	Title = {Austronesian verb-initial languages and \emph{wh}-question strategies},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Keenan:2009,
	Abstract = {In his article in this volume, Joseph Sabbagh treats existential there sentences (henceforth, ET sentences) as a type of structure whose expression in different languages may vary. Taking the first step in constructing a typology of ET sentences, he claims that ET sentences in the Western Austronesian language Tagalog are built from an unaccusative predicate, whereas ET sentences in English, according to the proposals he cites, are constructed from small clauses. Both analyses have also been proposed for ET sentences in other Western Austronesian languages. For instance, in Malagasy, a Western Austronesian language spoken in Madagascar, Pearson (1996) and Paul (2000) defend a small clause analysis of ET sentences, whereas Polinsky (2008) argues persuasively for an analysis involving an unaccusative predicate. At various points in this commentary, I try to push the typology of ET further by suggesting possible typological correlates of their form.},
	Author = {Keenan, Edward L.},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:39:10 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:40:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {721--735},
	Title = {Existential sentences in {T}agalog: commentary on the paper by {J}oseph {S}abbagh},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Sabbagh:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates the syntax of existential sentences in Tagalog. Itargues that existential sentences in Tagalog are formed on the basis of an unaccusative predicate that selects a noun phrase as its sole internal argument. The positive arguments for this analysis also argue against a small clause analysis of existential sentences in Tagalog (as proposed, for other languages, in work by Stowell 1978, 1981; Chomsky 1981, 1986; Safir 1985; Hoekstra and Mulder 1990; Lasnik 1992; Moro 1997; among others). Additionally, this paper argues for an analysis of the definiteness effect in which the restriction follows from the requirement that the noun phrase that occurs in existential sentences (i.e., the ``pivo'') be a property denoting object. This proposal not only accounts for the class of noun phrases that are acceptable in Tagalog existential sentences, but also helps to shed light on various morphosyntactic aspects of existential sentences in the language, relating --- in particular --- to their impersonal clause structure, morphological case, as well as other properties.},
	Author = {Sabbagh, Joseph},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-24 09:36:21 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-24 09:38:01 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {675--719},
	Title = {Existential sentences in {T}agalog},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@phdthesis{Albizu:1977,
	Address = {Los Angeles},
	Author = {Albizu, P.},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-19 07:16:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-19 07:17:02 -0500},
	School = {University of Southern California},
	Title = {The syntax of Person Agreement},
	Year = {1977}}

@phdthesis{Bonet:1991,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Bonet, Eulalia},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-19 07:15:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-19 07:16:01 -0500},
	School = {Massachusetts Institute of Technology},
	Title = {Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in {R}omance},
	Year = {1991}}

@phdthesis{Noyer:1992,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Noyer, Rolf},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-19 06:21:47 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-19 06:22:30 -0500},
	School = {Massachusetts Institute of Technology},
	Title = {Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure},
	Year = {1992}}

@article{Chemla:2009,
	Abstract = {Some theories assume that sentences like (i) with a presupposition trigger in the scope of a quantifier carry an existential presupposition, as in (ii); others assume that they carry a universal presupposition, as in (iii).
(i) No student knows that he is lucky. 
(ii) Existential presupposition: At least one student is lucky. 
(iii) Universal presupposition: Every student is lucky.
This work is an experimental investigation of this issue in French. Native speakers were recruited to evaluate the robustness of the inference from (i) to (iii). The main result is that presuppositions triggered from the scope of the quantifier aucun`no' are in fact universal. But the present results also suggest that the presuppositions triggered from the scope of other quantifiers depend on the quantifier. This calls for important changes in the main theories of presupposition projection.},
	Author = {Chemla, Emmanuel},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:22:28 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:23:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {299--340},
	Title = {Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Aihara:2009,
	Abstract = {It has long been observed that the superlative construction, exemplified by John climbed the highest mountain, has two readings. On the absolute reading, the heights of the relevant mountains in a relevant context are compared; on the com- parative reading, relevant climbers' achievements of mountain climbing are compared (Szabolcsi, Comparative superlatives, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 1986). Two theories have been proposed regarding this ambiguity. One theory holds that it results from movement of the superlative morpheme -est (movement theory) (Heim, Association with focus, Doctoral Dissertation, 1985, Notes on superlatives, 1999; Szabolcsi 1986). The other theory holds that the ambiguity is derived by assignment of different values to the context variable C, keeping a single LF structure where -est stays in situ (in-situ theory) (Farkas and Kiss, Nat Lang Linguist Theory 18:417--455, 2000; Sharvit and Stateva, Linguist Philos 25:453--504, 2002). As is pointed out by Heim (1999), a choice between these theories is hard to make based solely on English. Through an investigation of Japanese superlative constructions, this paper argues that, in Japanese at least, a movement theory is required.},
	Author = {Aihara, Masahiko},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:21:00 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:21:39 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {341--367},
	Title = {The scope of \emph{-est}: evidence from {J}apanese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Saebo:2009,
	Abstract = {The meaning of have is notoriously difficult to define; sometimes it seems to denote possession, but often, it seems to denote nothing, only to com- plicate composition. This paper focuses on the cases where have embeds a small clause, proposing that all it accomplishes is abstraction, turning the small clause into a predicate. This analysis is extended to the cases where have appears to embed DPs: These objects are interpreted as small clauses as well, with implicit predicates denoting possession or---with relational nouns---nothing.},
	Author = {S{\ae}b{\o}, Kjell Johan},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:19:20 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:20:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {369--397},
	Title = {Possession and pertinence: the meaning of \emph{have}},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Wulf:2009,
	Abstract = {The progressive in English appears to be inherently modal, due to what Dowty (Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ, 1979) terms the imperfective paradox. In truth-conditional accounts, the literal truth of a clause with the modal progressive hinges on the possibility of the described outcome. The clause's truth under such accounts has also been tacitly assumed to describe its felicitous use. Two challenges for this strategy are discussed. First, a progressive clause exhibiting the imperfective paradox can occur felicitously even when the described outcome is not possible. Second, a progressive clause exhibiting the paradox can occur felicitously with an accompanying unless-clause, yet the analysis of unless-clauses directly contradicts the modal analysis of the truth-conditional behavior of the progressive clause in such cases. If the analysis of unless is not flawed, then the modal pro- gressive will require reanalysis.},
	Author = {Wulf, Douglas J.},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:18:00 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:18:35 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {205--218},
	Title = {Two new challenges for the modal account of the progressive},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Reich:2009,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I argue on empirical grounds that (VL-initial) Asymmetric Coordination in German cannot be reduced to a syntactic structure of the form [if S1, then S2], but rather needs to be analyzed as some kind of adjunction to the if-clause, i.e., along the lines of [[if S1] and S2]. This conclusion gives rise to an apparent mismatch between syntactic structure (narrow scope of if) and semantic interpretation (wide scope of if). To resolve this paradoxical situation, I propose a compositional semantics for conditionals that is based on the idea that (indexed) if is to be construed as some kind of anaphor (variable) that ranges over objects of type modal base picking up a modal background in the actual context. Even though this analysis assigns a non-vacuous semantics to the complementizer if, it is still com- patible with the syntax of Asymmetric Coordination in German, and, in contrast to alternative accounts, avoids the generation of non-existent distributive readings.},
	Author = {Reich, Ingo},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:16:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:16:48 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {219--244},
	Title = {What Asymmetric Coordination in {G}erman tells us about the syntax and semantics of conditionals},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Magri:2009,
	Abstract = {Predicates such as tall or to know Latin, which intuitively denote permanent properties, are called individual-level predicates. Many peculiar prop- erties of this class of predicates have been noted in the literature. One such property is that we cannot say #John is sometimes tall. Here is a way to account for this property: this sentence sounds odd because it triggers the scalar implicature that the alternative John is always tall is false, which cannot be, given that, if John is sometimes tall, then he always is. This intuition faces two challenges. First: this scalar implicature has a weird nature, since it must be surprisingly robust (other- wise, it could be cancelled and the sentence rescued) and furthermore blind to the common knowledge that tallness is a permanent property (since this piece of common knowledge makes the two alternatives equivalent). Second: it is not clear how this intuition could be extended to other, more complicated properties of individual-level predicates. The goal of this paper is to defend the idea of an implicature-based theory of individual-level predicates by facing these two chal- lenges. In the first part of the paper, I try to make sense of the weird nature of these special mismatching implicatures within the recent grammatical framework for scalar implicatures of Chierchia (Structures and beyond, 2004) and Fox (2007). In the second part of the paper, I show how this implicature-based line of reasoning can be extended to more complicated properties of individual-level predicates, such as restrictions on the interpretation of their bare plural subjects, noted in Carlson (Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1977), Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3.1: 1--29, 1977), and Fox (Natural Language Semantics 3: 283--341, 1995); restrictions on German word order, noted in Diesing (Indefinites, 1992); and restrictions on Q-adverbs, noted in Kratzer (The Generic Book, ed. Carlson and Pelletier, 125--175, 1995).},
	Author = {Magri, Giorgio},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:14:22 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:15:23 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {245--297},
	Title = {A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Zucchi:2009,
	Abstract = {In Italian Sign Language (LIS), when past or future time adverbs are present, the signs for verbs exhibit the same manual configurations whether the sentence reports a past event or a future event. Facts of this kind, also observed for American Sign Language (ASL) and other sign languages, have led some authors (Friedman, among others) to conclude that these languages, on a par with spoken languages like Chinese, lack grammatical tense. Neidle et al. and Jacobowitz and Stokoe have challenged this view for ASL and have argued that ASL sentences contain tense markers. I present some data showing that LIS verbs inflect for tense. I argue, moreover, that the apparent lack of tense inflection when LIS past and future time adverbs are present is due to the fact that these adverbs shift the s-point and that LIS past and future tenses are absolute tenses. I provide a formal account of the LIS tense system based on these assumptions. The account is implemented in Heim's analysis of tense.},
	Author = {Zucchi, Sandro},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:13:01 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:13:27 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {99--139},
	Title = {Along the time line},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Yatsushiro:2009,
	Abstract = {The existential and universal quantifiers in Japanese both consist of two morphemes: an indeterminate pronoun and a quantificational suffix. This paper examines the distributional characteristics of these suffixes (ka for the existential quantifier and mo for the universal quantifier). It is shown that ka can appear in a wider range of structural positions than mo can. This difference receives explana- tion on semantic grounds. I propose that mo is a generalized quantifier. More specifically, I assume that the phrase headed by mo is of type hha; ti; ti. Because of its type, mo cannot appear in certain structural positions without causing type mismatch. Ka, on the other hand, is a choice function variable of type ha=t; ai, and due to its type, its distribution is not as restricted. One of the consequences of this analysis is that there are no quantifier raising or type shifting operations in Japanese that would adequately obviate type mismatch.},
	Author = {Yatsushiro, Kazuko},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:11:34 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:12:45 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {141--173},
	Title = {The distribution of quantificational suffixes in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Morzycki:2009,
	Abstract = {Degree readings of size adjectives, as in big stamp-collector, cannot be explained away as merely the consequence of some extragrammatical phenomenon. Rather, this paper proposes that they actually reflect the grammatical architecture of nominal gradability. Such readings are available only for size adjectives in attrib- utive positions, and systematically only for adjectives that predicate bigness. These restrictions can be understood as part of a broader picture of gradable NPs in which adnominal degree morphemes---often overt---play a key role, analogous to their role in the extended AP. Size adjectives acquire degree readings through a degree morpheme similar to the one that licenses AP-modifying measure phrases. Its syntax gives rise to positional restrictions on the availability of these readings, and the semantics of degree measurement interacts with the scale structure of size adjectives to give rise to restrictions on the adjective itself.},
	Author = {Morzycki, Marcin},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:09:58 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:10:47 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {175--203},
	Title = {Degree modification of gradable nouns: size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Lin:2009a,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that superiority comparatives in Mandarin Chinese are all phrasal comparatives that can be directly interpreted, and makes a new suggestion of taking the ba-phrase (`compare-phrase') to be an adjunct and one constituent, but with ba-shells. This syntactic analysis allows one to combine into one phrase various compared constituents that would otherwise not be analyzed as forming a phrase by themselves. Semantically, in extension of work by Heim as well as Bhatt and Takahashi, ba is taken to compare two sequences of arguments of a gradable predicate along the dimension given by that predicate. It is also suggested that comparatives across languages may be subject to three parameters: (i) argument-dependent comparison vs. non-argument dependent comparison, (ii) phrasal comparison vs. clausal comparison, and (iii) monoadic comparison vs. dyadic comparison.},
	Author = {Lin, Jo-Wang},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:08:09 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:08:59 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--27},
	Title = {Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hallman:2009,
	Abstract = {Proportional quantification and progressive aspect interact in English in revealing ways. This paper investigates these interactions and draws conclusions about the semantics of the progressive and telicity. In the scope of the progressive, the proportion named by a proportionality quantifier (e.g. most in The software was detecting most errors) must hold in every subevent of the event so described, indicating that a predicate in the scope of the progressive is interpreted as an internally homogeneous activity. Such an activity interpretation is argued to be available for telic predicates (e.g. cross the street) because these receive a partitive interpretation except in combination with a completive operator, which asserts that the event so described has culminated. The obligatoriness of the completive operator in the preterit is shown to parametrically distinguish those languages that show completion entailments in the preterit, e.g. English, from those that do not, e.g. Malagasy, Hindi, and Japanese.},
	Author = {Hallman, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:06:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:07:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {29--61},
	Title = {Proportions in time: interactions of quantification and aspect},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hackl:2009,
	Abstract = {Proportional quantifiers have played a central role in the development of formal semantics because they set a benchmark for the expressive power needed to describe quantification in natural language (Barwise and Cooper Linguist Philos 4:159--219, 1981). The proportional quantifier most, in particular, supplied the initial motivation for adopting Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT) because its meaning is definable as a relation between sets of individuals, which are taken to be semantic primitives in GQT. This paper proposes an alternative analysis of most that does not treat it as a lexical item whose meaning is accessible without the help of compositional processes. Instead, proportional most is analyzed as the superlative of many (cf. Bresnan Linguist Inq 4(3):274--344, 1973). Two types of empirical evidence are presented in support of this view, both exploiting the fact that only a decompositional analysis of proportional quantifiers provides the means to generate different logical forms for seemingly equivalent statements of the form most A B and more than half of the A B.},
	Author = {Hackl, Martin},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:05:06 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:06:10 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {63--98},
	Title = {On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: \emph{most} versus \emph{more than half}},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Nouwen:2008,
	Abstract = {The paper concerns the expression of non-strict comparison, focusing in particular on constructions of the form [no(t) . . .-er than] in modified numerals. The main empirical finding is the observation that negated comparatives contrast with regular comparatives in that the former but not the latter can give rise to (scalar) implicatures. It is shown that such a contrast falls out of theories of exhaustive interpretation that claim alternatives to form dense scales. An important result is that the paper sharpens the desiderata for theories of exhaustification.},
	Author = {Nouwen, Rick},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:03:32 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:04:16 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {271--295},
	Title = {Upper-bound \emph{no more}: the exhaustive interpretation of non-strict comparison},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Van-Rooij:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper, Universal any and Negative Polarity Item any are uniformly analyzed as `counterfactual' donkey sentences (in disguise). Their difference in meaning is reduced here to the distinction between strong and weak readings of donkey sentences. It is shown that this explains the universal and existential character of Universal- and NPI-any, respectively, and the positive and negative contexts in which they are licensed. Our uniform analysis extends to the use of any in command and permission sentences. It predicts that whereas the use of any in permission sentences is licensed and gives rise to a universal reading, it is not licensed in command sentences.},
	Author = {Van Rooij, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 12:02:00 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:02:40 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {297--315},
	Title = {Towards a uniform analysis of \emph{any}},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Rullmann:2008,
	Abstract = {Modals in Statimcets (Lillooet Salish) show two differences from their counterparts in English. First, they have variable quantificational force, systematically allowing both possibility and necessity interpretations; and second, they lexically restrict the conversational background, distinguishing for example between deontic and (several kinds of) epistemic modality. We provide an analysis of the Statimcets modals according to which they are akin to specific indefinites in the nominal domain. They introduce choice function variables which select a subset of the accessible worlds. Following Klinedinst, we assume distributivity over the resulting set of worlds. Statimcets modals thus receive a uniform interpretation as (distributive) pluralities. The appearance of variability in modal force arises because the choice function can select a larger or smaller subset of accessible worlds. Finally, we discuss the implications of our analysis for the investigation of modal systems in other languages.},
	Author = {Rullmann, Hotze and Matthewson, Lisa and Davis, Henry},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:59:50 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 12:01:04 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {317--357},
	Title = {Modals as distributive indefinites},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kroll:2008,
	Abstract = {The problem of indistinguishable participants is a well-known problem for D-type theories of donkey pronouns. Recently, Paul Elbourne has offered a D-type theory that purports to dissolve the problem of indistinguishable participants. I argue against Elbourne's solution.},
	Author = {Kroll, Nicky},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:58:27 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:59:02 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {359--372},
	Title = {On bishops and donkeys},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Gualmini:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper focuses on children's interpretation of sentences containing negation and a quantifier (e.g., The detective didn't find some guys). Recent studies suggest that, although children are capable of accessing inverse scope interpretations of such sentences, they resort to surface scope to a larger extent than adults. To account for children's behavioral pattern, we propose a new factor at play in Truth Value Judgment tasks: the Question--Answer Requirement (QAR). According to the QAR, children (and adults) must interpret the target sentence that they evaluate as an answer to a question that is made salient by the discourse.},
	Author = {Gualmini, Andrea and Hulsey, Sarah and Hacquard, Valentine and Fox, Danny},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:56:23 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:57:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {205--237},
	Title = {The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Moltmann:2008,
	Abstract = {The complement of transitive intensional verbs, like any nonreferential complement, can be replaced by a `special quantifier' or `special pronoun' such as something, the same thing, or what. In previous work on predicative complements and that-clauses I argued that special quantifiers and pronouns introduce entities that would not have occurred in the semantic structure of the sentence without the special quantifier, entities that one would refer to with the corresponding nominalization. Thus something in John thinks something or the same thing in John thinks the same thing as Mary ranges not over propositions, but rather over entities of the sort `John's thought that S' or `the thought that S', without those entities acting as arguments of the think-relation. Despite initial apparent lack of evidence for this view for transitive verbs like need, a closer inspection of a greater range of data gives in fact further support for the `Nominalization Theory' of special quantifiers, once `nominalization' is viewed in a suitably extended and flexible way.},
	Author = {Moltmann, Friederike},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:55:01 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:55:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {239--270},
	Title = {Intensional verbs and their intentional objects},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Beck:2008,
	Author = {Beck, Sigrid and Crnic, Luka and G{\"o}tz, Thilo},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:53:23 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:54:05 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {111--114},
	Title = {Ruin and restitution},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Alonso-Ovalle:2008,
	Abstract = {The exclusive component of unembedded disjunctions is standardly derived as a conversational implicature by assuming that or forms a lexical scale with and. It is well known, however, that this assumption does not suffice to determine the required scalar competitors of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts (McCawley, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (But were ashamed to ask). Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1993, p. 324; Simons, ``Or'': Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1998). To solve this, Sauerland (Linguist Philos 27(3): 367--391, 2004) assumes that or forms a lexical scale with two otherwise unattested silent connectives (L and R) that retrieve the left and right terms of a disjunction. A number of recent works have pro- posed an Alternative Semantics for indefinites and disjunction to account for their interaction with modals and other propositional operators (Kratzer and Shimoyama, In: Otsu Y (ed) The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Confer- ence on Psycholinguistics. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp. 1--25, 2002; Aloni, In: Weisgerber M (ed) Proceedings of the Conference ``SuB7---Sinn und Bedeutung''. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114. Konstanz, pp. 28--37, 2003; Simons, Nat Lang Seman- tics 13: 271--316, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle, Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2006). We note that the McCawley--Simons problem does not arise in an Alternative Semantics, if we assume that the set of pragmatic competitors to a disjunction is the closure under intersection of the set of propositions that it denotes. An adaptation of the strengthening mechanism presented in Fox (In: Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. MacMillan, Palgrave, pp. 71--120, 2007) allows for the derivation of the exclusive compo- nent of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts without having to rely on the L and R operators. The proposal extends to the case of disjunctions with logically dependent disjuncts.},
	Author = {Alonso-Ovalle, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:51:47 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:52:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {115--128},
	Title = {Innocent exclusion in an {A}lternative {S}emantics},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kissine:2008,
	Abstract = {In opposition to a common assumption, this paper defends the idea that the auxiliary verb will has no other semantic contribution in contemporary English than a temporal shift towards the future with respect to the utterance time. Strong reasons for rejecting the idea that will quantifies over possible worlds are presented. Given the adoption of Lewis's and Kratzer's views on modality, the alleged `modal' uses of will are accounted for by a pragmatic mechanism which restricts the domain of the covert epistemic necessity operator scoping over the sentence.},
	Author = {Kissine, Mikhail},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:50:23 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:50:59 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {129--155},
	Title = {Why \emph{will} is not a modal},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Prete:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I argue that the temporal connective prima (`before') is a comparative adverb. The argument is based on a number of grammatical facts from Italian, showing that there is an asymmetry between prima and dopo (`after'). On the ground of their divergent behaviour, I suggest that dopo has a different grammatical status from prima. I propose a semantic treatment for prima that is based on an independently motivated analysis of comparatives which can be traced back to Seuren (in: Kiefer and Ruwet (eds.) Generative grammar in Europe, 1973). Dopo is analyzed instead as an atomic two-place predicate which contributes a binary relation over events to the sentence meaning. The different semantic treatments of the two connectives provide an explanation for the grammatical asymmetries considered at the outset; interestingly, they also shed some light on other asymmetries between prima and dopo, which are known to hold for the English temporal connectives before and after as well: these asymmetries are related to the veridicality properties, the distribution of NPIs, and the logical properties of these connectives first de- scribed in Anscombe (Philos Rev 73:3--24, 1964).},
	Author = {Prete, Fabio Del},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:48:44 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:49:38 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {157--203},
	Title = {A non-uniform semantic analysis of the {I}talian temporal connectives \emph{prima} and \emph{dopo}},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Marti:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper I provide a decompositional analysis of three kinds of plural indefinites in two related languages, European Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. The three indefinites studied are bare plurals, the unos (Spanish)/ uns (Portuguese) type, and the algunos (Spanish)/alguns (Portuguese) type. The paper concentrates on four properties: semantic plurality, positive polarity, partitivity, and event distribution. The logic underlying the analysis is that of compositionality, applied at the subword level: as items become bigger in form (with the addition of morphemes), they also acquire more semantic properties. The paper proposes the ``indefinite hierarchy'', which establishes a set of components for languages to build their indefinites with, in a particular order.},
	Author = {Mart{\'\i}, Luisa},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:46:44 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:47:41 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--37},
	Title = {The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in {S}panish and {P}ortuguese},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Wilhelm:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper documents the number-related properties of Dene Suine (Athapaskan). Dene Suline has neither number	inflection nor numeral classifiers. Nouns are bare, occur as such in argument positions, and combine	directly	with	numerals.	With	these traits, Dene Suline represents a type of language that is little considered in formal typologies of number and countability. The paper critiques one influential proposal, that of Chierchia (in: Rothstein (ed.) Events and grammar, 1998a; Natural Language Semantics 6: 339--405, 1998b), and presents an alternative number typology, which introduces variation in the semantics of numerals. It will be shown that bare nouns in Dene Suline can be mass or count. Hence, the difference between count and mass cannot be expressed in terms of number, as in Chierchia. Instead, I express it in terms of atomicity. Mass nouns have nonatomic denotations, bare count nouns have atomic denotations that comprise singularities and pluralities. I also propose that numerals contain a function that accesses the singularities in a noun's denotation. Hence they are compatible with bare count nouns, but not with mass nouns. In classifier languages, numerals denote a cardinality only; singularity-accessing functions are expressed in separate elements: the classifiers. Thus, languages like Chinese require classifiers because the numerals are semantically deficient, and not, as is assumed by Chierchia and others, the bare nouns.},
	Author = {Wilhelm, Andrea},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:31:30 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:46:30 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {39--68},
	Title = {Bare nouns and number in D{\"e}ne S\c{u}{\l}in\'e},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Gajewski:2008a,
	Abstract = {This paper addresses two puzzles in the semantics of connected exceptive phrases (EP): (i) the compatibility of EPs modifying noun phrases headed by the negative polarity item (NPI) determiner any and (ii) the ability of a negative universal quantifier modified by an EP to license strong NPIs. Previous analyses of EPs are shown to fail to solve these puzzles. A new unified solution to the two puzzles is proposed. The crucial insight of the analysis is to allow von Fintel's (Natural Language Semantics 1: 123--148, 1993; Restrictions on quantifier domains, PhD dissertation, 1994) leastness condition on EPs to be imposed at scopes non-local to the surface position of the EP. A general result is derived concerning the truth conditions of sentences in which an existential modified by an EP occurs in the scope of a downward entailing operator. The distribution of EPs is argued to depend on how the leastness condition interacts with other pragmatic strengthening conditions, such as the one imposed on any by Kadmon and Landman (Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353--422, 1993).},
	Author = {Gajewski, Jon},
	Date-Added = {2010-01-01 11:29:29 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2010-01-01 11:30:32 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {69--110},
	Title = {{NPI} \emph{any} and connected exceptive phrases},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kim:2007a,
	Abstract = {This paper aims to clarify and resolve issues surrounding the so-called formal linking problem in interpreting the Internally Headed Relative Clause construction in Korean and Japanese, a problem that has been identified in recent E-type pronominal treatments of the construction (e.g., Hoshi, K. (1995). Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester; Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst). In the literature, this problem refers to the difficulty of capturing the delimited semantic variability of the E-type pronoun present in the embedding clause of the construction. I show that the E-type pronoun at issue is subject to a different licensing condition from a typical E-type pronoun and therefore presents a different linking problem. More specifically, it requires that the embedded clause describe a state of its antecedent and its descriptive content be supplied by a salient property rep- resented in the logical form of the embedded clause. I propose an event-based semantic analysis that derives the effects of this novel generalization by establishing a binding relation between the event structure of the embedded clause and the denotation of the E-type pronoun.},
	Author = {Kim, Min-Joo},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:24:51 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:25:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {279--315},
	Title = {Formal linking in {I}nternally {H}eaded {R}elatives},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{An:2007a,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I offer a novel solution to the well-known problem concerning two polarity items in Korean, amu-(N)-to and amu-(N)-rato, that show a complementary distribution within the set of typical NPI-licensing contexts. I present a uniform analysis of the distribution of these NPIs, where the complementary distribution follows from the opposite scope properties of the emphatic particles to and rato contained in the NPIs in question. As theoretical background, I adopt Karttunen and Peters's (1979, Syntax and Semantics 11: Presuppositions (pp. 1--56). New York: Academic Press) and Wilkinson's (1996, Natural Language Semantics, 4, 193--215) scope analysis of even, Lahiri's (1998, Natural Language Semantics, 6, 57--127) analysis of Hindi NPIs, and Guerzoni's (2002, Proceedings of NELS 32 (pp. 153--170); GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.; 2004, Natural Language Semantics, 12, 319--343) analysis of the negative bias of yes/no-questions containing minimizers. The current analysis also lends further support to Guerzoni's approach in that it bears out the prediction that in certain environments, a yes/no-question can be positively biased, i.e., only the positive answer is allowed as a legitimate answer in the context; this prediction was left unconfirmed in Guerzoni's work.},
	Author = {An, Duk-Ho},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:23:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:24:13 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {317--350},
	Title = {On the distribution of {NPI}s in {K}orean},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Portner:2007,
	Abstract = {Imperatives may be interpreted with many subvarieties of directive force, for example as orders, invitations, or pieces of advice. I argue that the range of meanings that imperatives can convey should be identified with the variety of interpretations that are possible for non-dynamic root modals (what I call `priority modals'), including deontic, bouletic, and teleological readings. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between imperatives and priority modals in discourse which asserts that, just as declaratives contribute to the Common Ground and thus provide information relevant to the interpretation of epistemic modals in subsequent discourse, imperatives contribute to another component of the discourse context, the addressee's To-Do List, which serves as a contextual resource for the interpretation of priority modals. This analysis predicts that the interpretation of imperatives and modals in discourse is constrained in surprising ways; these predictions are borne out.},
	Author = {Portner, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:22:12 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:22:45 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {351--383},
	Title = {Imperatives and modals},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Chung:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper focuses on the Korean suffix -te, which has been variously analyzed as a marker of tense, aspect, tense--aspect, mood, mood--tense, or evidentiality. I argue against all of these approaches and propose instead that -te is a spatial deictic past tense, which triggers an evidential environment. It refers to a certain past time when the speaker either observed an event or some evidence of the event within his (her) perceptual field. Thus, the denotation of -te is `overlap', not between the speaker's perceptual field and the event itself, but between the speaker's perceptual field and the evidence of the event at the past reference time. To account for this denotation, I propose an `evidence trace' function as well as a `speaker's perceptual trace' function (cf. M. Faller, J Semantics 21:45--85, 2004). My analysis shows that suffixes like -ess (which is traditionally analyzed as a perfect) play two roles, as an indirect evidential and a perfect, depending on whether they appear with the spatial deictic tense -te or with a simple deictic tense. I argue that in Korean two distinct tense systems---the regular tense--aspect system and the spatial deictic tense--evidential system---exist in parallel. Thus the proposed analysis allows evidentials to be subsumed under the formal theory of tense, aspect, and mood.},
	Author = {Chung, Kyung-Sook},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:20:38 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:21:17 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {187--219},
	Title = {Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in {K}orean},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Arregui:2007,
	Abstract = {Differences in the interpretation of would-conditionals with simple (perfective) and perfect antecedent clauses are marked enough to discourage a unified view. However, this paper presents a unified, Lewis--Stalnaker style semantics for the modal in such constructions. Differences in the interpretation of the conditionals are derived from the interaction between the interpretation of different types of aspect and the modal. The paper makes a distinction between perfective and perfect aspect in terms of whether they make reference to or quantify over Lewis-style events. In making reference to Lewis-events, perfective aspect is shown to be incompatible with counterfactual would- conditionals. The so-called `epistemic flavor' of perfective conditionals about the future is derived from the use of diagonalization as an interpretive strategy called upon to resolve reference.},
	Author = {Arregui, Ana},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:19:09 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:19:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {21--264},
	Title = {When aspect matters: the case of \emph{would}-conditionals},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Altshuler:2007,
	Abstract = {This squib presents a rebuttal to two of King's (Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001) arguments that complex demonstratives are quantifier phrases like every man. The first is in response to King's argument that because complex demonstratives induce weak crossover effects, they are quantifier phrases. I argue that unlike quantifier phrases and like other definite determiner phrases, complex demonstratives in object position can corefer with singular pronouns contained in the subject DP. Although complex demonstratives could undergo LF-movement, the ruling out by weak crossover is empirically undetectable. The second rebuttal is in response to King's argument that because complex demonstratives allow antecedent-contained deletion, they are quantifier phrases. I present data showing that along with quantifier phrases, complex demonstratives pattern with proper names in allowing ACD with restrictive modification, but usually not with non-restrictive modification.},
	Author = {Altshuler, Daniel},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:17:28 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:18:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {265--277},
	Title = {{WCO}, {ACD} and what they reveal about complex demonstratives},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Kobuchi-Philip:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper discusses Japanese numeral quantifiers that are used to count individuals, rather than quantities of a substance, and which may occur either as floated or non-floated quantifiers. It is argued that such morphologically complex numeral quantifiers (NQs) are semantically complex as well: The numeral within the NQ is the quantifier itself, the classifier its domain of quantification. The proposed analysis offers a unified semantic account of floated and non-floated NQs that adheres closely to their surface morphology and syntax. It explains why floated NQs generally force a distributive reading. It covers both classifiers construed with objects and classifiers construed with events. In addition, it captures the fact that the classifier must agree with the NP it is construed with.},
	Author = {Kobuchi-Philip, Mana},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:09:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:10:21 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {95--130},
	Title = {Individual-denoting classifiers},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Russell:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper provides evidence for an ambiguity of bare VPs in the English conditional conjunction construction. This ambiguity, undetected by previous researchers, provides a key to the development of a compositional semantic analysis of conditional conjunction with imperative first conjuncts. The analysis combines existing semantic theories of imperatives, the future tense, modal subordination, and speech act conjunction to yield the correct semantics without further stipulation.},
	Author = {Russell, Benjamin},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:08:20 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:09:05 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {131--166},
	Title = {Imperatives in conditional conjunction},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Muhlbauer:2007,
	Abstract = {I argue for three basic classes of nominals, based on the (non)- relation they encode; (i) alienable nouns, which have no inherent relation, but gain an underspecified `R' relation when possessed (Higginbotham, Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 305--420, 1983); (ii) relational nouns, which have an inherent relation, defined as an `R' relation restricted by the lexical meaning of the head noun (Barker, Possessive descriptions. CSLI, Stanford, Ca., 1995; Burton, Six issues to consider when choosing a husband. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University, 1995); and (iii) inalienable nouns, which also have an inherent relation, defined as a material part- whole relation (Link, Algebraic semantics for linguistics and philosophy. CSLI, Stanford, Ca., 1995). I then consider evidence from the Algonquian language Plains Cree, which overtly distinguishes all three subclasses of nominals.},
	Author = {M{\"u}hlbauer, Jeff},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 11:06:10 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 11:07:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {167--186},
	Title = {Evidence for three distinct nominal classes in {P}lains {C}ree},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Ippolito:2007,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I argue that the aspectual, marginality, and conces- sive uses of the grading particles still and already can be reduced to the following three classes of focus-sensitive grading particles: additive particles like too, scalar particles like even, and exclusive particles like only. The meaning differences among the occurrences of still (and already) are mostly reduced to the differences among these three classes of grading particles. In turn, these differences are shown to correlate with what type of object is denoted by the phrase in the scope of the particle. The proposal has repercussions also for the focus-sensitive particle again. I investigate the latter too, and I propose a parallel between the temporal and nominal domains where the contrast between still and again is analyzed along the lines of the contrast between definite and indefinite noun phrases.},
	Author = {Ippolito, Michela},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:58:26 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:59:15 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--34},
	Title = {On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{McCready:2007,
	Abstract = {Japanese has a large number of evidential and modal expressions. Many of the inferential evidentials -- mitai, yoo, rashii -- also have an adjectival use. On this use, they make a claim about the prototypicality of some object or individual with respect to another class of object, in the case of rashii, or about the similarity of these two objects, for yoo and mitai. This paper provides a compositional semantics for these adjectives, claiming that they are evaluated in terms of the degree to which they instantiate a set of properties (conventionally) associated with a class of object.},
	Author = {McCready, Eric and Ogata, Norry},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:57:01 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:57:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {35--63},
	Title = {Adjectives, stereotypicality, and comparison},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Aloni:2007,
	Abstract = {The article proposes an analysis of imperatives and possibility and necessity statements that (i) explains their differences with respect to the licensing of free choice any and (ii) accounts for the related phenomena of free choice disjunction in imperatives, permissions, and other possibility statements. Any and or are analyzed as operators introducing sets of alternative propositions. Free choice licensing operators are treated as quantifiers over these sets. In this way their interpretation can be sensitive to the alter- natives any and or introduce in their scope.},
	Author = {Aloni, Maria},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:55:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:56:26 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {65--94},
	Title = {Free choice, modals, and imperatives},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Zweig:2006,
	Abstract = {This paper revisits the question of whether propositions in situation semantics must be persistent [Kratzer (1989). Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 607--653]. It shows that ignoring persistence causes empirical problems for theories which use quantification over minimal situations as a solution for donkey anaphora [Elbourne (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press]. At the same time, modifying these theories to incorporate persistence makes them incompatible with the use of situations for contextual restriction [Kratzer (2004). Ms., University of Massachusetts].},
	Author = {Zweig, Eytan},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:46:11 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:46:55 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {283--296},
	Title = {When the donkey lost its fleas: persistence, minimal situations, and embedded quantifiers},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Wagner:2006,
	Abstract = {`Only' associates with focus and licenses NPIs. This paper looks at the distributional pattern of NPIs under `only' and presents evidence for the movement theory of focus association and against an in situ approach. NPIs are licensed in the `scope' (or the second argument) of `only', but not in the complement (or its first argument), which I will call the `syntactic restrictor'. While earlier approaches argued that `only' licenses NPIs in the unfocused part of the sentence it occurs in except in its focus, evidence from DP-`only' shows that NPIs are also not licensed in the unfocused part of the syntactic restrictor. The distribution of NPIs provides a test for the size of the syntactic restrictor, and this test is applied to the case of VP-`only'. The evidence shows that (i) the restrictor can be smaller than the entire VP and is not necessarily identical to the surface complement of `only'; (ii) in the case of association with a head the restrictor comprises an XP containing the head; and (iii) in cases of association into an island, the restrictor comprises the entire island. Generalizations (i)--(iii) can be captured straightforwardly by a movement approach but are incompatible with an in situ analysis. Contextual domain restriction of the kind used in in situ approaches accounts for the appropriate semantics in cases where the semantic focus is properly contained in the syntactic restrictor of `only'.},
	Author = {Wagner, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:44:09 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:45:23 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {297--324},
	Title = {Association by movement: evidence from {NPI}-licensing},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Chung:2006,
	Abstract = {In earlier work, we developed an approach to clause-internal composition in which predicates can be composed with arguments by operations other than Function Application, and it makes a difference which composition operation is employed. Here we take our approach further by examining two nonsaturating operations that combine property contents: Restrict, which composes a predicate with the property content of an indefinite; and Modify, which is involved in predicate modification. Nonsaturating operations that combine property contents are often formalized in terms of predicate intersection, which is commutative. Using evidence from the Austronesian language Chamorro, we argue that Restrict and Modify are not `commutative', but instead incorporate an asymmetry: they take one content to supply a domain that is narrowed further by combination with the other content. Syntactically, it is transparent which category's content supplies the domain. But semantically, this information can be recovered only from the way in which the composition operation affects the contents that it composes, since---as we show---the same contents can be composed with distinct results.},
	Author = {Chung, Sandra and Ladusaw, William A.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:40:21 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:41:14 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {325--357},
	Title = {Chamorro evidence for compositional asymmetry},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Guerzoni:2006,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger's Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI `blocking expressions' (a.k.a. `interveners') overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger's constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger's, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourse- linked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French).},
	Author = {Guerzoni, Elena},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:38:10 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:39:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {359--398},
	Title = {Intervention effects on {NPI}s and feature movement: towards a unified account of intervention},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Werner:2006,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I argue for two principles to determine the temporal interpretation of modal sentences in English, given a theory in which modals are interpreted against double conversational backgrounds and an ontology in which possible worlds branch towards the future. The Disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence makes distinctions between worlds in the modal base. The Non- Disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence does not make distinctions on the basis of facts settled at speech time. Selection of the modal base will set these principles against each other, or allow for their cooperative interaction. For a root modal base, there is a conflict and disparity wins. The resulting interpretation is future. For a non-root modal base, the principles cooperate. Non-disparity determines a non-future interpretation and disparity requires the sentence to go beyond what is known by the speaker.},
	Author = {Werner, Tom},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:35:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:36:50 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {235--255},
	Title = {Future and non-future modal sentences},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Moltmann:2006,
	Abstract = {The generic pronoun one (or its empty counterpart, arbitrary PRO) exhibits a range of properties that show a special connection to the first person, or rather the relevant intentional agent (speaker, addressee, or described agent). Generic one typically leads to generic sentences whose generalization is obtained from a first-person experience or action or else is meant to be immediately applicable to the relevant agent himself (in particular the addressee). I will argue that generic one involves generic quantification in which the predicate is applied to a given entity `as if' to the relevant agent himself. This is best understood in terms of simulation, a central notion in some recent developments in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science (Simulation Theory): Generic one involves `generic simulation', roughly `putting oneself into the shoes of anyone meeting relevant conditions'. Formally, this means that generic one introduces a complex variable, consisting of an ordinary variable and a `mode of presentation' of the relevant intentional agent, namely the property of being identical to that agent. Generic one, like other pronouns acting as bound variables, may also introduce just an ordinary variable. In both cases, the ordinary variable needs to be bound by a sentential generic operator.},
	Author = {Moltmann, Friederike},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:33:20 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:37:59 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {257--281},
	Title = {Generic \emph{one}, arbitrary {PRO} and the first person},
	Volume = {14},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Silverman:1996,
	Author = {Silverman, Daniel},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:23:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:24:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {301--322},
	Title = {Phonology at the Interface of Phonetics and Morphology: Root-Final Laryngeals in {C}hong, {K}orean, and {S}anskrit},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Martin:1996,
	Author = {Martin, Samuel E.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:21:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:22:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {295--299},
	Title = {On the Finite Forms of {O}ld {J}apanese Verbs},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Ito:1996,
	Author = {Ito, Junko and Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Mester, Armin},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:20:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:21:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {217--294},
	Title = {Prosodic Faithfulness and Correspondence: Evidence from a {J}apanese Argot},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Kim:1996a,
	Author = {Kim, Deok-Bong and Choi, Key-Sun and Lee, Kang-Hyuk},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:18:08 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:19:12 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {183--215},
	Title = {A Computational Model of {K}orean Morphological Analysis: A Prediction-Based Approach},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Yeh:1996,
	Author = {Yeh, Meng},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:15:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:17:55 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {151--182},
	Title = {An Analysis of the Experiential \emph{Guo}$_{EXP}$ in {M}andarin: A Temporal Quantifier},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Matsumoto:1996a,
	Author = {Matsumoto, Yo},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:14:29 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:15:24 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {107--149},
	Title = {A Syntactic Account of Light Verb Phenomena in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Lapointe:1996,
	Author = {Lapointe, Stephen G.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 10:12:46 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:13:44 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {73--100},
	Title = {Comments on {C}ho and {S}ells, ``A Lexical Account of Inflectional Suffixes in {K}orean''},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Sproat:1996,
	Author = {Sproat, Richard and Chilin, Shih},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-31 09:50:09 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:12:05 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {49--71},
	Title = {Corpus-Based Analysis of {M}andarin Nominal Root Compound},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Takahashi:1994b,
	Author = {Takahashi, Daiko},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:17:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:18:12 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {265--300},
	Title = {Sluicing in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Ernst:1994a,
	Author = {Ernst, Thomas},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:16:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:17:06 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {241--264},
	Title = {Conditions on {C}hinese {A}-{Not}-{A} Questions},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Saito:1994,
	Author = {Saito, Mamoru},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:09:21 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:15:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {195--240},
	Title = {Additional-WH Effects and the Adjunction Site Theory},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Beom-Mo:1994,
	Author = {Beom-Mo, Kang},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:08:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:09:02 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--24},
	Title = {Plurality and Other Semantic Aspects of Common Nouns in {K}orean},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Koizumi:1994,
	Author = {Koizumi, Masatoshi},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:06:56 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:07:23 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {25--79},
	Title = {Secondary Predicates},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Shi:1994a,
	Author = {Shi, Dingxu},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:05:44 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:06:14 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {81--100},
	Title = {The Nature of {C}hinese Emphatic Sentences},
	Volume = {3},
	Year = {1994}}}

@article{Fukushima:1993,
	Author = {Fukushima, Kazuhiko},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:03:30 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:05:04 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {213--228},
	Title = {Model Theoretic Semantics for {J}apanese Floating Quantifiers and Their Scope Properties},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Chien:1993,
	Author = {Chien, Yu-Chin and Wexler, Kenneth and Chang, Hsing-Wu},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:01:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:02:32 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {229--259},
	Title = {Children's Development of Long-Distance Binding in {C}hinese},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Yip:1993,
	Author = {Yip, Moira},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 11:00:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 11:01:03 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {261--291},
	Title = {Cantonese Loanword Phonology and {O}ptimality {T}heory},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Vovin:1993,
	Author = {Vovin, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:58:43 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:59:17 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {125--134},
	Title = {Long Vowels in {P}roto-{J}apanese},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Li:1993a,
	Author = {Li, Yafei},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:57:34 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:58:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {135--166},
	Title = {What Makes Long Distance Reflexives Possible?},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Heycock:1993a,
	Author = {Heycock, Caroline},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:56:21 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:57:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {167--211},
	Title = {Syntactic Predication in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Duanmu:1993,
	Author = {Duanmu, San},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:54:44 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:55:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--44},
	Title = {Rime Length, Stress, and Association Domains},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Washio:1993,
	Author = {Washio, Ryuichi},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:53:12 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:53:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {45--90},
	Title = {When Causatives Mean Passive: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Cole:1993,
	Author = {Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella and Sung, Li-May},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-30 10:50:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-30 10:52:02 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {91--118},
	Title = {Feature Percolation},
	Volume = {2},
	Year = {1993}}}

@article{Lin:1992a,
	Author = {Lin, Jo-Wang},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:45:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:46:49 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {293--331},
	Title = {The Syntax of Zenmeyan `How' and Weshenme `Why' in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Lust:1996,
	Author = {Lust, Barbara and Chien, Yu-Chin and Chiang, Chi-Pang and Eisele, Julie},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:43:14 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-31 10:10:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--47},
	Title = {Chinese Pronominals in {U}niversal {G}rammar: A Study of Linear Precedence and Command in {C}hinese and {E}nglish Children's First Language Acquisition},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1996}}}

@article{Lin:1992,
	Author = {Lin, Yen-Hwei},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:41:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:43:07 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {219--253},
	Title = {Vocalic Underspecification in Two {M}andarin Dialects: A Case against Radical Underspecification},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Han:1992,
	Author = {Han, Hak-Sung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:38:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:39:16 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {215--218},
	Title = {Notes on Reflexive Movement},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Chen:1992,
	Author = {Chen, Matthew Y.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:36:58 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:38:02 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {197--213},
	Title = {The Chameleon [-r] in {Y}anggu: Morphological Infixation or Phonological Epenthesis?},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Nishigauchi:1992,
	Author = {Nishigauchi, Taisuke},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:35:31 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:36:09 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {157--196},
	Title = {Syntax of Reciprocals in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Li:1992,
	Author = {Li, Audrey Yen-Hui},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:34:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:35:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {12--155},
	Title = {Indefinite \emph{Wh} in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Saito:1992a,
	Author = {Saito, Mamoru},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:32:03 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:32:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {69--118},
	Title = {Long Distance Scrambling in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Maling:1992,
	Author = {Maling, Joan and Kim, Soowon},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:30:03 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:30:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {37--68},
	Title = {Case Assignment in the Inalienable Possession Construction in {K}orean},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Yip:1992,
	Author = {Yip, Moira},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:28:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:29:12 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--35},
	Title = {Prosodic Morphology in Four Chinese Dialects},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1992}}}

@article{Tomioka:2009,
	Abstract = {Intervention effects, triggered by the presence of an intervener c-commanding a Wh-phrase, are known to be weaker in WHY questions in Japanese and Korean. The existing analyses of this surprising phenomenon focus on the comparison between WHY questions and other Wh-questions but have not paid attention to the fact that the sentence is still judged more acceptable when an intervener does not c-command WHY. This paper presents a novel account that appeals to a peculiar presuppositional property of WHY questions and their impact on the information structure of Wh-questions. Unlike the previous analyses, the proposal can correctly derive graded acceptability of WHY questions in intervention contexts. It is also shown that the re-emergence of intervention effects with embedded WHY questions also has its root in the presupposition.},
	Author = {Tomioka, S.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:10:36 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:11:30 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {253--271},
	Title = {\emph{Why} questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Liu:2009,
	Abstract = {In English demonstratives cannot co-occur with articles, so it is assumed that demonstratives should be treated as determiners (D). In some other languages, such as Spanish, postnominal demonstratives show no complementary distribution with articles; therefore, demonstratives are argued to be lexical heads projecting to lexical phrases (XP). In Jingpo, a Tibeto-Burman language, demonstratives which are inflected for number show relative freedom in syntactic distribution. Singular demonstratives can occur either prenominally, postnominally or appear twice to sandwich the head noun. Plural demonstratives can only occur postnominally. The relative freedom shown in the syntactic distribution of Jingpo demonstratives is accounted for in the present paper with the proposal that demonstratives in the right peripheral of the nominal phrase are D-type demonstratives and demonstratives adjacent to the head noun are A(djective)-type demonstratives. The analysis thus calls for a non-unitary treatment of demonstratives.},
	Author = {Liu, H. and Gu, Y.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:08:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:09:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {273--295},
	Title = {Free and not-so-free demonstratives in {J}ingpo},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Cheung:2009a,
	Abstract = {Widely attested cross-linguistically, the Negative WH (NWH)-construction involves the special use of wh-words (e.g., `where', `what', and `how') to convey negation in certain specific contexts. The first half of this paper identifies the negative assertion as the primary meaning of the NWH construction, in addition to two conventional implicatures. In the second half, I argue that the grammatical features in NWHCs in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese strongly suggest that NWHCs should be analyzed as interrogative wh-questions. The quantification domain of NWH-words is the sets of propositions that pick out the conversational backgrounds of the sentence (Kratzer 1977; Portner 2009). The NWHC can be paraphrased as ``What is the proposition q such that in view of q, p is true?'' However,the interrogative question can only receive a negative rhetorical interpretation (i.e., a question without a true answer) because the conventional implicatures make it impossible for p to be true against any of the conversational backgrounds.},
	Author = {Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:07:34 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:08:14 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {297--321},
	Title = {Negative \emph{wh}-construction and its semantic properties},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hsu:2009a,
	Abstract = {This study examines young children's production of head-final relative clauses (RCs) in Chinese. Three different hypotheses (the Canonical Word Order Hypothesis, the Filler-gap Linear Distance Hypothesis, and the Structural Distance Hypothesis) have been proposed to account for the subject--object asymmetry found in children's performance with head-initial RCs in English. The structure of Chinese head-final RCs is minimally different from that of English head-initial RCs and thus provides an ideal case to examine the effect of different factors that are confounded in English. Our findings fail to support the Canonical Word Order Hypothesis and the Filler-gap Linear Distance Hypothesis. Instead, we suggest that it is the gap position in the hierarchical structure that affects children's production performance with subject-gapped and object-gapped RCs. Our findings also suggest that Mandarin Chinese does not belong to the group of East Asian languages which has been argued to have an acquisition pattern for RCs that is different from the one found in European languages. In addition, the cross-linguistic comparison of production errors suggests that the occurrence of the head noun in the sequential order of the production string affects the type of errors children make during the sentence production process.},
	Author = {Hsu, Chun-Chieh Natalie and Hermon, Gabriella and Zukowski, Andrea},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:05:35 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:06:47 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {323--360},
	Title = {Young children's production of head-final relative clauses: Elicited production data from {C}hinese children},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hsu:2009,
	Abstract = {How to represent a syllable is by no means a settled question in generative grammar. This paper employs the diagnostic tool Replace (X) to examine the sub- syllabic constituency in Old Chinese (OC) by virtue of two types of directional reduplication data: progressive and retrogressive reduplication. This paper finds that the OC syllable is comprised of onset, nucleus, and rhyme, which have different representations in the syllable structure. This paper also argues that the OC tone should be represented in terms of another independent plane, i.e., adjoining to the whole syllable rather than the rhyme sub-syllabic constituent, on the basis of the rhyming in Shijing `Book of Odes'. The OC medial glides -j- and -w- show an asymmetric status in syllable structure. The former tends to be aligned with the rhyme, while the latter tends to be aligned with onset. Comparing with other OC syllable structures, it is found that theoretical analyses reveal certain aspects of sub-syllabic processes, such as the placements of medial glides, and help us to examine syllabic representations such as tone representation, all of which may not be detected by direct observation of a maximal syllable in OC. Furthermore, a comparison of syllable structures in OC and Middle Chinese suggests that syllable structure, as well as other phonological phenomena, underwent great changes from OC to Middle Chinese or Guangyun phonology.},
	Author = {Hsu, Dong-Bo},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:03:24 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:04:49 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {361--395},
	Title = {The syllable in {O}ld {C}hinese: sub-syllabic processes, syllable structure, and the status of medial glides},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Irwin:2009,
	Abstract = {Research has shown there to be a strong relationship between the mora and prosody in Modern Japanese. Recently proposed, although not as yet independently evaluated, has been a prosodic size rule governing the well-known allomorphic phenomenon of rendaku, by which the initial consonants of non-initial elements in compounds may be voiced under certain conditions. It is claimed that this prosodic size rule flags a native Japanese noun as being rendaku immune, a condition for which no empirical verification has hitherto existed. In this paper the author will demonstrate that, although slight modifications are necessary, a prosodic size rule for flagging rendaku immunity is indeed a reality.},
	Author = {Irwin, Mark},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:01:57 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:02:31 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {179--196},
	Title = {Prosodic size and rendaku immunity},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Cheung:2009,
	Abstract = {The use of the Dislocation Focus Construction (DFC) (also known as ``Right Dislocation'') in colloquial Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin) gives rise to various non-canonical word orders. In DFCs, the sentence particle (SP) occurs in a sentence-medial position. The pre- and post-SP materials are demonstrated to be syntactically connected, based on four diagnostic tests, namely (i) the zinghai `only' test, (ii) the doudai (``wh-the-hell'') test, (iii) polarity item licensing, and (iv) Principle C violations. The findings offer new insights into the syntax of the Chinese left periphery and constraints on focus movement. First, the observations entail that Chinese CPs are head-initial, and an XP is obligatorily moved around the SP to a position higher than the CP. Second, the XP-raising in the DFC is argued to be driven by focus because of the focus interpretation induced. It is discovered that the focus movement is subject to the Spine Constraint, which turns out to be remarkably similar to the properties of the Nuclear Stress Rule (e.g., selection of focus set and metrical invisibility). It is argued that the DFC is the syntactic realization of the rule.},
	Author = {Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 13:00:34 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 13:01:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {197--232},
	Title = {Dislocation focus construction in {C}hinese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Miyamoto:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper examines one type of distributive interpretation in Japanese available only in sentences containing a numeral quantifier (NQ) with the distributive affix zutsu in a pre-nominal position. I propose that what appears to be the simple complex of an NQ with the distributive affix actually turns out to be a relative clause, which must appear within the NP. I further show that simple NQs can also be located inside the NP. The fundamental premise of my proposal is the predicative nature of NQs in Japanese (Miyagawa in structure and case marking in Japanese, 1989; Ueda in Oriental linguistics, 1986). The property of NQs in point allows us to account for the availability of the interpretation in question in Japanese.},
	Author = {Miyamoto, Yoichi},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:58:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:59:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {233--251},
	Title = {On the nominal-internal distributive interpretation in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hayashishita:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates the syntax and semantics of the Japanese com- parative construction that utilizes yori `than', which functionally corresponds to the English more-comparative. While endorsing Beck et al.'s (J East Asian Linguist 13: 289--344, 2004) general claim that yori-comparatives cannot be analyzed on a par with the English comparative, the paper points out the problems associated with their analysis. Among the points the paper maintains in contrast with Beck et al. (J East Asian Linguist 13: 289--344, 2004) are (i) the denotation of the complement of yori is a degree, an individual, or a proposition, and (ii) yori-phrases take a gradable predicate as their argument; thus yori-phrases participate in the semantic composition of the matrix clause. In describing the difference between English and Japanese regarding the phenomena involving gradable predicates, the paper advocates Snyder et al.'s (Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1994) hypothesis that AdjPs in Japanese lack the specifier position that hosts a degree variable or constant (cf. Fukui, A theory of category projection and its applications. Doctoral dissertation, 1986), dispensing with Beck et al.'s Degree Abstraction Parameter.},
	Author = {Hayashishita, J.-R.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:57:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:58:07 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {65--100},
	Title = {\emph{Yori}-comparatives: A reply to {B}eck et al. (2004)},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Yanagida:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that Old Japanese (eighth century) had split alignment, with nominative-accusative alignment in main clauses and active alignment in nominalized clauses. The main arguments for active alignment in nominalized clause come from ga-marking of active subjects and the distribution of two verbal prefixes: i-for active predicates and sa- for inactive predicates (cf. Yanagida, In: Hasegawa (ed.) Nihongo no shubun gensho [Main clause phenomena in Japanese], 2007b). We review the treatment of non-accusative alignment and argue that active alignment should be analyzed as as a distinct type. We propose a formal analysis of active alignment in nominalized clauses in Old Japanese. The external argument is assigned inherent case, spelled out as ga, in situ in Spec, v. Object arguments are licensed by several distinct mechanisms, including incorporation (Yanagida, In: Miyamoto (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 2007a) and case assignment by a functional head above vP. The latter accounts for the distinctive O wo S ga V word order of OJ nominalized clauses noted by Yanagida (J. of East Asian Linguistics, 2006). Inability to assign object case is a property of [nominal] v, as proposed by Miyagawa (Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 22, 1989). We discuss the diachronic origins of the OJ active alignment system and point out that it exemplifies a cross-linguistically attested pattern of non-accusative alignment in clauses that originate from nominalizations.},
	Author = {Yanagida, Yuko and Whitman, John},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:55:31 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:56:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {101--144},
	Title = {Alignment and word order in {O}ld {J}apanese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Wu:2009a,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I argue that tense is a discourse feature in Mandarin if tense is extended to mean temporal location in general instead of grammaticalized location in time, as defined in Comrie (Tense, 1985). The evidence comes from the observation that tense does not affect temporal relations in Mandarin. The final endpoint imposed on an activity by past tense is not accessible to the other sentences in the same discourse while the final endpoint imposed by rhetorical relations, such as Narration, is. I argue that this difference results from the fact that in Mandarin tense does not impose a final endpoint until a coherent discourse is formed. I also discuss the implications of this paper for the determination of temporal locations in Mandarin, the status of Tense Phrase (TP) in Mandarin, the semantics of the perfective le, and modeling Mandarin discourse.},
	Author = {Wu, Jiun-Shiung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:54:03 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:54:48 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {145--165},
	Title = {Tense as a discourse feature: rethinking temporal location in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Lin:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates ``gapless'' bei passives in Mandarin Chinese and the way they are licensed. It is discovered that if the embedded predicate of a bei passive contains a weak NP, then the bei passive can be gapless. The proposal of this paper is that the weak NP introduces a variable, which can be bound by the operator Op at the embedded IP. Op need not move from an argument position in the embedded predicate of the bei passive; it can be merged directly to the embedded IP and bind the variable introduced by the weak NP.},
	Author = {Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:52:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:53:22 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {167--177},
	Title = {Licensing ``gapless'' \emph{bei} passives},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kuo:2009,
	Abstract = {Chinese is a language that classifies nouns into groups on the basis of shape, material, and size. We asked whether the classification of nouns by shape affects the degree to which Chinese speakers rely on shape when classifying objects. Three experiments examined the degree to which Chinese- and English- speaking adults rely on shape versus taxonomic or functional similarity in a classification task. Across all three experiments, Chinese speakers made significantly more shape choices than English speakers though they both mostly classified objects on the basis of taxonomic or functional similarity. Reliance on shape by speakers of Chinese was correlated with amount of exposure to Chinese. The results offer evidence in support of the idea that language influences categorization, or a weak form of the Whorf Hypothesis. The results also call into question the widely-held belief that speakers of all classifier languages pay less attention to shape in classification.},
	Author = {Kuo, Jenny Yi-chun and Sera, Maria D.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:50:50 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:51:48 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--19},
	Title = {Classifier effects on human categorization: the role of shape classifiers in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Noh:2009,
	Abstract = {The Korean conditional markers myen and tamyen have been distin- guished in terms of the speaker's epistemic stance: while myen can be used with any speaker attitude, tamyen is only used with a hypothetical or irrealis attitude. However, tamyen-antecedents do not always express such an irrealis speaker atti- tude. This paper analyses the difference between myen and tamyen in terms of the modes of language use, i.e., descriptive and metarepresentational uses. It introduces the concept of interpretive use as defined and used in relevance theory and suggests that the ta in tamyen functions as an interpretive use marker. The presence of this interpretive use marker is responsible for the different felicities between myen- and tamyen-conditionals. Since a tamyen-antecedent is a metarepresentation of another representation, it is not used to describe a state of affairs in the content domain. This explains why deictic, generic, and temporal conditionals are more often used with myen, and given conditionals (i.e., conditionals whose antecedents are contextually given) with tamyen.},
	Author = {Noh, Eun-Ju},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:49:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:50:07 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {21--39},
	Title = {The {K}orean conditional markers \emph{myen} and \emph{tamyen}: epistemicity vs. modes of language use},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Takita:2009,
	Abstract = {One of the important topics in current syntactic theory is whether there is a directionality parameter in Universal Grammar. Based on the observation that the presence of Chinese sentence-final aspectual particles blocks movement out of their complement, Lin (Complement-to-Specifier movement in Mandarin Chinese. MS., National Tsing Hua University, 2006) argues that each of these particles is the head of an underlyingly head-initial phrase and that the surface head-final order is derived by movement of its complement. Thus, movement out of it violates the Condition on Extraction Domain [CED: Huang (Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT, 1982)]. Taking this analysis as a diagnostic that distinguishes a derived head-final structure from a genuine one, this paper illustrates that it is not the case that Japanese head-final structures are derived from head-initial ones. Our result implies that Universal Grammar is equipped with a directionality parameter, admitting not only head-initial structures but also head- final structures.},
	Author = {Takita, Kensuke},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:47:46 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:49:01 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {41--61},
	Title = {If {C}hinese is head-initial, {J}apanese cannot be},
	Volume = {18},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hsieh:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper we present the results of a study of the tonal adaptation of a corpus of c. 300 Mandarin and 40 English loanwords in Lhasa Tibetan drawn from Yu et al.'s (Colloquial Lhasa Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary, 1980). Our principal finding is that no equivalence is made between the Mandarin tones/English stress contours and Lhasa Tibetan tones. Instead, tones are assigned by a combination of default rules of Tibetan grammar and UG enhancement processes familiar from the tonogenesis literature.},
	Author = {Hsieh, Feng-fan and Kenstowicz, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:45:31 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:46:32 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {279--297},
	Title = {Phonetic knowledge in tonal adaptation: {M}andarin and {E}nglish loanwords in {L}hasa {T}ibetan},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kang:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper we present the results of a study of Japanese-influenced English loanwords in Korean. We identify some 10 phonological indexes that identify the loan's Japanese provenance and examine their relative rate of retention in 287 loan forms that show a mixture of Japanese-style and direct-English-style phonological characteristics. Our chief finding is that certain traits of Japanese-style loanwords are more resistant to change to the direct English style of adaptation that is applied to contemporary loans. We consider two possible explanations for such a hierarchy. First, the resistance hierarchy reflects the relative perceptual saliency of the relevant features (cf. Steriade, 2001). Second, the resistance hierarchy reflects the degree of confidence Korean speakers have about the ``correct'' direct-English borrowing pattern.},
	Author = {Kang, Yoonjung and Kenstowicz, Michael and Ito, Chiyuki},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:43:39 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:44:45 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {299--316},
	Title = {Hybrid loans: a study of {E}nglish loanwords transmitted to {K}orean via {J}apanese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kawahara:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that phonetic naturalness and unnaturalness can interact within a single grammatical system. In Japanese loanword phonology, only voiced geminates, but not voiced singletons, devoice to dissimilate from another voiced obstruent. The neutralizability difference follows from a ranking which Japanese speakers created on perceptual grounds: IDENT(voi)Sing >> IDENT(voi)Gem. On the other hand, the trigger of devoicing---OCP(voi)---has no phonetic underpin- ning because voicing does not have phonetic characteristics that would naturally lead to confusion-based dissimilation (Ohala, Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the parasession on language and behaviour, 1981, in: Jones (ed.) Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 1993). OCP(voi) in Modern Japanese originated as a phonetically natural OCP(prenasal) in Old Japanese because the spread out heavy nasalization would lead to perceptual confusion, but it divorced from its phonetic origin when prenasalization became voicing. The interaction of the three constraints in Modern Japanese suggests that phonetic naturalness (the ranking IDENT(voi)Sing >> IDENT(voi)Gem) and unnaturalness (OCP(voi)) co-reside within a single module.},
	Author = {Kawahara, Shigeto},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:41:35 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:42:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {317--330},
	Title = {Phonetic naturalness and unnaturalness in {J}apanese loanword phonology},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kim:2008a,
	Abstract = {The purpose of the present study is two-fold. First is to propose that an L1 (host language) speakers' perception of L2 (donor language) sounds is conditioned by the acoustic cues to the laryngeal features of the L1 grammar in the loanword adaptation of Korean voiceless stops into Japanese and of the Japanese voicing contrast and voiceless geminates into Korean. Second is to suggest the enhancing role of some L2 or L1 phonetic properties in perceiving L2 variant(s) as distinctive according to the system of L1 features in loanword adaptation.},
	Author = {Kim, Hyunsoon},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:40:13 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:41:04 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {331--346},
	Title = {Loanword adaptation between {J}apanese and {K}orean: evidence for {L1} feature-driven perception},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Luke:2008,
	Abstract = {In spite of a powerful preference for bisyllabicity identified in previous research on loanword truncation in Cantonese, more new forms are increasingly found which have been truncated down to a monosyllable. An examination of a 1,400-word corpus of Cantonese loanwords collected over a span of 50 years reveals a significant increase in the number of loan verbs and adjectives in more recent times, as opposed to the almost exclusive adoption of nouns previously. Verbs, as opposed to nouns, are found to be much more prone to undergoing ``monosyllabic truncation.'' This is found to stem from an asymmetry between nouns and verbs in the native language. A preference for monosyllabicity, particularly in the case of verbs and adjectives, is confirmed via a study of a Cantonese translation of the Swadesh word list. A further investigation of a corpus of everyday conversations uncovers lexical statistics that may have been mirrored in the truncation process. Finally, the greater readiness for the importation of verbs in more recent times is explained in terms of Haugen's ``stages of bilingualism.''},
	Author = {Luke, Kang-kwong and Lau, Chaak-ming},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:38:38 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:40:00 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {347--362},
	Title = {On loanword truncation in {C}antonese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Lin:2008a,
	Abstract = {This study examines which English vowel is matched with which vowel in Standard Mandarin in loanword adaptation, investigates the general patterns for and restrictions on vowel adaptation in Standard Mandarin loanwords, and determines which aspects of vowel quality is more carefully replicated than others. The results show that despite the seemingly high degree of variation, there are systematic patterns: (i) the front-back dimension is more faithfully replicated than height and rounding, (ii) deviation along the height dimension is tolerated but minimal, (iii) a rounding mismatch occurs mostly in adapting mid central/back vowels, and (iv) central vowels behave as if they are unspecified for or ambiguous between front and back. This study demonstrates how the grammar prioritizes which aspects to replicate in the loanword adaptation process and has implications for theories of loanword phonology in particular and feature theory in general.},
	Author = {Lin, Yen-Hwei},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:37:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:38:00 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {363--380},
	Title = {Variable vowel adaptation in {S}tandard {M}andarin loanwords},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Matsuura:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates tonal phenomena in Nagasaki Japanese (NJ), especially in loanwords, and argues that the pitch accent system of NJ is sensitive to the position of pitch fall rather than the presence vs. absence of pitch fall. There are two types of tonal patterns that may occur in an NJ word: Type A tone (a fall pitch pattern) and Type B tone (a non-fall pitch pattern). Previous studies on ongoing tonal changes in Kagoshima Japanese (KJ), which has a tonal system similar to that of NJ, revealed that accented words in Tokyo Japanese (TJ) are realized as Type A tones and unaccented words in TJ are realized as Type B tones in KJ. In contrast, a loanword in NJ is realized as a Type A tone if the loanword is accented on either of the first two morae in TJ; otherwise the loanword is realized as a Type B tone in NJ. This paper proposes that both NJ and KJ speakers have TJ forms as input, but only NJ speakers delete an accent on the third or later mora during the adaptation process. The proposal accounts for the tonal neutralization of compounds in NJ, which occurs when the first member contains three or more morae.},
	Author = {Matsuura, Toshio},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:35:40 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:36:29 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {381--397},
	Title = {Position sensitivity in {N}agasaki {J}apanese prosody},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Lin:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper investigates tone sandhi phenomena in the Chinese dialect of Tianjin, which are noteworthy for the rule application direc- tionalities observed in tri-tonal strings. The rule application directionalities appear to be ungoverned, as none of the principles proposed to date that may contribute to determining directionalities can account for them. Based on the constraint-based theory of OT, this paper shows that the rule operation directionalities in Tianjin are by no means ungoverned. Normally tone sandhi applies from left to right for identity reasons. This is captured by the OO-faithfulness constraint IDENT-BOT, which requires identity between prosodically related outputs. The left-to-right directionality is sacrificed only when it would result in output forms that involve marked sequences or toneme deletion at the prominent edge of a tone, which are for- bidden by the markedness constraint OCP-T and the positional IO-faithfulness constraint MAX-IO-t-R, respectively. Thus the rule application directionalities in Tianjin are naturally predicted by the interaction of IDENT-BOT, OCP-T, and MAX-IO-t-R, where IDENT-BOT must be dominated by the latter two con- straints.},
	Author = {Lin, Hui-shan},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:34:04 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:34:41 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {181--226},
	Title = {Variable directional applications in {T}ianjin tone sandhi},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Xiang:2008,
	Abstract = {The Mandarin functional morpheme dou appears to have been interpreted, among other things, as a distributor, focus marker even, or already. This paper aims at providing a unified semantic account for these different uses. I argue that the semantic core of these different usages is the same: dou is simply a maximality operator. It gives rise to different meanings by applying maximality to a contextually determined plural set. This could be a set of covers, a set of focus-induced alternatives, or a set of degrees ordered on a scale. This analysis also connects dou in these contexts with dou in environments that license polarity items, as discussed in Giannakidou and Cheng (J Semant 23: 135--183, 2006).},
	Author = {Xiang, Ming},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:31:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:31:52 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {227--245},
	Title = {Plurality, maximality and scalar inferences: A case study of {M}andarin \emph{Dou}},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Saito:2008,
	Abstract = {It has been widely assumed since Kitagawa and Ross (Linguist Anal 9: 19--53, 1982) that noun phrases in Chinese and Japanese are quite similar in structure. They are N-final in surface word order, they employ ``modifying markers'' (de in Chinese and no in Japanese) extensively, and they require classifiers for numeral expressions. In this paper, we argue that, contrary to appearance, they have quite distinct structures. We examine N'-ellipsis in the two languages and present sup- porting evidence for the hypothesis argued for by Simpson (in: Tang and Liu (eds.) On the formal way to Chinese languages, 2003), among others, that Chinese noun phrases are head-initial. According to this hypothesis, de is D, and a classifier heads another projection within DP. Japanese noun phrases, on the other hand, are head- final. No is a contextual Case marker, as proposed by Kitagawa and Ross (Linguist Anal 9: 19--53, 1982), and classifier phrases are adjuncts modifying nominal projections. Our discussion shows that Kayne's (The antisymmetry of syntax, 1994) analysis of N-final relatives applies elegantly to Chinese but not to Japanese. It thus suggests that Japanese relative clauses are head-final throughout the derivation.},
	Author = {Saito, Mamoru and Lin, Jonah T.-H. and Murasugi, Keiko},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:28:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:30:13 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {247--271},
	Title = {N$'$-ellipsis and the structure of noun phrases in {C}hinese and {J}apanese},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Tsai:2008,
	Abstract = {This article concerns the ``topography'' of the Left Periphery, in particular, the syntactic distribution of how-questions across languages and their corresponding semantic interpretations. Causal wh and reason wh are analyzed as sentential operators in the left periphery, which scope over the entire IP and take the corresponding event/state as their complements. By contrast, manner and instrumental wh's are both analyzed as vP-modifiers, which translate into restrictive predicates of the underlying event argument associated with the peripheral area of vP. These wh-expressions differ dramatically with respect to their behavior towards locality principles. On the one hand, only instrumental wh, but not manner wh, may escape from strong island effects and weak intervention effects. On the other, they both observe strong intervention effects, triggered by negation and A-not-A questions. It is suggested that this apparent paradox can be solved by a generalized version of Relativized Minimality proposed in Rizzi (Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford University Press, New York, 2004).},
	Author = {Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:25:28 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:28:01 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {83--115},
	Title = {Left periphery and \emph{how-why} alternations},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Lee:2008a,
	Abstract = {This paper uncovers a systematic correlation between semantics of aspect and syntactic argument structure as manifested in the difference between two imperfective aspect markers -ko iss and -a iss in Korean. Unlike the common assumption that the -ko iss form is a progressive marker, while the -a iss form is a resultative marker, this paper argues that the difference between the two derives from their different argument structure: -ko iss selects transitive and unergative verbs, which have an external argument, while -a iss selects unaccusative and passive verbs, which only have an internal theme argument. It is argued that the difference in argument structure is determined by semantic event structure depending on agentivity in Korean. The results of the paper have broader implications for the issues of syntax and semantics interface and unaccusativity.},
	Author = {Lee, EunHee},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:23:55 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:24:44 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {117--139},
	Title = {Argument structure and event structure: the case of {K}orean imperfective constructions},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Kishimoto:2008,
	Abstract = {One controversial issue in the literature on Japanese concerns the question of whether the surface accusative-dative order of ditransitive constructions is base-generated or derived by syntactic movement. In the light of nominalized clauses in which dative-V and accusative-V idioms are embedded, this article shows that ditransitive verbs project an argument structure whereby dative arguments could be base-generated to either the left or the right of accusative arguments, as countenanced by the base-generation hypothesis for the argument order of ditransitive verbs. Nevertheless, dative arguments are not freely ordered relative to accusative arguments. We argue that with ordinary ditransitive verbs, only the dative-accusative order is available by base-generation, the reverse order being derived via syntactic movement, as conceived by the movement hypothesis. We suggest that the dative position below an accusative argument does not reside in a h-marking domain, and thus it can be filled only by idiomatic dative arguments that are interpreted without h-role assignment. The data show that both base-generation and movement analyses are necessary for characterizing the word order variation of Japanese ditransitive verbs.},
	Author = {Kishimoto, Hideki},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:22:40 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:23:14 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {141--179},
	Title = {Ditransitive idioms and argument structure},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Wu:2008,
	Abstract = {This study provides supporting evidence for the claim in Sohn (Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 12:307--324, 2006) that the nature of the geminate output in Korean sonorant assimilation is crucially dependent on the stem-final sonorant. Given the generally accepted claim of positional faithfulness to the onset (Lombardi, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:39--74, 1995; Beckman, Positional faithfulness, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1998; Casali, Resolving hiatus, University of California, Los Angeles, 1998), however, the coda saliency effect observed in Korean sonorant assimilation is intriguing. Drawing on a theory of Licensing by Cue and the P-map hypothesis (Steriade, Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization, UCLA, 1997; Steriade, The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization, UCLA, 2001), this study claims that coda saliency is a language-specific phonological reflex of the contrast asymmetry in the lexical representation and in acoustic cues. The asymmetry in functional load depending on the position is reflected in the perception of similarity, namely whether the difference between two alveolar sonorants is less distinctive or robust in word-initial vs. word-final position. Based on similarity ranking by reference to the perceptibility difference, this study argues that the marginally contrastive sonorant in the onset is more likely to be the target of neutralization than is the sonorant in the coda, whose contrastiveness is well-grounded in Korean phonology.},
	Author = {Wu, Jiun-Shiung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:21:08 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:21:53 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--32},
	Title = {Terminability, wholeness and semantics of experiential \emph{guo}},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Sohn:2008,
	Abstract = {This study provides supporting evidence for the claim in Sohn (Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 12:307--324, 2006) that the nature of the geminate output in Korean sonorant assimilation is crucially dependent on the stem-final sonorant. Given the generally accepted claim of positional faithfulness to the onset (Lombardi, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:39--74, 1995; Beckman, Positional faithfulness, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1998; Casali, Resolving hiatus, University of California, Los Angeles, 1998), however, the coda saliency effect observed in Korean sonorant assimilation is intriguing. Drawing on a theory of Licensing by Cue and the P-map hypothesis (Steriade, Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization, UCLA, 1997; Steriade, The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization, UCLA, 2001), this study claims that coda saliency is a language-specific phonological reflex of the contrast asymmetry in the lexical representation and in acoustic cues. The asymmetry in functional load depending on the position is reflected in the perception of similarity, namely whether the difference between two alveolar sonorants is less distinctive or robust in word-initial vs. word-final position. Based on similarity ranking by reference to the perceptibility difference, this study argues that the marginally contrastive sonorant in the onset is more likely to be the target of neutralization than is the sonorant in the coda, whose contrastiveness is well-grounded in Korean phonology.},
	Author = {Sohn, Hyang-Sook},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:18:51 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:20:14 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {33--59},
	Title = {Phonological contrast and coda saliency of sonorant assimilation in {K}orean},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Tham:2008,
	Abstract = {I show that in Mandarin specificational copular sentences (sentences headed by the copula shi, in which the subject NP is typically a definite or indefinite description), the subject NP should be treated as a referential, rather than a predicative expression. This conclusion bears on the recent debate on whether specificational copular sentences should be treated as equative or as (inverted) predicational sentences, coming out against the latter. Evidence is adduced from (i) the distribution of the copula in nominal and non-nominal predication sentences, which I show also suggests that the Mandarin copula has a predicate-creation function; and (ii) asymmetries in the interpretation of bare nouns and indefinite NPs in the subject and complement positions of shi.},
	Author = {Tham, Shiao Wei},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:17:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:20:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {61--82},
	Title = {The semantic category of the subject {NP} in {M}andarin specificational copular sentences},
	Volume = {17},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Zhang:2007a,
	Abstract = {Chinese tone sandhi systems are often classified as left-dominant or right-dominant depending on the position of the syllable retaining the citation tone. An asymmetry exists between the two types of systems: left-dominant sandhi often involves rightward extension of the initial tone to the entire sandhi domain; right-dominant sandhi, however, often involves default insertion and paradigmatic neutralization of nonfinal tones. I argue that the extension of a tone to a larger domain may serve two markedness purposes: the reduction of tonal contours on a syllable and the reduction of pitch differences across syllable boundaries, both of which have a rightward directionality preference. The former is due to the durational advantage afforded by final lengthening; the latter is due to the universal preference for progressive tonal coarticulation. I show that a theory that formally encodes these preferences via intrinsic constraint rankings can predict the directional asymmetry noted above.},
	Author = {Zhang, Jie},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:15:44 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:16:23 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {259--302},
	Title = {A directional asymmetry in {C}hinese tone sandhi systems},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Kim:2007,
	Abstract = {Honorification in Korean recognizes the elevated social status of a participant in a clause with respect to the subject and/or the hearer. Honorific marking may be manifest as a nominal suffix, a special honorific form of a noun, an honorific case particle, an honorific marker on a verb, or a special honorific form of a verb. Previous accounts have typically proposed a honorification feature specified as [HON +], with unmarked forms being [HON )]. The key idea in this paper is that these approaches are misguided and that honorification is a privative feature, syntactically and semantically. On the syntactic side, we argue that the frequently adopted position that honorific marking in Korean is a kind of subject--verb agreement is deeply misguided. Few previous accounts succeed with regard to the full range of facts, which are of three types. First, multiple expressions of honorific marking within the same clause progressively elevate the social status of the referent: the effect is cumulative, which [HON $\pm$] cannot describe. Second, under previous analyses, some nouns have to be given a spurious and ultimately inconsistent ambiguity with respect to their honorific properties. Third, the different expressions of ``honorification'' do not mean exactly the same thing, which makes an account of multiple honorification within a clause in terms of agreement implausible. On the semantic side, we, building on ideas in Potts (The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005) and Potts and Kawahara (Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory. CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp. 235--254, 2004), propose that honorific forms introduce a dimension of meaning in the realm of expressive meaning. As a kind of expressive meaning, honorification is simply absent from all forms which are not positively marked for expressing it.},
	Author = {Kim, Jong-Bok and Sells, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:11:49 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:12:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {303--336},
	Title = {Korean honorification: a kind of expressive meaning},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Barrie:2007,
	Abstract = {The goal of this paper is twofold. First, it discusses the tonal systems of several Chinese languages within the framework of the Theory of the Contrastive Hierarchy (Dresher et al. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13:3--27, 1994; Dresher Talk Presented at Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, University of Ottawa, 1998, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20:47--62, 2003a, Asymmetry in grammar: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins, Vol. 2, pp. 239--257, 2003b). In particular, this paper demonstrates that disparities between phonetic characteristics of tones and their phonological activity can be understood as a kind of underspecification that the Contrastive Hierarchy affords. The second goal of this paper is to propose an analysis in which contour tones in Chinese languages generally are represented as unitary entities rather than as a concatenation of level tones (Tone Clusters). This contrasts with the tonal systems found in African languages, in which contour tones are demonstrably composed of level tones. Thus, this paper argues for the existence of two types of contour tones in natural language: unitary contour tones and Tone Clusters.},
	Author = {Barrie, Michael},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 12:09:29 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 12:11:28 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {337--362},
	Title = {Contour tones and contrast in {C}hinese languages},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Tamaoka:2007,
	Abstract = {The present study conducted four experiments to investigate how modality information provided through the sentence-final particles -yo and -ne were utilized in identifying an empty subject by native Japanese speakers. Experiment 1 conducted a whole-sentence anomaly decision task, finding that base sentences without -yo and -ne attached were processed more quickly than sentences with either -yo or -ne and that sentences with -yo were processed more quickly than the same sentences with -ne. A delay in processing sentences with -ne was created by the ambiguity of an empty subject identified by -ne as either `I' or `you'. In Experiment 2, the auxiliary verb -ou `let us' was added to the base sentence before -yo and -ne, providing a cue to identify the empty subject as `we'. Although the base sentences were processed more quickly than those containing the particles -yo and -ne, no other difference resulted from the attachment of these particles. To eliminate the possibility of orthographic-length effects, Experiment 3 compared base sentences with -ou, -ou-yo, and -ou-ne, finding no difference among them (i.e., no orthographic-length effects). Experiment 4 was conducted to further eliminate the possible involvement of discourse-level computation by utilizing base sentences with overt subjects, past tense verbs, and the auxiliary verb -rasii `appear to'. Once subjects of sentences were clearly shown, there was no difference among base sentences and those with either -yo or -ne attached (i.e., no discourse-level computation effects). Thus the present study proved that the modality information inherent in the particles -yo and -ne was used for identifying empty subjects.},
	Author = {Tamaoka, Katsuo and Matsumoto, Michiaki and Sakamoto, Tsutomu},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:54:38 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:57:08 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {145--170},
	Title = {Identifying empty subjects by modality information: the case of the {J}apanese sentence-final particles \emph{-yo} and \emph{-ne}},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Ivana:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper deals with the syntactic structure of subject-honorific and object-honorific constructions in Japanese through a detailed examination of the morphological make-up of the so-called honorific form of verbs. The main claim is that the honorific form of verbs actually consists of separate morphemes, which include honorific prefixes, verb stems, nominalisation suffixes, and light verbs. We further argue that the honorific prefix o-, which has been generally disregarded in previous literature, is a functional category which heads its own projection. The proposed analysis solves a long-standing problem in the investigation of Japanese honorific constructions, as to why honorific verbs cannot be separated from light verbs, originally pointed out by Harada (1976). Furthermore, this analysis shows how the syntactic distinction between the light verbs naru and suru leads to the meaning difference between the subject-honorific and object-honorific constructions.},
	Author = {Ivana, Adrian and Sakai, Hiromu},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:53:10 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:53:52 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {171--191},
	Title = {Honorification and light verbs in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Ljungvist:2007,
	Abstract = {In this paper, I propose a relevance-theoretic account of the particles le, guo and zhe in Mandarin Chinese. Though conventionally regarded as aspect markers, on closer inspection they seem to contribute to a range of interpretations that cannot be subsumed under a semantic category or a specific temporal representation. The explanatory model presented in this paper builds upon relevance- theoretic ideas on encoded procedural meaning and Reichenbach's (1947, Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan) temporal schemas for the tenses and the aspects. I propose a procedure---a set of interpretational instructions (as described in, among others, Wilson and Sperber (1993b, Lingua, 90, 1--25), Blakemore (1987, Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000, Journal of Linguistics, 36(3), 463--486) and Carston (2002, Thought and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.))---and a concept activated by the procedure for each of the particles. I show that these particles can contribute to a range of explicatures and implicatures and that their exact contribution to an utterance is highly context dependent.},
	Author = {Ljungvist, Marita},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:51:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:52:18 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {193--235},
	Title = {\emph{Le}, \emph{guo} and \emph{zhe} in {M}andarin {C}hinese: a relevance-theoretic account},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Lin:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that the most recent analyses of guo as proposed in Pan and Lee [(2004). The role of pragmatics in interpreting the Chinese perfective markers -Guo and -Le. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 441--446] and Lin [(2006). Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1--53] still fail to explain the predicate restriction and the discontinuity property of guo in a satisfying manner. An alternative analysis, which is a more fine-grained version of Lin's (2006) proposal, is suggested. It is proposed that a sentence with the form guo(P) is true in a world w if and only if the run time of the internal stage of an event described by P is wholly before the speech time, and if the event e has a target state, then there is an inertia world w in r stretching from w such that another event e' described also by P but distinct from e true in it at an interval containing the speech time.},
	Author = {Lin, Jo-Wang},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:49:28 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:50:25 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {237--257},
	Title = {Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker \emph{Guo} in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Heffernan:2007,
	Abstract = {When a language adapts words from another language, the adapting language (L1) naturally tries to retain the phonemic contrasts of the source language (L2). However, if the L2 has a greater degree of contrast than the L1 then either the extra degree(s) of contrast will be lost, or the L1 must introduce markedness into its phonological system. The objective of this article is twofold.
First, I argue that the introduction of markedness into the L1's phonology when adapting words from another language correlates with the social relation- ship between the languages. I demonstrate this by examining the retention of phonemic contrast in the various stages of the adaptation of Chinese words into Japanese.
Second, I argue for a phonological constraint that enforces the retention of L2's phonemic contrast, DISTINCT. An Optimality Theoretic analysis of the adaptation of Sino-Japanese produces the expected results for all of stages of adaptation except one---the stage when contact between the two languages is at its peak. For this stage, the analysis requires the addition of the DISTINCT constraint.},
	Author = {Heffernan, Kevin},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:47:30 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:49:02 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {61--86},
	Title = {The role of phonemic contrast in the formation of {S}ino-{J}apanese},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Stanford:2007,
	Abstract = {An intricate system of adjective intensification permeates Sui, a Tai-Kadai minority language of Guizhou Province, China. Sui adjective intensifiers show evidence of partial reduplication involving a complex interplay of morpho-phonological processes: rhyme, alliteration, The Emergence of The Unmarked (TETU), and identity avoidance patterns that support Kennard's ``Copy but don't repeat'' [(2004). Phonology, 21(3), 303--323]. This Sui phenomenon has never been reported to the wider linguistic community beyond Guizhou, and it provides valu- able theoretical insight into reduplication and related morpho-phonological pro- cesses. Moreover, the interaction of these morpho-phonological processes forms a system of patterned variety that may be viewed as a poeticized lexicon or lexicalized poetry, thus illustrating the presence of extensive poetic effects embedded within the core grammar. In this way, Sui provides strong support for Yip's observation that ``humans have both an aptitude and a taste for creating repetitive sequences, and they may use this skill in a variety of ways that are more or less part of the core grammar of the language'' [(1999). Glot International, 4.8, 1--7].},
	Author = {Stanford, James N.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:45:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:46:44 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {87--111},
	Title = {Sui Adjective Reduplication as Poetic Morpho-Phonology},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Kawahara:2007,
	Abstract = {Using data from a large-scale corpus, this paper establishes the claim that in Japanese rap rhymes, the degree of similarity of two consonants positively correlates with their likelihood of making a rhyme pair. For example, similar consonant pairs like {m-n}, {t-s}, and {r-n} frequently rhyme whereas dissimilar consonant pairs like {m-{\`o}}, {w-k}, and {n-p} rarely do. The current study adds to a body of literature that suggests that similarity plays a fundamental role in half rhyme formation (A. Holtman, 1996, A generative theory of rhyme: An optimality approach, PhD dissertation. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics; R. Jakobson, 1960, Linguistics and poetics: Language in literature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; D. Steriade, 2003, Knowledge of similarity and narrow lexical override, Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 29, 583--598; A. Zwicky, 1976, This rock-and-roll has got to stop: Junior's head is hard as a rock. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society, 12, 676--697). Furthermore, it is shown that Japanese speakers take acoustic details into account when they compose rap rhymes. This study thus supports the claim that speakers possess rich knowledge of psychoacoustic similarity (D. Steriade, 2001a, Directional asymmetries in place assimilation. In E. Hume, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 219--250). San Diego: Academic Press.; D. Steriade, 2001b, The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization, ms., University of California, Los Angeles; D. Steriade, 2003, Knowledge of similarity and narrow lexical override, Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 29, 583--598).},
	Author = {Kawahara, Shigeto},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:44:21 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:45:12 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {113--144},
	Title = {Half rhymes in {J}apanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Lee:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper compares the Korean past tense marker -ess with another past form -essess (double past), the distinction between which has been controversial among Korean linguists, and provides a discourse-based semantic analysis of them. It is argued that -ess and -essess are logically distinguished in terms of dynamic versus stative information in dynamic semantics, which is more or less in line with the distinction between the English past and the past perfect. The simple past in English and the Korean -ess at least have the potential to give dynamic information, updating the given context with a new event and shifting the current temporal perspective. The English past perfect and the Korean -essess, on the other hand, provide stative, background information, preserving the given context. However, while the English past perfect is ambiguous between preterit and aspectual interpretations, Korean -essess has only the preterit interpretation, triggering a flashback effect in narratives. Their semantic properties and differences are represented in Discourse Representation Theory.},
	Author = {Lee, Eun-Hee},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:42:20 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:43:24 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--25},
	Title = {Dynamic and Stative Information in Temporal Reasoning: Interpretation of {K}orean Past Markers in Narrative Discourse},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Zhang:2007,
	Abstract = {This article uses a multilevel approach to study the Chinese numeral classifiers. It argues that although shape categories constitute a major cognitive base for numeral classification, lexical taxonomy, linguistic convention, and stylistic creativity also play a role in determining the use of Chinese classifiers. It cautions that in general the relationship between noun and classifier is explicable from the semantic/ cognitive stance, but the relationship is not always transparent and consistent. At times the choice of a classifier can be entirely arbitrary and subject to linguistic innovation.},
	Author = {Zhang, Hong},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:40:26 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:41:21 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {43--59},
	Title = {Numeral classifiers in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Jun:2006,
	Abstract = {This study investigates the underlying tonal pattern of pitch accent, tone interaction, focus effects, and the prosodic structure of Northern Kyungsang Korean (NKK) by examining tone-syllable alignment and the realization of pitch accent in different tonal/prosodic contexts. Based on quantitative data, we propose that the underlying tone of pitch accent is H*+L and that the left edge of a prosodic word is marked by a low boundary tone (%L). Our observation, with respect to the tone interaction of different lexical classes, shows evidence in favor of the downstep/ upstep account [Kenstowicz & Sohn (1997) Focus and phrasing in Northern Kyungsang Korean. In P.-M. Bertinetto (Ed.), Certamen Phonologicum III, (pp. 137--156). Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. (Also in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 25--47, 1997)], as opposed to the H-tone deletion account (e.g., G. Kim (1988) The Pitch-accent System of the Taegu Dialect of Korean with Emphasis on Tone Sandhi at the Phrasal Level, PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.). The data also indicate that surface representations of NKK are sparsely specified for tone. Most importantly, we found that the prosodic cue of focus differs depending on the location of the pitch accent within a prosodic word. We conclude that the prosodic goal of focus in NKK is in the pitch range expansion of the focused phrase, which is implemented by expanding the pitch range of the most prominent word within the phrase, regardless of whether it is the focused word or not.},
	Author = {Jun, Jongho and Kim, Jungsun and Lee, Hayoung and Jun, Sun-Ah},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:37:19 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:38:42 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {289--317},
	Title = {The prosodic structure of pitch accent of {N}orthern {K}yungsang {K}orean},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Bruening:2006a,
	Abstract = {The question of whether wh-in situ stays in situ, or undergoes some form of covert wh-movement that parallels overt wh-movement, remains controversial despite decades of research. We present data from Vietnamese which indicate that wh-in situ can be interpreted by either covert movement or unselective binding without movement. Covert movement takes place in matrix questions that lack a question particle, while unselective binding is used when there is a question particle and in embedded questions generally. The Vietnamese data also show that covert movement observes the same constraints---in particular, Subjacency---as overt movement. The correlation between unselective binding and the question particle in matrix questions appears to support recent theoretical views of question particles (e.g., Cheng, 1991), but we argue that this is only apparent. The question particle merely serves a syntactic licensing function, and this function is borne by a question- embedding verb in embedded questions, meaning that it is not inherent to question particles as such. The question particle in Vietnamese actually serves an unrelated semantic function: it indicates realis mood and induces a presupposition. The implication is that question particles are only indirectly related to wh-in situ, if they are related at all.},
	Author = {Bruening, Benjamin and Tran, Thuan},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:34:48 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:35:38 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {319--341},
	Title = {Wh-Questions in {V}ietnamese},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Huang:2006,
	Abstract = {It has been observed that there is a complementary distribution between simple adjectives (SAs) and complex adjectives (CAs) in Chinese in both the adnominal and predicate positions (Huang, 1997, Some remarks on adjectives in Mandarin Chinese. Paper delivered at the International Association of Chinese Linguistics-6 (IACL-6), Leiden, June 19--21, 1997, The Netherlands; Shen, 1997, Zhongguo Yuwen, 259, 242--250; Zhu, 1956, Xiandai Hanyu Xingrongci Yanjiu [Studies of adjectives in modern Chinese]. Yuyan Yanjiu 1. Also published in Zhu Dexi (1980) Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Yanjiu [Grammatical studies of modern Chinese], pp. 3--41). This article makes two major claims: (a) there are two subgroups of CAs; while one is in total complementary distribution with SAs, the other is in partial complementary distribution with SAs; and (b) the total/partial complementary distribution noted in (a) can be explained by a property- theoretic conjunction/intersection analysis of modification structures which ensures not only type matching but also sortal matching between the modifier and modifiee. Evidence from dialectal studies (Zhu, 1993, Fangyan, 2, 81--100) is provided as strong support for this hypothesis.},
	Author = {Huang, Shi-Zhe},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:32:02 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:33:56 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {343--369},
	Title = {Property Theory, Adjectives, and Modification in {C}hinese},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Tenny:2006,
	Abstract = {This paper examines some phenomena in Japanese related to predicates of direct experience, which seem to require an integration of speech act, first and second person, evidentiality, and long distance binding. These predicates restrict their experiencer subjects to first person in the declarative and second person in the interrogative; the restriction is lifted by clausal or lexical evidential markers; and the binding domain for the long-distance anaphor jibun is the same as the evidential domains that lift the person constraint. Most of these facts are not new in the literature, but this proposal to integrate these facts under one general account at the syntax/semantics/discourse interface is new. The paper proposes an integrated account of these facts in the context of a framework for a Syntax of Sentience, which includes sentience roles, functional projections relating to sentience, and morphosyntactic features encoding sentience properties. Each of these separate parts of the proposal arises independently out of a different thread of research. The fact that the syntax of sentience outlined here integrates such a range of facts and literatures is seen as a strength of the approach.},
	Author = {Tenny, Carol L.},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:29:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:31:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {245--288},
	Title = {Evidentiality, Experiencers, and the Syntax of Sentience in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2006}}}

@article{Ko:2006,
	Abstract = {This paper discusses various puzzles concerning the phonology of Korean nominal inflection. In particular, I investigate a range of vowel hiatus resolution phenomena that differ between nouns and verbs, the overapplication of consonant cluster simplification and laryngeal feature neutralization in nominal stems, and certain asymmetries between derived nouns and nonderived nouns. After presenting some problems with previous approaches, I offer an analysis of the phonology of Korean nominal inflection in terms of BASE-OUTPUT CORRESPONDENCE (BOC) THEORY, along the lines of Kager (1999). I argue that a variety of unexpected properties of noun phonology in Korean can receive a unified account under the BOC approach. I also show that noun-specific alignment and noun-specific faithfulness constraints are inadequate to capture noun phonology in Korean. My arguments support the view that the fact that nouns have a Base (isolation form) is the key factor in explaining the unique properties of noun phonology (see Kenstowicz's (1996) BASE IDENTITY, in particular). It is shown, however, that the BOC approach overcomes shortcomings with the Base Identity approach by making a necessary distinction between minor and fatal divergence from the Base.},
	Author = {Ko, Heejeong},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:28:08 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:29:16 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {195--243},
	Title = {Base-Output Correspondence in {K}orean Nominal Inflection},
	Volume = {15},
	Year = {2006}}}

@book{Keskin:2009,
	Author = {Keskin, Cem},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:24:14 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:25:29 -0500},
	Publisher = {LOT},
	Title = {Subject Agreement-Dependency of {A}ccusative {C}ase in {T}urkish},
	Year = {2009}}

@article{Seiler:2009,
	Author = {Seiler, Guido},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:21:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:23:03 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {229--272},
	Title = {Sound change or analogy? {M}onosyllabic lengthening in {G}erman and some of its consequences},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Bader:2009,
	Abstract = {Although verb cluster formation has long been a topic of syntactic research, many of its properties are still controversial. In this paper, we contribute to the ongoing discussion by looking at verb order variation in 3- and 4-verb clusters in German on the basis of new empirical evidence. First, we present several experiments that have used the method of speeded grammaticality judgments in order to determine the orders within a verb cluster that are accepted by native speakers. A major result of our experiments is that native speakers accept more orders than are allowed in Standard German. Second, we give a theoretical account of the data which applies and extends Williams' (2003) CAT-language. We show how the variation between Standard German and the more liberal Colloquial German that was revealed in our experiments follows from slightly different lexical entries within this system. Standard German is characterized by a complexity requirement on modal verb complements that restricts verb order variation. The more liberal Colloquial German system lacks this feature and thus allows a larger variation of verb orders.},
	Author = {Bader, Markus and Schmid, Tanja},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-29 11:19:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-29 11:20:53 -0500},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {175--228},
	Title = {Verb clusters in colloquial {G}erman},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@book{Potts:2005,
	Address = {Oxford},
	Author = {Potts, Christopher},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-13 11:00:53 -0700},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-13 11:01:55 -0700},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Title = {The Logic of Conventional Implicatures},
	Year = {2005}}

@inproceedings{Schlenker:2005a,
	Author = {Schlenker, Philippe},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-06 19:28:40 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2011-01-22 16:52:36 -0500},
	Editor = {Maier, Emar and Bary, Corien and Huitink, Janneke},
	Pages = {385--416},
	Title = {Minimize Restrictors! (Notes on Definite Descriptions, Condition {C} and Epithets)},
	Volume = {9},
	Year = {2005}}

@article{Schlenker:2005,
	Author = {Schlenker, Philippe},
	Date-Added = {2009-12-06 19:27:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-12-07 09:32:34 -0500},
	Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--92},
	Title = {Non-Redundancy: Towards A Semantic Reinterpretation of {B}inding {T}heory},
	Volume = {13},
	Year = {2005}}}

@inproceedings{Sprouse:2005,
	Author = {Sprouse, Jon},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the {N}orth {E}ast {L}ingusitic {S}ociety},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-30 11:00:24 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-30 11:15:16 -0500},
	Editor = {Davis, Christopher and Deal, Amy Rose and Zabbal, Youri},
	Pages = {546--559},
	Publisher = {{GLSA}},
	Title = {{ACD} and Movement Reconsidered: {A} and {A$'$} Copies},
	Volume = {Two},
	Year = {2005}}

@book{Kehler:2002,
	Address = {Stanford University},
	Author = {Kehler, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-30 08:28:18 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-30 08:28:56 -0500},
	Publisher = {{CSLI} Publications},
	Title = {Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar},
	Year = {2002}}

@article{Kehler:2000,
	Author = {Kehler, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-30 08:27:17 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-30 08:27:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	Number = {533--575},
	Title = {Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis},
	Year = {2000}}

@article{Fodor:1982,
	Author = {Fodor, Janet Dean and Sag, Ivan},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-17 12:01:53 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-17 12:02:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	Pages = {355--398},
	Title = {Referential and Quantificational Indefinites},
	Volume = {5},
	Year = {1982}}

@article{Ochi:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that the DP object in Japanese always moves to the domain of vP in overt syntax. The main argument for this hypothesis comes from the transitivity restriction imposed on the genitive-subject construction in this language. I argue that once the object is shifted to the edge of vP, the subject in the inner specifier of vP is rendered inaccessible from the higher phase head. This hypothesis also derives the well-known ban on multiple occurrences of accusative phrases in the Japanese causative construction. The paper also makes several theoretical points. For instance, the EPP checking (in the traditional sense) is contingent on an independent Agree relation such as Case checking. Also, calculation of equidistance is confined to a very local domain of a syntactic derivation.},
	Author = {Ochi, Masao},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-11 12:34:01 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-11 12:34:40 -0500},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {324--362},
	Title = {Overt Object Shift in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Deal:2009,
	Abstract = {While expletive there has primarily been studied in the context of the existential construction, it has long been known that some but not all lexical verbs are compatible with there insertion. This paper argues that there insertion can be used to diagnose vPs with no external argument, ruling out transitives, unergatives, and also inchoatives, which are argued to project an event argument on the edge of vP. Based on the tight link between there insertion and low functional structure, I build a case for low there insertion, where the expletive is first merged in the specifier of a verbalizing head v. The low merge position is motivated by a stringently local relationship that holds between there and its associate DP; this relationship plays a crucial role in the interaction of there with raising verbs, where local agreement rules out cases of ``too many theres'' such as *There seemed there to be a man in the room. An account of these cases in terms of phase theory is explored, in which I ultimately suggest that there must be merged in a nonthematic phasal specifier position.},
	Author = {Deal, Amy Rose},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-11 12:31:15 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-11 12:32:08 -0500},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {285--323},
	Title = {The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from ``Selection''},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Trapman:2009,
	Abstract = {Can second language (L2) learners acquire a grammar that allows a subset of the structures allowed by their native grammar? This question is addressed here with respect to acquisition of phonotactics. On the assumption that the L2 initial state equals the native grammar's final state, learnability theory would predict that a lack of negative evidence for phonotactic structures that are illegal in the target language precludes acquisition of the target grammar. This prediction is tested for L1-Russian (superset) and L1-Spanish (subset) L2 learners of Dutch by means of word-likeness judgments and lexical decision experiments. Participants responded to nonwords containing consonant clusters in onsets and codas that are legal (1) only in Russian, (2) only in Russian and Dutch, or (3) in all three languages. The results converge to show that advanced L1-Russian and L1-Spanish L2 learners possess native-like phonotactic knowledge. Analysis shows that this knowledge cannot be attributed to transfer of lexical statistics from the native language. The results suggest that L2 phonotactic acquisition is not affected by subset/superset relations between the native language and target language. Some possible explanations for our findings are discussed.},
	Author = {Trapman, Mirjam and Kager, Ren{\'e}},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:31:30 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:32:56 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {178--221},
	Title = {The Acquisition of Subset and Superset Phonotactic Knowledge in a Second Language},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Marsden:2009,
	Abstract = {This article reports on an experimental investigation of knowledge of distributivity in nonnative (L2) Japanese learners whose first language (L1) is English or Korean. The availability of distributive scope in Japanese is modulated by word order and the semantic features of quantifiers. For English- speaking learners, these subtle interpretive phenomena are underdetermined in both the input and the L1. However, for Korean speakers, target-like knowledge could arise via L1 transfer. The results yield clear evidence of distinct developmental paths in the two L1 groups, testifying to L1 influence on the syntax-semantics interface. Nonetheless, some English-speaking learners exhibit target-like distributive readings despite the lack of direct evidence. This development of target-like knowledge in the absence of evidence is accounted for by integrating Sprouse's (2006) lexical transfer account of L2 acquisition and a Universal Grammar model (Beghelli 1995) of distributive scope.},
	Author = {Marsden, Heather},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:29:25 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:30:43 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {135--177},
	Title = {Distributive Quantifier Scope in {E}nglish-{J}apanese and {K}orean-{J}apanese Interlanguage},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Becker:2009,
	Abstract = {I describe the results of an experiment that bears on how children learn the lexical and syntactic properties of abstract verbs (seem, try) in order to distinguish the subclasses of raising (seem) and control verbs (try). Previous research suggested that an inanimate subject in certain contexts leads children to suppose that the subject and main verb are not thematically related, and thus that the verb is a raising verb. Here I address two alternative possibilities. One possibility is that children lack the adult-like restriction that subject and verb must match in animacy, which I counter with evidence from the developmental literature. The other possibility, addressed by the experiment, is that children's control verbs are thematically related to their subject but do not require the subject to be animate. I will argue, instead, that the presence of an expletive/inanimate subject coerces a raising analysis of the verb, and concomitant ``bleached'' semantics of the verb in that context.},
	Author = {Becker, Misha},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:27:05 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:27:57 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {283--296},
	Title = {The Role of {NP} Animacy and Expletives in Verb Learning},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Notley:2009,
	Abstract = {Children often produce nonadult responses to sentences with the focus operator only, such as Only the cat is holding a flag. For example, children often accept this sentence as a description of a situation in which a cat holds a flag and a duck holds both a flag and a balloon. One proposed analysis, by Paterson, Liversedge, Rowland & Filik (2003), contends that children disregard only in such sentences, yielding The cat is holding a flag. An alternative proposal by Crain, Ni & Conway (1994) maintains that children misassign only to the VP, yielding The cat is only holding a flag. The findings of experimental studies with two typologically distinct languages, English and Mandarin Chinese, support Crain et al.'s (1994) analysis. We propose, further, that children pass through a stage at which only is analyzed as a sentential adverb taking scope over both the subject NP and the VP. We address the questions of why children initially adopt this analysis, and how they converge on the adult grammars of these languages.},
	Author = {Notley, Anna and Zhou, Peng and Crain, Stephen and Thornton, Rosalind},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:24:49 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:26:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {240--282},
	Title = {Children's Interpretation of Focus Expressions in {E}nglish and {M}andarin},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{De-Cat:2009,
	Abstract = {This study investigates the acquisition of the discourse/pragmatic notion of topic, based on an experimental task eliciting topic vs. focus subjects. In spoken French, these are obligatorily realized as dislocated vs. nondislocated noun phrases. The results provide overwhelming evidence for the early mastery of topic, even by the youngest children (2;6). The only difficulty was in the evaluation of fine-grained salience distinctions, leading to the underuse of full noun phrases in ambiguous contexts. A theory of mind test revealed that the ability to assess their listener's knowledge state is not sufficient to explain this underuse. Instead, children's overreliance on the situational context as a source of complementary information to disambiguate their utterances is argued to have a major impact on how explicit they are.},
	Author = {De Cat, C{\'e}cile},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:22:41 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:23:54 -0500},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {224--239},
	Title = {Experimental Evidence for Preschoolers' Mastery of ``Topic''},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Sichel:2009,
	Author = {Sichel, Ivy},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:17:59 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:19:37 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {712--723},
	Title = {New Evidence for the Structural Realization of the Implicit External Argument in Nominalizations},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kornai:2009,
	Author = {Kornai, Andr{\'a}s},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:16:11 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:17:51 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {701--712},
	Title = {The Complexity of Phonology},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Williams:2009,
	Abstract = {According to Kratzer (2003), the thematic relation Theme, construed very generally, is not a ``natural relation.'' She says that the ``natural relations'' are ``cumulative'' and argues that Theme is not cumulative, in contrast to Agent. It is therefore best, she concludes, to remove Theme from the palette of semantic analysis. Here I oppose the premises of Kratzer's argument and then introduce a new challenge to her conclusion, based on the resultative construction in Mandarin. The facts show that Theme and Agent are on equal footing, insofar as neither has the property that Kratzer's conjecture requires of a natural relation.},
	Author = {Williams, Alexander},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:14:11 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:15:58 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {686--700},
	Title = {Themes, Cumulativity, and Resultatives: comments on Kratzer 2003},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Boersma:2009,
	Abstract = {This article shows that Error-Driven Constraint Demotion (EDCD), an error-driven learning algorithm proposed by Tesar (1995) for Prince and Smolensky's (1993/2004) version of Optimality Theory, can fail to converge to a correct totally ranked hierarchy of constraints, unlike the earlier non-error-driven learning algorithms proposed by Tesar and Smolensky (1993). The cause of the problem is found in Tesar's use of ``mark-pooling ties,'' indicating that EDCD can be repaired by assuming Anttila's (1997) ``permuting ties'' instead. Proofs show, and simulations confirm, that totally ranked hierarchies can indeed be found by both this repaired version of EDCD and Boersma's (1998) Minimal Gradual Learning Algorithm.},
	Author = {Boersma, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:12:12 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:13:52 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {667--686},
	Title = {Some Correct Error-Driven Versions of the Constraint Demotion Algorithm},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Preminger:2009,
	Abstract = {In this article, I propose a novel way to distinguish between agreement and clitic doubling. The innovation lies in examining what happens when the relation between the relevant agreement morphology and the full noun phrase fails to obtain: whether the agreement morpheme still shows up, bearing default phi-features, or disappears altogether.
The workings of the proposed diagnostic are demonstrated using a family of constructions in ``substandard'' Basque (Etxepare 2006). Besides supporting the proposed diagnostic, the analysis of Basque provides a new perspective on the typological status of the Basque agreement system, as well as evidence against the traditional analysis of unergatives in Basque as being underlyingly transitive.},
	Author = {Preminger, Omer},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:10:18 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:11:30 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {619--666},
	Title = {Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kim:2009b,
	Abstract = {This article examines glottalization and lenition in Nuu-chah-nulth. These processes involve features introduced via affixation, features that are sometimes compatible with the final segment of the stem and sometimes incompatible. An understanding of the intricacies of these patterns requires a focus on featural representations, with lexical representations involving floating features and variable specifications for features. Both of these properties follow from the postulation of a rich base, with features freely combining in inputs. The analysis argues for covert features, for constraints holding more strongly in small domains than large domains, and for the importance of a markedness scale on glottalizability.},
	Author = {Kim, Eun-Sook and Pulleyblank, Douglas},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:08:25 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:10:07 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {567--617},
	Title = {Glottalization and Lenition in {N}uu-chah-nulth},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Hicks:2009,
	Abstract = {This article addresses the syntax of the notorious tough(-movement) construction (TC) in English. TCs exhibit a range of apparently contra- dictory empirical properties suggesting that their derivation involves the application of both A-movement and A'-movement operations. Within previous principles-and-parameters models, TCs have remained ``unexplained and in principle unexplainable'' (Holmberg 2000:839) because of incompatibility with constraints on theta-role assignment, locality, and Case. This article argues that the phase-based implementation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004) permits a reanalysis of null wh-operators capable of circumventing the previous theoretical difficulties. Essentially, tough-movement consists of A-moving a constituent out of a ``complex'' null operator that has already undergone A'-movement, a ``smuggling'' construction in the terms proposed by Collins (2005a,b).},
	Author = {Hicks, Glyn},
	Date-Added = {2009-11-05 08:05:07 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-11-05 08:08:11 -0500},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {535--566},
	Title = {Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@periodical{Ott:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper presents a novel analysis of the phenomenon of stylistic fronting in Icelandic. It is argued that stylistic fronting is not a head-movement operation, but rather phrasal movement to subject position In many cases, however, independent factors deterine evacuation of the phrase prior to raising, i.e., the fronted phrase can be a remnant. It is shown that this approach can account for a variety of otherwise puzzling properties of stylistic fronting.},
	Author = {Ott, Dennis},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:51:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-12 10:52:07 -0400},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {141--178},
	Title = {Styistic fronting as remnant movement},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@periodical{Hroarsdottir:2009a,
	Author = {Hr{\'o}arsd{\'o}ttir, Thorbj{\"o}rg},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:50:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-12 10:51:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {103--140},
	Title = {Notes on language change and grammar change},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@periodical{Engels:2009,
	Abstract = {In the Scandinavian langauge, sentential negation must be licensed outside VP, necessitating leftward movement of negative objects, ``Negative Shift'' (NegS). While string-vacuous NegS is possibel in all Scandinavian varieties, there is a fair amount of cross-linguistic variation as to non-string vacuous NegS. In particlar, the varieties contrast in which constituents can be corssed by NegS and whether or not crossing of a certain constituent requires the presence of an intervening verb.
	The paper discusses which difficulties for syntactic analysis arise from the variation as to the applicability of NegS and why other movement operatios do not display such a range of variation.},
	Author = {Engels, Eva},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:47:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-12 10:47:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {83--102},
	Title = {Microvaration in object positions: {N}egative {S}hift in {S}candinavian},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@periodical{Hroarsdottir:2009,
	Abstract = {Older Icelandic had several OV word order patterns. This article focuses on the derivaiton of word order patterns with `split' orders. The principal aim is to argue for how the parameter loss (loss ov OV) must be seen as a loss of `weak' (defective) T, leading to the loss ov FP/PredP moving to SpecCP. This accounts for the diachronic aspect in terms of one parameter change, resulting in the loss of all the various OV word order patterns at the same time in the history of Icelandic.},
	Author = {Hr{\'o}arsd{\'o}ttir, Thorbj{\"o}rg},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:39:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2011-03-05 13:06:03 -0500},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {37--82},
	Title = {Restructuring and {OV} order},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@periodical{Wiklund:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper is a brief extensio of recent work on embedded verb second and is a contribution to research on the relation between V2 and illocutionary force. It presents a problem for the hypothesis that there is an illocutionary motivation for the verb second word order in Mainland Scandinavian declaratives. The relevant force, to the extent that we can identify it, appears to be available also in the absence of V2 word order.},
	Author = {Wiklund, Anna-Lena},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:38:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-12 10:39:36 -0400},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {27--36},
	Title = {In search of the force of dependent {V2}: A note on {S}wedish},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@periodical{Stroh-Wollin:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper deals with the development of three different definiteness markers in Old Scandinavian: the definite suffice -inn and the pre-adjectival articles (h)inn and s{\'a}{\th}en. It is argued that only the development of the definite suffix followed the normal path of grammaticalization of definite articles. Fromt eh earliest Scandinavian texts, the runic inscriptions, follows that the future articles (h)inn and s{\a}{\th}en started as formal elements preceding weakly inflected adjectives. They appear in this function very early, and, seemingly, more or less obligatorily so from the beginning. On this ground, earlier analyses of the definite markers and the noun phrase in Old Norse are rejected. Further, the role of the regional variation in Scanidnavia is highlighted in relation to the competition between the two free articles.},
	Author = {Stroh-Wollin, Ulla},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-12 10:37:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-12 10:41:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian Syntax},
	Pages = {1--25},
	Title = {On the development of definiteness markers in {S}candinavian},
	Volume = {83},
	Year = {2009}}

@article{Wiese:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper discusses varieties of German with respect to noun pluralisation, with a focus on the status of final plural schwa as in Fisch-e `fish, pl.'. By analysing the much-discussed plural morphology of Standard German by means of both prosodic as well as morphological principles, it is argued that final schwa in plural nouns of Standard German is not, as generally assumed, an inflectional suffix. As an alternative, an optimality-theoretic constraint-based analysis of final schwa in plurals leads to the proposal that this segment in noun plurals of Standard German arises as an inserted vowel, which is in turn the result of a specific constraint interaction. In the second part of this paper, related noun plurals are studied in a sample of diverse non-standard dialects of German. Morphological and prosodic constraints, through the well-known mechanism of differences in constraint-ranking in Optimality Theory, derive the (non-)appearance of word-final plural schwas in these dialects which are minimally different from Standard German and from each other. The constraints will include those which refer to properties of whole paradigms of word forms, not just to phonological properties of individual words. As an overall descriptive result, a micro-typology of plural formation in varieties of German emerges, and the prosodic phonology of German is demonstrated to play a crucial role in the formation of word forms.},
	Author = {Wiese, Richard},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:47:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:48:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {137--173},
	Title = {The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of {G}erman},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Meinunger:2009,
	Abstract = {In this contribution, I investigate the leftmost periphery of German CPs and DPs and try to give a unified account for some grammatical phenomena concerning the (non-) integration of orphan-like elements. It will be shown that in both cases, certain speaker-oriented adverbials or adjectives pattern much alike. They may be placed in a quasi-external position, in which they can be considered syntactic orphans. In particular, the adjectival construction has not really been discussed in the literature. Both---the investigated adverbials and adjectives---can also appear inside a clause (prefield) or within the noun phrase (i.e., between article and noun). The two relevant positions are associated with specific restrictions on the available readings. A possible explanation of these restrictions will be proposed. The results of the given analysis have some consequences for the architecture of the so-called interfaces, that is, the bridge character of the branch from core syntax to the morpho-phonological component on the one hand (PF in the broad sense), and the one between syntax proper and meaning (LF in a larger view) on the other.},
	Author = {Meinunger, Andr{\'e}},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:44:31 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:46:20 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {115--135},
	Title = {Leftmost peripheral adverbs and adjectives in {G}erman},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Breitbarth:2009,
	Abstract = {The goal of this paper is to propose an alternative interpretation of the diachronic development of the expression of negation known as Jespersen's cycle as it is found in the West Germanic languages. Research to date has focussed mainly on the conditions behind the rise of the secondary negator. Much less attention has been paid to the fate of the original marker. The present paper focuses on the development of the original negation particle in the West Germanic languages English, Dutch, and High and Low German and argues that at least in these languages, its weakening and reinforcement are related in a more complex way than is usually assumed and that functional redundancy due to the presence of two negation elements is not likely to be the reason for its loss. Rather, a shift in the licensing conditions of n-indefinites created a potential ambiguity of the original marker which fed into its reanalysis as a polarity marker at exactly the point when a new marker became available, by reanalysis of a previously and independently grammaticalised reinforcer. It is argued that the two reanalyses have to occur simultaneously, resulting in a hybrid approach to Jespersen's cycle in West Germanic, as opposed to previous approaches under which one of the changes conditions the other.},
	Author = {Breitbarth, Anne},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:41:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:43:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {81--114},
	Title = {A hybrid approach to {J}espersen's cycle in {W}est {G}ermanic},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Soh:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper addresses the connection between the ``change of state'' and the ``contrary to expectation'' interpretations through a study of Mandarin sentence-final particle -le (sentential -le), which along with English already and German schon are associated with these two interpretations. Making use of the notion of speaker presupposition and common ground (Stalnaker 1998, 1999, 2002), I propose an analysis of sentential -le whereby the ``change of state'' interpretation is associated with a change expressed by propositions within a common ground, while the ``contrary to expectation'' interpretation is associated with a change expressed by propositions across common grounds. Contrary to what is sometimes assumed, both the ``change of state'' and the ``contrary to expectation'' interpretations involve changes across a temporal domain. The proposal is supported by a restriction in the occurrence of sentential -le with downward-entailing quantifiers. The analysis supports L{\"o}bner's (1989) insight that already/schon is associated with a presupposition about a prior ``negative state'', and clarifies how the ``change of state'' associated with sentential -le is different from the one entailed by the occurrence of a telic situation.},
	Author = {Soh, Hooi Ling},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:07:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:09:47 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {623--657},
	Title = {Speaker presupposition and {M}andarin {C}hinese sentence-final \emph{-le}: a unified analysis of ``change of state'' and the ``contrary to expectation'' reading},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Gecseg:2009,
	Abstract = {It is a commonly accepted view in the Hungarian linguistic literature that sentence structure is determined by information structure, viewed as a phrase structure theoretic interpretation of the topic--comment articulation of the sentence. There is a designated topic position at the left edge of the sentence, namely SpecTopP, hosting constituents that are claimed to be in a predicative relation with the rest of the sentence. On this view, topic--comment and logical subject--logical predicate are con- sidered to be synonymous notions. We argue that the notion of topic as used in the Hungarian literature poses some serious problems, which can only be eliminated if the pragmatic aspects of topichood are separated from its semantic function entailing the development of a two-level approach to information structure. Topic and logical subject belong to two different levels with topic being an essentially pragmatic no- tion and logical subject being a syntactico-semantic notion. On this analysis the basic syntactic structure of the Hungarian sentence is determined by the articulation ``logical subject--logical predicate'' rather than by the articulation ``topic-comment''. The proposed analysis has important typological consequences.},
	Author = {G{\'e}cseg, Zsuzsanna and Kiefer, Ferenc},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:04:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:06:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {583--622},
	Title = {A new look at information structure in {H}ungarian},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Gallagher:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that long-distance assimilations between consonants come in two varieties: Total identity, which arises via a non-local relation between the interacting segments; and partial identity, which results from local articulatory spreading through intervening segments (Flemming 1995; Gafos 1999). Our proposal differs from previous analyses (Hansson 2001; Rose and Walker 2004) in that only total identity is a non-local phenomenon. While non-adjacent consonants may interact via a relation we call linking, the only requirement which may be placed on linked consonants is total identity. All single feature identities are the result of local spreading. The interaction of a total identity requirement on ejectives and stri- dents with anteriority harmony in Chol (Mayan) highlights the distinction between these two types of long-distance phenomena. We show that theories that allow non- local, single-feature agreement make undesirable predictions, and that the more restrictive typology predicted by our framework is supported by the vast majority of long-distance assimilation cases.},
	Author = {Gallagher, Gillian and Coon, Jessica},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:02:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:04:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {545--582},
	Title = {Distinguishing total and partial identity: Evidence from {C}hol},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Ernst:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper presents an analysis of the ordering of speaker-oriented adverbs (SpOAs) with respect to each other and negation, arguing that SpOAs are positive polarity items, and therefore normally cannot follow negation. The adverbs represent a speaker's subjective commitment to the truth of the proposition represented by the adverb, which is incompatible with the falsity of the same proposition required by nega- tion. This also accounts for the usual unacceptability of SpOAs in other contexts, such as questions and conditionals. The analysis extends to other contexts where SpOAs are acceptable, such as negative questions and negative counterfactual conditionals, in such a way as to contribute support for Giannakidou's (non)veridical theory of polarity over ``strengthening'' theories based on scalar implicatures. It is also shown that SpOAs' underlying semantic property of being subjective also helps predict their linear order with respect to each other.},
	Author = {Ernst, Thomas},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 09:00:38 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 09:01:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {497--544},
	Title = {Speaker-oriented adverbs},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Boskovic:2009,
	Abstract = {The paper investigates first and last conjunct agreement in Serbo-Croatian, the latter being a rather rare phenomenon for head initial languages. The paper gives a uniform account of first and last conjunct agreement based on the operation Agree (Chomsky 2000). The account captures both the contexts where first and last conjunct agreement exhibit parallel behavior and the contexts where the parallelism between the two breaks down. The analysis also captures interaction between gender and num- ber agreement. Given the complexity of the first/last conjunct agreement paradigm in Serbo-Croatian, to the extent that it is successful the analysis presented in the paper provides strong evidence in favor of the operation Agree in general, as well as the particular approach to Agree adopted in the paper. The system developed in the paper allows one instance of uninterpretable features, namely valued uninterpretable fea- tures, not to undergo feature checking and does not require uninterpretable features in general to undergo feature checking with interpretable features, differing in these respects from Chomsky (2000, 2001a) and Pesetsky and Torrego (2007).},
	Author = {Bo{\v{s}}kovi{\'c}, {\v{Z}}eljko},
	Date-Added = {2009-10-01 08:57:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-10-01 08:58:15 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {455--496},
	Title = {Unifying first and last conjunct agreement},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@incollection{Beghelli:1997,
	Author = {Beghelli, Filippo and Stowell, Timothy},
	Booktitle = {Ways of Taking Scope},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-30 21:52:09 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-30 21:53:29 -0400},
	Editor = {Szabolcsi, Anna},
	Pages = {71--107},
	Publisher = {Kluwer},
	Title = {Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of \emph{each} and \emph{every}},
	Year = {1997}}

@phdthesis{Tunstall:1998,
	Address = {Amherst, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Tunstall, Susanne},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-30 21:50:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-30 21:51:20 -0400},
	School = {University of Massachusetts at Amherst},
	Title = {The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics and Processing},
	Year = {1998}}

@inproceedings{Swart:1992,
	Author = {de Swart, Helen},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of {SALT II}},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-24 10:22:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-24 10:24:06 -0400},
	Pages = {387--402},
	Title = {Intervention Effects. Monotonicity and Scope},
	Year = {1992}}

@incollection{Stechow:1996a,
	Address = {Dordrecht},
	Author = {von Stechow, Arnim},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the {K}onstanz Workshop ``Reference and Anaphorical Relations''},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-17 08:39:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-17 08:44:02 -0400},
	Editor = {von Heusinger, Klaus and Egli, Urs},
	Pages = {193--228},
	Publisher = {Kluwer Publications},
	Title = {Some remarks on choice functions and {LF}-movement},
	Year = {2000}}

@unpublished{Takahashi:2007,
	Author = {Takahashi, Shoichi},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 12:30:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 12:33:40 -0400},
	Note = {unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst},
	Title = {On Traces and Copies},
	Year = {2007}}

@article{Takahashi:2009a,
	Author = {Takahashi, Shoichi},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 12:28:51 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 12:29:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Title = {The Hidden Side of Clausal Complements},
	Year = {to appear}}

@phdthesis{Cable:2007,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Cable, Seth},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 11:18:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 11:19:53 -0400},
	School = {Massachusetts Institute of Technology},
	Title = {The Grammar of {Q}: {Q}-Particles and the Nature of Wh-Fronting, as Revealed by the Wh-Questions of {T}lingit},
	Year = {2007}}

@book{Heck:2008,
	Author = {Heck, Fabian},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 11:16:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 11:16:37 -0400},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Title = {A Theory of Pied-Piping},
	Year = {2008}}

@unpublished{Cable:2008,
	Author = {Cable, Seth},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 11:08:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 11:09:29 -0400},
	Note = {unpublished paper, University of Massachusetts at Amherst},
	Title = {There is No Such Thing as Pied-Piping},
	Year = {2008}}

@incollection{Rett:2006,
	Author = {Rett, Jessica},
	Booktitle = {Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 10:25:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 10:26:28 -0400},
	Editor = {Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, P. Cabredo},
	Pages = {355--374},
	Publisher = {CNRS},
	Title = {Pronominal vs. determiner \emph{wh}-words: evidence from the copy construction},
	Year = {2006}}

@article{Liptak:2007a,
	Author = {Lipt{\'a}k, Anik{\'o} and Vicente, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 10:21:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 10:21:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Lingua},
	Title = {Pronominal doubling under predicate topicalization},
	Year = {2007}}

@incollection{Kuno:2004,
	Author = {Kuno, Susumu},
	Booktitle = {The Handbook of Pragmatics},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 09:32:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 09:35:19 -0400},
	Editor = {Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory},
	Pages = {315--343},
	Publisher = {Blackwell Publishing},
	Title = {Empathy and Direct Discourse Perspectives},
	Year = {2004}}

@phdthesis{Moulton:2009,
	Author = {Moulton, Keir},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 09:24:33 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 09:25:08 -0400},
	School = {University of Massachusetts at Amherst},
	Title = {Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation},
	Year = {2009}}

@inproceedings{Kluck:2007,
	Author = {Kluck, Marlies},
	Booktitle = {CamLing 2007},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 08:51:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 08:53:00 -0400},
	Pages = {130--137},
	Title = {The perspective of external remerge on {R}ight {N}ode {R}aising},
	Year = {2007}}

@phdthesis{Yuksek:2007,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Yuksek, Martina},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 08:10:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 08:11:31 -0400},
	School = {Massachusetts Institute of Technology},
	Title = {About Sharing},
	Year = {2007}}

@unpublished{Vries:2006b,
	Author = {de Vries, Mark},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-09 08:06:42 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 08:09:20 -0400},
	Note = {unpublished paper, University of Groeningen},
	Title = {Asymmetric Merge and Parataxis},
	Year = {2006}}

@inproceedings{Guilliot:2006,
	Address = {Somerville, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Guilliot, Nicolas and Malkawi, Nouman},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-08 17:35:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-08 17:37:08 -0400},
	Editor = {Baumer, Donald and Montero, David and Scanlon, Michael},
	Pages = {168--176},
	Publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	Title = {When Resumption Determines Reconstruction},
	Year = {2006}}

@unpublished{Malkawi:200,
	Author = {Malkawi, Nouman and Guilliot, Nicolas},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-08 17:32:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-08 17:43:58 -0400},
	Note = {paper presented at ALS20},
	Title = {Reconstruction and Islandhood in {J}ordanian {Ar}abic},
	Year = {200x}}

@unpublished{Abels:2007,
	Author = {Abels, Klaus and Neeleman, Ad},
	Date-Added = {2009-09-08 14:14:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-08 14:15:35 -0400},
	Month = {September},
	Note = {unpublished manuscript, University College London},
	Title = {Linear asymmetries and the {LCA}},
	Year = {2007}}

@book{Lutz:2000,
	Date-Added = {2009-09-07 17:28:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-07 17:29:45 -0400},
	Editor = {Lutz, Uli and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and von Stechow, Arnim},
	Publisher = {Linguistik Aktuell},
	Title = {Wh-Scope Marking},
	Year = {2000}}

@incollection{Carnie:2006,
	Author = {Carnie, Andrew and Cash Cash, Phillip},
	Booktitle = {Ergativity},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-31 13:26:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-31 13:52:34 -0400},
	Editor = {Johns, Alana and Massam, Diane and Ndayiragije, Juv{\'e}nal},
	Pages = {229--244},
	Publisher = {Springer},
	Title = {Tree-geometric relational hierarchies and {N}uumiipuut{\'\i}mt ({Nez Perce}) Case},
	Year = {2006}}

@article{Hinterholzl:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper proposes a novel phase-based approach to directionality parameters in Germanic. Basic OV and basic VO order are argued to follow from two interacting types of mapping constraints at the interfaces. The properties of event-related adjuncts are shown not to follow from a dual structure involving cascades, but are derived by (silent) scrambling of arguments and adjuncts plus vP intraposition, which serves to license event-related adjuncts as (superimposed) predicates.},
	Author = {Hinterh{\"o}lzl, Roland},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-28 08:29:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-28 08:30:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {242--284},
	Title = {A Phase-Based Comparative Approach to Modification and Word Order in {G}ermanic},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Gruter:2009,
	Abstract = {It has traditionally been assumed that French is a non-null-object language on a par with English. Yet the analysis of adult French corpora has shown the consistent occurrence of referential null objects in speech and writing. These constructions, although clearly marked, put into question a major premise of syntactic analyses of object-clitic constructions---namely, that sentences referring to a specific, referential object but lacking both a clitic and a postverbal object are necessarily ungrammatical. The goal of this paper is to present a revised analysis of object-clitic constructions that is capable of integrating referential null objects. It is proposed that the zero morpheme constitutes the default realization of the accusative clitic head and is inserted if this head is underspecified for Case. The analysis extends naturally to account for predicate le, as well as to errors observed in child language development, in particular the overuse of masculine singular le as well as object (-clitic) omission. It is proposed that the syntactic representation underlying clitic drop in child and adult French is identical, yet child and adult French differ with regard to the reason for the underspecification of the clitic head.},
	Author = {Gr{\"u}ter, Theres},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-28 08:26:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-28 08:27:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {215--241},
	Title = {A Unified Account of Object Clitics and Referential Null Objects in {F}rench},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Beck:2009f,
	Abstract = {The central claim of this paper is that the use of the adverb again has changed between 19th-century English and present-day English. In particular, restitutive uses were more easily and generally available in the 19th century than they are now. This diachronic change provides evidence for a lexical parameter governing the behavior of adverbs at the syntax/semantics interface. The parameter relates surface form to possible interpretations and thus introduces an interesting notion of visibility into linguistic theory.},
	Author = {Beck, Sigrid and Berezovskaya, Polina and Pflugfelder, Katja},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-28 08:22:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-28 08:25:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {193--214},
	Title = {The Use of {\emph{Again}} in 19th-Century {E}nglish versus Presen-Day {E}nglish},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Truswell:2009,
	Author = {Truswell, Robert},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 14:02:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 14:03:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {525--533},
	Title = {Attributive Adjectives and Nominal Templates},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Neeleman:2009,
	Author = {Neeleman, Ad and Titov, Elena},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 14:01:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 14:02:11 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {514--524},
	Title = {Focus, Contrast, and Stress in {R}ussian},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Haugen:2009,
	Author = {Haugen, Jason D.},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:59:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 14:00:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {505--514},
	Title = {What is the Base for Reduplication?},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Wu:2009,
	Abstract = {Cheng and Sybesma (1999, 2005) argue that classifiers in Chinese are equivalent to a definite article. We argue against this position on empirical grounds, drawing attention to the fact that semantically, syntactically, and functionally, Chinese classifiers are not on the same footing as definite determiners. We also show that compared with Cheng and Sybesma's ClP analysis of Chinese NPs (in particular, Cantonese NPs, on which their proposal crucially relies), a consistent DP analysis is not only fully justified but strongly supported.},
	Author = {Wu, Yicheng and Bodomo, Adams},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:55:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 13:58:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {487--503},
	Title = {Classifiers $\neq$ Determiners},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Conroy:2009a,
	Abstract = {Children have repeatedly been found to exhibit Principle B violations, with some reports that these violations occur only with nonquantified antecedents. This quantificational asymmetry (QA) in the delay of Principle B effect (DPBE) has been taken as support for a theory that restricts the scope of binding theory to bound variable anaphora (Reinhart 1983). However, the QA has been challenged, on the basis of discrepant findings and methodological concerns (Elbourne 2005). Here, we resolve the status of the QA with 3 studies and a review of over 30 previous studies. Using improved experimental materials, we show that children disallow local pronoun binding with both referential and quantificational antecedents when Principle B is at issue (Experiment 1), but not when Principle B is neutralized (Experiment 2). When methodological flaws are reintroduced, we replicate the QA (Experiment 3). Drawing on evidence from adult language processing, we suggest that the role of Principle B as a filter on representations during sentence understanding, in concert with pragmatic infelicities in the tasks used, accounts for the wide variability in the DPBE in the literature.},
	Author = {Conroy, Anastasia and Takahashi, Eri and Lidz, Jeffrey and Phillips, Colin},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:52:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 13:54:50 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {446--486},
	Title = {Equal Treatment for All Antecedents: How Children Succeed with Principle {B}},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Bruening:2009,
	Abstract = {Ritter and Rosen (2005) claim that Algonquian languages lack A-movement and A-binding, and they theorize that all agreement in Algonquian is agreement with A' -positions. I show that this proposal cannot be maintained, given facts of quantifier scope in Passamaquoddy. These facts require recognizing a step of A-movement to a derived A-position, comparable to Spec,TP in languages like English. I further contrast this movement with the movement involved in crossclausal agreement (Branigan and MacKenzie 2002) and show that the two differ in exactly the ways that A-movement and A'-movement differ. Algonquian languages clearly have A-movement as distinct from A -movement.},
	Author = {Bruening, Benjamin},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:50:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 13:52:23 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {427--445},
	Title = {Algonquin Languages Have A-Movement and A-Agreement},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Takahashi:2009,
	Abstract = {In this article, we develop a substantially expanded theory of late merger. Adopting related insights by Fox (2002), we argue that late merger is permitted whenever an output representation can be interpreted
in the semantic component. A consequence of our approach is that late merger is available not only for the well-known case of adjuncts, but also for restrictors of determiners (wholesale late merger).
We demonstrate that this theory can explain the different reconstruction possibilities of A-movement and A'-movement, as well as various otherwise puzzling facts about movement and ellipsis, while still maintaining the copy theory of movement.},
	Author = {Takahashi, Shoichi and Hulsey, Sarah},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:46:44 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-09-09 09:08:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {387--426},
	Title = {Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the {A}/{A}$'$ Distinction},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kripke:2009,
	Abstract = {Writers on presupposition, and on the ``projection problem'' of determining
the presuppositions of compound sentences from their component
clauses, traditionally assign presuppositions to each clause in
isolation. I argue that many presuppositional elements are anaphoric
to previous discourse or contextual elements. In compound sentences,
these can be other clauses of the sentence. We thus need a theory of
presuppositional anaphora, analogous to the corresponding pronominal
theory.},
	Author = {Kripke, Saul},
	Date-Added = {2009-08-02 13:43:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-08-02 13:45:17 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {367--386},
	Title = {Presupposition and Anaphora: Remarks on the Formulation of the Projection Principle},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@book{Bhatt:2006a,
	Author = {Bhatt, Rajesh},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-29 12:10:05 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-29 17:43:34 -0400},
	Publisher = {Walter de Gruyter},
	Title = {Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts},
	Year = {2006}}

@incollection{Bresnan:2008,
	Address = {Stanford University},
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan and Nikitina, Tatiana},
	Booktitle = {Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-21 12:43:16 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-21 12:44:39 -0400},
	Publisher = {{CSLI} Publications},
	Title = {The gradience of the dative alternation},
	Year = {2008}}

@incollection{Bresnan:2007a,
	Address = {Berlin},
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan},
	Booktitle = {Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-21 12:39:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-21 12:41:18 -0400},
	Editor = {Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang},
	Pages = {75--96},
	Publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	Title = {Is syntactic knowledge pobabilistic? Experiments with the {E}nglish dative alternation},
	Year = {2007}}

@incollection{Bresnan:2007,
	Address = {Amsterdam},
	Author = {Bresnan, Joan and Cueni, Anna and Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald},
	Booktitle = {Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-21 12:35:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-21 12:42:20 -0400},
	Editor = {Boume, Gerlof and Kr{\"a}mer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost},
	Publisher = {Royal Netherlands Academy of Science},
	Title = {Predicting the dative alternation},
	Year = {2007}}

@article{Landau:2008a,
	Abstract = {The unpronounced subject of infinitives, PRO, bears standard case, which is reflected on agreeing predicative elements in languages like Russian, Icelandic, Ancient Greek, etc. This case can be independent from the case of the controller DP, or identical to it (`case transmission'). We report the findings of a novel study of case transmission in Russian, based on data collected from 30 speakers. The findings contradict some key generalizations that have gone unchallenged in the field for decades; specifically, case transmission is much more prevalent than previously assumed, often co-occurring with the option of independent case. The pattern of case transmission is determined by the interaction of a complex set of factors---the grammatical function of the controller, the shape of the complementizer, the type of control relation (exhaustive or partial), and more. The proposed analysis builds on ``The Agreement Model of Obligatory Control (OC)'' (Landau 2000, 2004, 2006) and strongly supports the claim that OC exploits two routes---either a direct Agree relation with PRO, or one mediated by the infinitival C. It is derivationally local and free of the ``look-ahead'' properties inherent to earlier accounts. Finally, we provide a description of the documented crosslinguistic variation in this domain, and situate it within a tight typological model.},
	Author = {Landau, Idan},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:51:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:51:53 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {877--924},
	Title = {Two routes of control: evidence from case transmission in {R}ussian},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Labelle:2008,
	Abstract = {It is argued that the reflexive clitic se does not operate in the lexicon in French reflexive and reciprocal constructions (excluding middles and anticausatives). The widely held approaches to reflexives, in which the reflexive clitic creates a one-place reflexive verb and/or absorbs a case feature on the verb, is both semantically inadequate and syntactically too local. The reflexive clitic appears with verbs and predicates that are independently semantically reflexive; French reflexive/reciprocal constructions are semantically transitive; and case absorption does not account for causative and applicative constructions. To account for the facts, it is proposed that se is a Voice head introducing in syntax the external argument of the verb, and stating that the referent of the object is determined on the basis of that of the subject.},
	Author = {Labelle, Marie},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:50:00 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:50:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {833--876},
	Title = {The {F}rench reflexive and reciprocal \emph{se}},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Hiraiwa:2008,
	Abstract = {D{\`a}g{\'a}{\'a}r{\`e} (a Gur language) allows various patterns of predicate clefting together with object pied-piping. This article investigates interactions of Predicate Cleft Constructions (PCCs) and object-sharing Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in D{\`a}g{\'a}{\'a}r{\`e} and argues that the object in object-sharing SVCs is symmetrically shared. Namely, we argue, building on Citko (2005), that it is an instance of Parallel Merge. Thus we present support for Baker's (1989) insight of the Double-Headedness and against Collins' (1997) VP-shell structure with a pro. This kind of empirical evidence is not available in other languages (cf. Baker 1989, Collins 1997 among others) and hence D{\`a}g{\'a}{\'a}r{\`e} provides a novel argument for a permissible structure of object-sharing SVCs and the availability of symmetric structure in UG.},
	Author = {Hiraiwa, Ken and Bodomo, Adams},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:48:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:49:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {795--832},
	Title = {Object-sharing as {S}ymmetric {S}haring: predicate clefting and serial verbs in {D}{\`a}g{\'a}{\'a}r{\`e}},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Carstairs-McCarthy:2008,
	Abstract = {Among the patterns of declension exhibited by German nouns and adjectives, there are some that are traditionally labelled `weak'. It is argued here that the behaviour of `weak' noun and adjective forms can be best understood if their inflectional suffixes are regarded not as expressing morphosyntactic properties such as gender and case but rather as the outcome of conflicting ranked constraints governing what an optimal noun or adjective should look like in different contexts. For example, an attributive adjective should carry a suffix; a nominative singular form should carry no suffix; and the default inflectional affix is -en. These language-particular constraints reflect some of the `system-defining structural properties' attributed to German by the late Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel.},
	Author = {Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:46:47 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:47:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {775--793},
	Title = {System-congruity and violable constraints in {G}erman weak declension},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Basilico:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper analyzes verbs that can enter into a transitive (The students wrote a lab report), benefactive double object (The students wrote their professor a lab report) and particle verb (The students wrote up a lab report) construction. The analysis is situated within the Distributed Morphology framework. It argues for the presence of a small clause structure only in the particle verb construction and not in the benefactive construction; the particle merges directly with the Root while the benefactive possessive element merges with an already categorized verb. The benefactive differs from the better researched dative in that the dative does involve a caused possession small clause structure. Particle verbs can occur in double object constructions, but they involve a benefactive-like syntax and not a caused possession small clause analysis. Furthermore, I argue that the Roots that underlie these verbs are relationless and underspecified with respect to meaning, supporting the idea that the functional vocabulary introduces arguments and fully specifies the meaning of the Roots. However, rather than adopting the position that an object is introduced at only one point in the derivation, this analysis shows that an object can be introduced at several different points within the derivation. Finally, this paper shows that argument merger is sensitive to the phase structure of the clause.},
	Author = {Basilico, David},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:45:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:46:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {731--773},
	Title = {Particle verbs and benefactive double objects in {E}nglish: high and low attachments},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Anttila:2008,
	Abstract = {Lexical items can be more or less well-formed depending on the phoneme combinations they contain. This phenomenon is called gradient phonotactics. We propose an approach to gradient phonotactics based on Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). At the heart of the proposal is the Complexity Hypothesis that attributes the relative well-formedness of a lexical item to its relative grammatical complexity measured in terms of ranking information: the more complex the lexical item, the less well-formed it is. The theory orders linguistic structures in an implicational hierarchy that reflects their relative well-formedness. Some implications are universal; others depend on language-specific rankings. The Complexity Hypothesis is supported by phonotactic data from Muna (Austronesian) as recently analyzed by Coetzee and Pater (2008).},
	Author = {Anttila, Arto},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:43:34 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:44:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {695--729},
	Title = {Gradient phonotactics and the {C}omplexity {H}ypothesis},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Wiltschko:2008,
	Abstract = {Plural marking is not universally inflectional. This paper examines the formal properties of non-inflectional plural marking on the basis of a detailed case study of Halkomelem Salish. The plural marker in this language displays neither inflectional nor derivational properties. I argue that its distributional properties derive from its syntax: it is a modifier adjoined to category-neutral  roots. The analysis implies that plural marking is not universally merged as a syntactic (functional) head and that it does not universally merge with nouns. This leads to the postulation of a new typology of plural marking which goes beyond the distinction between inflectional and non-inflectional plural marking. Several diagnostics to distinguish among distinct types of plural markers are established.},
	Author = {Wiltschko, Martina},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:42:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:42:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {639--694},
	Title = {The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Stepanov:2008,
	Abstract = {This article has two major foci. The first concerns the `cartography' of structural placement of wh-adjuncts how and why, a somewhat elusive and murky issue in modern syntactic research. The non-trivial character of this issue becomes clear once it is realized that each of these items encodes more than one lexical entry in some languages, and, furthermore, different lexical entries display different syntactic distribution. One goal is then to characterize the syntactic distribution of how and why controlling for their different cross-linguistic varieties. Once the ``cartographical'' issue is clarified, a number of novel questions arise concerning the mode of licensing of different varieties of how and why. This brings us to the second, theoretical, focus of the paper: a proper mechanism for licensing wh-in situ, and, in a broader sense, wh-items lower than CP. On the basis of diverse cross-linguistic material, we provide a number of arguments strengthening the Unselective Binding approach to licensing wh-in situ and show how potential challenges can be met in a revealing and explanatory manner.},
	Author = {Stepanov, Arthur and Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:40:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:41:25 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {589--638},
	Title = {Cartography and licensing of \emph{wh}-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Ruys:2008,
	Abstract = {The purpose of this paper is to develop a tool for determining the unmarked position of various PP types in the Dutch Mittelfeld. The paper argues that the distribution of stranded prepositions, which obey a Freezing constraint, can be used for this purpose, and that the same holds for prepositions with a weak pronominal complement. Among the results of this twin diagnostic are independent evidence for a case-movement analysis of scrambling, and support for a particular analysis of predicative complement constructions.},
	Author = {Ruys, E. G.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:39:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:40:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {547--587},
	Title = {Stranding, weak pronouns, and the fine structure of the {D}utch {M}ittelfeld},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{McCarthy:2008,
	Abstract = {Many languages respect the generalization that some or all unstressed vowels are deleted. This generalization proves elusive in classic Optimality Theory, however. The source of the problem is classic OT's parallel evaluation, which requires that the effects of stress assignment and syncope be optimized together. This article argues for a version of OT called Harmonic Serialism, in which the effects of stress assignment and syncope can and must be evaluated sequentially. The results are potentially applicable to other domains where process interaction is best understood in derivational terms.},
	Author = {McCarthy, John J.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:37:37 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:38:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {499--546},
	Title = {The serial interaction of stress and syncope},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Keenan:2008,
	Abstract = {Major syntactic processes in Malagasy (Madagascar) are conditioned by its rich, typically W. Austronesian, voice system. This is true of the formation and interpretation of relative clauses, focus constructions, nominalizations, control structures, imperatives, the distribution of reflexives, and more. Similar claims hold to varying extents in related languages. Limiting ourselves to Malagasy, we derive, and compositionally interpret, nuclear Ss headed by verbs in different voices. Such Ss are directly projected from verbal affixes, not derived by A or A' movement, contra other approaches. We derive relative clauses (RCs) directly from predicates in different voices. No operator movement is needed or used. We compositionally interpret RCs, which only requires interpreting predicates in different voices but not variable binding operators or bound variables. This yields a new analysis of the ``Subjects Only'' constraint in Malagasy. Further, Malagasy's rich voice system suggests a cognitive trigger for the use of variable binding operators in RCs in voice-poor languages such as English.},
	Author = {Keenan, Edward L.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:35:54 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:37:10 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {467--497},
	Title = {Voice and relativization without movement in {M}alagasy},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Meier:2008,
	Author = {Meier, Richard P.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:34:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:34:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {451--466},
	Title = {Channeling language},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Sigurdhsson:2008a,
	Abstract = {Icelandic case agreement suggests that nominative case is active in PRO infinitives in much the same way as in finite clauses, thus posing a difficult and a long-standing problem for generative (GB and minimalist) case theory and the PRO Theorem. In this article, I examine the Icelandic facts in detail, illustrating that the unmarked and common nominative morphology in Icelandic PRO infinitives is regular structural nominative morphology, suggesting that PRO cannot be reduced to a copy. What went wrong in the GB approach to PRO was not PRO itself but the binding theoretic and `Case' theoretic conception of it. PRO is an empty category that is simultaneously a reference variable (like overt pronouns and anaphors) and a phi-feature variable (unlike overt expressions). Due to this unique combination of variable properties, PRO cannot be deduced from other traits of grammar, such as movement, nor can it possibly be lexicalized. Importantly, also, the facts studied here suggest that case is a post-syntactic category, assigned in morphology. In contrast, Person is evidently a syntactically active category, having some of the properties and effects that have commonly been attributed to 'Case'.},
	Author = {Sigur{\dh}sson, Halld{\'o}r {\'A}rmann},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:32:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:33:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {403--450},
	Title = {The case of {PRO}},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Mezhevich:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper offers an analysis of Tense and Aspect as temporal predicates with complex interpretable content represented as grammatical and abstract semantic features. Building on Klein (1995) and Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000), it is proposed that although Tense and Aspect are distinct grammatical categories they both express a relation that can be characterized as (non)-coincidence. Tense expresses (non)-coincidence of the utterance time and the assertion time, while Aspect expresses (non)-coincidence of the assertion time and the situation time. Tense and Aspect are represented by a set of two features: grammatical features [$\pm$past] and [$\pm$perf], and the abstract feature [$\pm$coin]. Thus, they have different grammatical content but the same abstract semantic content. This fine-grained distinction enables us to capture the similarities and differences between the two categories. The interaction between the two types of features together with the syntactic operation of feature agreement accounts for the temporo-aspectual interpretation of verbal morphology, and it also derives the interaction between Tense and Aspect in languages such as Russian.},
	Author = {Mezhevich, Ilana},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:31:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:32:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {359--401},
	Title = {A feature-theoretic account of tense and aspect in {R}ussian},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Lee:2008,
	Abstract = {This article presents a comparative semantic analysis of the aspectual and focus adverbs already, still and STILL in English and imi/pelsse `already' and acik/yothay `still' in Korean based on their presuppositions and their focus interpretation. I argue that the two contrasting views of aspectual adverbs as logical duals (L{\"o}bner 1989, 1999) and as scalar (focus) particles (Michaelis 1993, 1996; Israel 1995) are both necessary in order to explain the English and Korean data. Aspect concerns the internal structure of events, relating a current state with the onset or the end of the state. These transitions are available for focusing, which triggers an explicit contrast between the asserted state and an alternative state with an opposite polarity. Korean is shown to lexicalize aspectual and focus adverbs differently from what is expressed in English by a single adverb with focus marked prosody. The meaning of aspectual and focus adverbs in both English and Korean is representated in Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle 1993; van Eijck and Kamp 1997).},
	Author = {Lee, Eunhee},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:30:13 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:30:58 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {339--358},
	Title = {Aspectual and focus adverbs in {E}nglish and {K}orean},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Coetzee:2008a,
	Abstract = {This paper documents a restriction against the co-occurrence of homorganic consonants in the root morphemes of Muna, a western Austronesian language, and compares the Muna pattern with the much-studied similar pattern in Arabic. As in Arabic, the restriction applies gradiently: its force depends on the place of articulation of the consonants involved, and on whether the homorganic consonants are similar in terms of other features. Muna differs from Arabic in the relative strengths of these other features in affecting co-occurrence rates of homorganic consonants. Along with the descriptions of these patterns, this paper presents phonological analyses in terms of weighted constraints, as in Harmonic Grammar. This account uses a gradual learning algorithm that acquires weights that reflect the relative frequency of different sequence types in the two languages. The resulting grammars assign the sequences acceptability scores that correlate with a measure of their attestedness in the lexicon. This application of Harmonic Grammar illustrates its ability to capture both gradient and categorical patterns.},
	Author = {Coetzee, Andries W. and Pater, Joe},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:28:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:29:22 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {289--337},
	Title = {Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in {M}una and {A}rabic},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Boskovic:2008,
	Abstract = {Based on a number of operations creating operator-variable chains, namely, wh-movement, focalization, topicalization, quantifier raising, and the NPI-licensing movement, the article argues that operators in operator-variable chains cannot undergo further operator movement. It is shown that the generalization in question can be deduced from Chomsky's (2000, 2001a) Activation Condition. The article also discusses the contexts where Bulgarian, a multiple wh-fronting language, allows extraction out of wh-islands. A new generalization is proposed regarding the ability of languages like Bulgarian to violate the Wh-Island Constraint in the contexts in question, which dissociates it from multiple wh-fronting and ties it to a property of D, in particular, availability of affixal articles.},
	Author = {Bo{\v{s}}kovi{\'c}, {\v{Z}}eljko},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:26:55 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:27:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {249--287},
	Title = {On the operator freezing effect},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Zanuttini:2008,
	Abstract = {Imperative subjects in English are puzzling in several respects: null subjects are possible with a definite interpretation, unlike in other clause types; quantificational subjects are often restricted to range over a set containing the addressee and exhibit binding possibilities not readily available to them in declaratives and interrogatives; and third person referential subjects are for most speakers limited to bare noun phrases. On the empirical side, this paper provides a comprehensive discussion of these properties that makes sense of the sometimes contradictory observations found in the literature. On the theoretical side, it argues that the syntactic representation of imperatives contains a functional projection not present in other clause types. This projection plays a role both in preventing the instantiation of a predication relation between the subject and the predicate, and, when sufficiently local, in licensing the special syntactic properties of the subject. This proposal differs from those that view the properties of imperative subjects as deriving uniquely from the semantic or pragmatic component; it can be seen as building on the general intuition of the old performative hypothesis, though recasting it at a level of abstraction that captures more adequately the properties of imperatives.},
	Author = {Zanuttini, Rafaella},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:25:08 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:25:51 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {185--218},
	Title = {Encoding the addressee in syntax: evidence from {E}nglish imperative subjects},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Topintzi:2008,
	Abstract = {Moraic theory standardly syllabifies geminates in a coda-onset configuration whereby the coda bears a mora. Initial geminates pose a serious problem for the theory since word-initially no coda exists to host the first half of the geminate. Previous proposals have addressed this issue but have not resolved it satisfactorily, because they have created new difficulties pertaining to prosodification, syllabification or generation of insufficient or incorrect patterns. I propose that treating the geminate as a moraic onset simultaneously resolves all the issues above, provided we dispense with the stipulation that onsets are never moraic. An important prediction emerges from this proposal: onset geminates could also occur word-medially. I claim that such prediction is empirically confirmed in languages like Marshallese and Trique. I also argue that moraic theory is right in claiming that geminates are underlyingly moraic consonants -- rather than simply long -- and demonstrate how in the current model the contrast between geminates and singletons is preserved in all positions in the word.},
	Author = {Topintzi, Nina},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:23:32 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:24:26 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {147--184},
	Title = {On the existence of moraic onset geminates},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Thornton:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper examines over 900 why-questions gathered in a longitudinal study of an English-speaking child from 2 to 6 years of age. The child went through a protracted stage in which many why-questions lacked subject-aux inversion, in contrast to other wh-questions. While this asymmetry has been observed in the previous literature, several new observations also emerged. First, the child permitted focus phrases, topic phrases and subordinate clauses to intervene between why and the subject NP in matrix why-questions with no I to C movement. Second, subject-aux inversion was consistently manifested in long-distance questions with tensed embedded clauses, and in utterances with why that were not information-seeking questions. Based on the pattern of data, it is proposed that some children initially permit why to merge high in the left periphery, in SpecIntP, following a proposal for Italian by Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position ``Int(errogative)'' in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287-296). Oxford: Elsevier. The paper considers whether the child data are best explained (i) by a why-parameter that distinguishes languages permitting merge of why from those languages limited to movement (cf. Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SpecCP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867-916.), or (ii) as evidence of a universal principle. In the final analysis, the parameter account is preferred, because it explains the individual variation and the sharp transition to the adult grammar that is observed in some children.},
	Author = {Thornton, Rosalind},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:18:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:18:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {107--146},
	Title = {Why continuity},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Rezac:2008a,
	Abstract = {This article explores a syntactic approach to the Person Case Constraint, a ban on 1st and 2nd person agreement casued by a dative. The approach proposes that the constraint is due to the interference in person Agree of a head H and its expected controller A by a dative between the two. This predicts that it is absent if the dative does not intervene, or if A moves past the dative. Both predictions are correct. The latter is developed at length from Basque ``absolutive displacement" and Icelandic ``long raising," which show the predicted repair of the constraint by movement, through anomalous ergative morphology and overt displacement respectively. A further correct consequence is that the constraint is repaired undetectably in the unaccusatives of accusative languages, except when movement past the dative is unavailable. Morphology does not provide the right tools, since it collapses the required structural distinctions, and the saving effect of movement on agreement is unpredicted. Finally, an independent argument is developed to show that the Person Case Constraint is visible to ``narrow syntax."},
	Author = {Rezac, Milan},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:16:10 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:21:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {61--106},
	Title = {The syntax of eccentric agreement: the {P}erson {C}ase {C}onstraint and absolutive displacement in {B}asque},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{Legate:2008,
	Abstract = {This paper examines the placement of aspect and agreement clitics in Warlpiri. A common misconception regarding clitic placement in Warlpiri is cleared up: clitic placement does not depend on syllable count. It is also shown that these clitics do not uniformly appear in second position, syntactically or phonologically, making the standard label of ``second position clitics'' a misnomer. An analysis is developed in terms of syntactic head movement combined with local morphological reordering. The discussion also reveals a genuine morphological first word phenomenon, whereby a preverb may be split from its associated verb.},
	Author = {Legate, Julie Anne},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:14:14 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:15:27 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {3--60},
	Title = {Warlpiri and the theory of second position clitics},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2008}}}

@article{McCloskey:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper examines so-called autonomous forms of the verb in Irish in the context of ongoing work on the syntax and semantics of arbitrary pronominal subjects (on on French; man in German and so on). It argues for the syntactic presence of a phonologically null subject in such constructions and attempts to understand various characteristics of such impersonal constructions (with respect to binding and control especially) in the light of that hypothesis.},
	Author = {McCloskey, James},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:06:23 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:07:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {825--857},
	Title = {The grammar of autonomy in {I}rish},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Law:2007,
	Abstract = {The pseudo-cleft analysis and the clausal complement analysis for the cleft construction in Malagasy are compared. The two are similar with respect to constituency, placement of negation and adverbials, and yet exhibit a number of differences. Restrictions on the predicate, tense-marking on locatives and PPs, multiple occurrence of adverbs, binding into PPs as well as coordination are shown to be most problematic for the pseudo-cleft account according to which the clefted phrase is the predicate and what follows it is the DP subject with an empty head noun. The obligatory empty head noun, the non-DP distribution of the suggested DP subject, clefting of adjuncts and long-distance dependency are also troublesome for this view. These facts can be straightforwardly accommodated in the clausal complement analysis in which the cleft construction has a structure in which an empty copula verb takes as complement a functional projection headed by the focus particle no, and the clefted phrase is fronted to its surface position. Certain facts concerning discontinuous phrases and the adverb daholo `all' ostensibly support the clefted phrase being the predicate, but turn out to have no specific bearing on the cleft construction.},
	Author = {Law, Paul},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:04:50 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:05:49 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {765--823},
	Title = {The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in {M}alagasy},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Haddican:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper develops an account of do-support in VP focus constructions in Central and Western Basque (CWB) dialects. In particular, this paper argues that CWB dialects, along with Korean, form a class of do-support languages whose dummy verb insertion mechanism differs slightly from that of English and Monnese. In all four of these languages, the dummy verb occupies a position that is, in marked environments, inaccessible to the verb. However, in Korean and CWB, unlike in English and Monnese, the verb's inability to raise to value this feature is not due to its inflectional poverty, but rather because it must bear a nominalizing infinitival affix for independent reasons; this nominal infinitive may not bear aspectual morphology, and a dummy verb is merged to do so instead.
Moreover, Basque do-support is not a last-resort phenomenon as in Chomsky's classic analysis of English do-support (Chomsky 1957). That is, the unavailability of do-support in non-verb focalization constructions is not due to competition with a more economical alternative, but rather is independently excluded. This approach avoids a violation of the Inclusiveness Condition inherent in economy-based approaches to do-support that generate the dummy verb in the computational component.},
	Author = {Haddican, Bill},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 10:01:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:03:56 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {735--764},
	Title = {On \emph{egin}: \emph{do}-support and {VP} focus in {C}entral and {W}estern {B}asque},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Frascarelli:2007,
	Abstract = {In this paper a novel approach to (a subpart of) the null subject parameter is proposed, in which the interpretation of a thematic pro in subject position is crucially dependent on the syntax and discourse properties of Topic constituents. Based on the analysis of spoken corpora and interface considerations, evidence is provided that preverbal `subjects' sit in an A'-position in a null subject language like Italian and that the interpretation of referential null subjects depends on a matching relation (Agree) with a specific type of Topic. In a cartographic approach to discourse functions, this is identified with the Aboutness-shift Topic (Frascarelli and Hinterh{\"o}lzl 2007) that is merged in the C-domain and is endowed with the edge feature [+aboutness] -- an `extended EPP feature'. A Topic Criterion is thus proposed that correlates core grammar with discourse requirements and accounts for the syntactic identification of a referential pro. The Avoid Pronoun Principle is reinterpreted as a structural condition that implies the existence of silent Topics.},
	Author = {Frascarelli, Mara},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:59:25 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 10:00:13 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {691--734},
	Title = {Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential \emph{pro}},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Belletti:2007,
	Abstract = {This article reports the results of experiments targeting the production and interpretation of postverbal subjects, and null and overt pronominal subjects, by near-native speakers of Italian whose native language is English. The results directly bear on both theoretical issues and developmental acquisition questions. It is argued that properties related to the null-subject parameter are sensitive to discourse factors that determine the use of both postverbal subjects and pronominal subjects. More specifically, it is claimed that the availability of null pronominal subjects and the availability of postverbal subjects do not necessarily correlate. The near-native grammars analyzed here illustrate a special instance of this lack of correlation. Furthermore, near-natives show non-native-like behavior in the use of postverbal subjects, and in the overuse of overt pronominal subjects in tensed clauses. The proposal is put forward that, although resetting of the null-subject parameter has taken place in the speakers' L2 Italian grammar, the relevant L1 computations are preserved and accessed in L2 use, without violating any formal conditions; this is the source of non-target behavior. The analysis proposed exploits cartographic insights on discourse-related computations, and suggests that the principles of economy may be instantiated differently in native and near-native grammars.},
	Author = {Belletti, Adriana and Bennati, Elisa and Sorace, Antonella},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:56:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:58:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {657--689},
	Title = {Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native {I}talian},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Yoon:2007,
	Abstract = {The question of whether languages like Korean and Japanese possess genuine instances of Subject-to-Object Raising (SOR) has been a matter of debate since Kuno (1976), as a number of the properties of the putative SOR construction in the languages differ from those found in languages like English, while others are shared between the languages. I argue in this paper that the paradoxical properties begin to fall into place once we posit that what undergoes movement in SOR in these languages is not the embedded subject, but the embedded Major Subject. The Major Subject is the initial Nom-marked DP in a Multiple Nominative Construction. It is shown that if we posit that the Major Subject raises in SOR, the unexpected properties of SOR can be accounted for. Under this analysis, SOR in Korean and Japanese conform to known constraints on A-movement taking place from the highest A-specifier (Major Subject) position of the embedded clause. It is the coindexation of the Major Subject with the predicate-internal position that gives rise to the illusion of non-locality. I then compare the analysis with an alternative base-generation analysis. While the two are roughly equal in terms of coverage, only the Major Subject raising analysis is able to account for properties of the raised nominal that could only have been determined in the embedded clause.},
	Author = {Yoon, James H.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:52:21 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:53:03 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {615--653},
	Title = {Raising of major arguments in {K}orean and {J}apanese},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Potsdam:2007,
	Abstract = {Linguistic material cannot be freely deleted in a sentence; rather, elided material must be recoverable via some kind of parallelism with an antecedent. This paper uses sluicing (IP ellipsis) in Malagasy to argue that this parallelism requirement is a semantic restriction and not a syntactic one. An elided constituent must be semantically parallel to its antecedent but need not have parallel syntactic structure (Merchant, 2001). In Malagasy, wh-questions are pseudoclefts. Given that antecedent clauses are not pseudoclefts, sluicing is ruled out if syntactic parallelism is necessary. Sluicing is correctly allowed if there is only a semantic parallelism requirement. The paper considers an alternative that would avoid this conclusion: Malagasy wh-questions are clefts and the construction under investigation is pseudosluicing (Merchant, 1998), which is not subject to a linguistic parallelism requirement. This alternative is shown to be untenable.},
	Author = {Potsdam, Eric},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:50:36 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:51:37 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {577--613},
	Title = {Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Johns:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper argues that the phenomenon of noun incorporation in Inuktitut derives from the fact that the set of verbs involved are all light verbs in the sense of being functional elements excluding lexical or root material. Verbs found in noun incorporation in Inuktitut are in little v and syntactically Merge with a nominal root complement. A parameter which requires that the first root must syntactically move to the top of the tree results in the leftmost position of the root and its apparent incorporation. Unlike Mohawk, where classical noun incorporation is a result of argument licensing, Inuktitut noun incorporation is a subset of a general syntactic operation which targets roots. The light verb analysis of noun incorporation predicts that the set of verbs found in noun incorporation are a finite class with a restricted and predictable semantic range. It is further proposed that obligatory noun incorporation universally involves light verbs. Data in support of this claim are shown from Wakashan and Chukchi. In contrast to a grammaticalized account of this class of verbs, it is argued that these light verbs are universally available as elementary syntactic components. Thus, the limited range and incorporating nature of this class of verbs is explained by their being light verbs.},
	Author = {Johns, Alana},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:49:09 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:50:14 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {535--576},
	Title = {Restricting noun incorporation: root movement},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Cat:2007,
	Abstract = {This paper revisits the classic tests for movement that have been proposed in the literature on dislocated structures, arguing that discourse factors have a significant impact on the outcome of such tests. On this basis, French dislocation is shown to be a syntactically unified phenomenon involving both Left- and Right-Dislocation, irrespective of whether it is resumed by a clitic or a non-clitic element. The epitome of interface phenomena, French dislocation is argued to be the output of the interaction between syntax and the discourse component, requiring only a very limited contribution of narrow syntax: all that is required is that the dislocated element be merged by adjunction to a Discourse Projection (defined as a maximal projection with root properties). No agreement or checking of a designated (e.g. topic) feature is necessary, hence no syntactic movement of any sort need be postulated. The so-called resumptive element is argued to be a full-fledged pronoun rather than a true syntactic resumptive. The relation between the dislocated element and its resumptive is captured in terms of discourse coreference. The core syntactic and interpretive properties of left- and right-dislocation are shown to be identical; differences between the two configurations are shown to derive straightforwardly from the properties of the two sides of the clause periphery.},
	Author = {de Cat, C{\'e}cile},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:47:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:48:12 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {485--534},
	Title = {French dislocation without movement},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Bale:2007,
	Abstract = {In this article, I propose that intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs are fundamentally different from non-stative, transitive verbs. The latter create verb phrases that contain more than one propositional level whereas the former do not permit any propositional levels within their derived verb phrases. Evidence for this distinction comes from the interaction of again with the different types of verbs. Non-stative, transitive verbs allow again to introduce presuppositions that do not involve the verb's subject. In contrast intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs only permit presuppositions that include the verb's subject. Not only does the evidence of propositional complexity and the existence of subjectless presuppositions demonstrate a dichotomy between different types of verb phrases, such evidence and presuppositions also provide a means of testing in which syntactic positions quantifier phrases can be interpreted. As I demonstrate in this article, evidence from the presuppositional content of again suggests that object quantifier phrases normally cannot be interpreted within the verb phrase even when such phrases contain propositional levels. Only resultative verbs allow for quantifier phrases to be interpreted within the verb phrase.},
	Author = {Bale, Alan Clinton},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:45:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:46:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {447--483},
	Title = {Quantifiers and verb phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity},
	Volume = {25},
	Year = {2007}}}

@article{Zuraw:2009,
	Abstract = {The relationship between constraints on surface forms and operations that alter representations is of central interest in phonological theory. This squib presents a case of diverse ``repairs'' in response to a marked structure---labial {\ldots} labial sequences---created by um-infixation in stems beginning with (or, in some cases, merely containing) labial consonants in Austronesian languages. We review several strategies, which for the most part do not cluster according to subfamilies: tolerance, gaps, loss of stem consonant, loss of infix nasality, stem dissimilation, infix dissimilation, prefixation, and non-realization of infix. The evidence indicates that avoidance of these sequences applies only within the root-and-infix domain, and only in derived environments. This diversity of repairs seems unexpected if changes should be perceptually minimal; we suggest possible explanations.},
	Author = {Zuraw, Kie and Yu-An, Lu},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:42:06 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:43:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {197--224},
	Title = {Diverse repairs for multiple labial consonants},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Rivero:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper discusses Bulgarian and Slovenian constructions with a dispositional reading and no apparent dispositional marker, such as Bulgarian Na Ivan mu se rabote{\v s}e. Such a sentence combines a dative logical subject Ivan with an inflected verb rabote{\v s}e `work', and roughly corresponds to `Ivan was in a working mood', so does not entail that Ivan worked. I argue that such constructions consist of two core ingredients that account both for their syntactic properties, and for their modal flavor as dispositions. One ingredient is an Imperfective Operator in Viewpoint Aspect as the source of modality. Such an Operator resembles in syntactic and semantic properties both the Progressive Operator in so-called English Futurates such as For two weeks, the Red Sox were playing the Yankees today, and the Spanish modal Imperfecto. The other ingredient is a High Applicative Phrase with an oblique subject, which, other than determining syntactic properties, contributes to a difference in modal flavor with English Futurates. English Futurates denote plans, and a hypothesis is that this is due to their nominative subjects being paired to a presupposition giving them control over the intended event. By contrast, the Slavic constructions in this paper denote dispositions, not plans, because their oblique subjects cannot be paired with a similar presupposition.},
	Author = {Rivero, Mar{\'\i}a Luisa},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:40:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:41:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {151--196},
	Title = {Intensionality, high applicatives, and aspect: involuntary state constructions in {B}ulgarian and {S}lovenian},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Meyer:2009,
	Abstract = {B{\"u}ring and Hartmann (2001) and Reis (2005) discuss reconstruction data with focus particles in German which they claim show that German allows adjunction of phonologically integrated focus particles to the root clause. We show that the facts are better explained by independent pragmatic constraints on semantic judgments and conclude therefore that there are no arguments in support of root clause adjunction of such focus particles in German.},
	Author = {Meyer, Marie-Christine and Sauerland, Uli},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:38:40 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:39:44 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {139--150},
	Title = {A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Koontz-Garboden:2009,
	Abstract = {This paper provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the facts of anticausativization, the phenomenon whereby an inchoative verb is morphologically derived from its causative counterpart (e.g., Spanish romper `break (trans)' versus romperse `break (intrans)'). It treats the phenomenon as reflexivization (Chierchia 2004), providing a number of new arguments for this kind of treatment, and showing how it, as opposed to alternatives in the literature, accounts for the wide range of data reviewed. In addition, the facts laid out show that inchoatives derived from causatives retain the CAUSE operator present in the lexical semantic representation of the causative verb from which they are derived, contrary to the widely held view of anticausativization as a process that deletes a CAUSE operator. In this way, it is shown that anticausativization does not provide an argument against the Monotonicity Hypothesis, the idea that word formation operations do not delete operators from lexical semantic representations.},
	Author = {Koontz-Garboden, Andrew},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:37:19 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:37:59 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {77--138},
	Title = {Anticausativization},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Dehe:2009,
	Abstract = {This study tests a syntactic property---namely the availability of N- vs. NP-raising in DPs---through prosodic means. The opposition between N- and NP-raising is central to the ongoing debate about the internal representation of DPs, yet it often eludes testing by syntactic means alone. As we show in this study, the two syntactic hypotheses are instead neatly distinguished by the distinct prosodic phrasing predicted by each operation. In this paper, we present the results of an empirical experiment designed to test the prosodic phrasing of N-A and A-N sequences in Italian and the corresponding syntactic implications. As prosodic cues, we use syllabic and word lengthening effects induced by phonological phrase boundaries. According to our results, A and N share the same phonological phrase in both orders. Regarding the syntactic implications of this finding, we show that under all current models of syntax-prosody mapping the underlying syntactic structure responsible for the attested prosodic phrasing must necessarily rely on N-raising. Finally, we propose an analysis of Italian DPs where the N-raising operation found necessary in light of the attested prosodic phrasing is reconciled with the evidence for DP-internal phrasal movement discussed in Cinque (2005 2006).},
	Author = {Deh{\'e}, Nicole and Samek-Lodovici, Vieri},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:34:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:36:31 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {45--75},
	Title = {On the prosody and syntax of {DP}s: evidence from {I}talian noun adjective sequences},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Davis:2009,
	Abstract = {Several languages of northwestern North America systematically fail to show obviation (``Condition C'') effects in contexts where an R-expression is c-commanded by a covalued pronoun. This paper examines Condition C-defying dependencies in one such language, St'{\'a}t'imcets (Lillooet Salish). It is shown here that Condition C violations in St'{\'a}t'imcets are not confined to coreference anaphora, since they may involve sloppy identity; however they are limited to cases where the dependency (a) does not contain a quantificational expression and (b) crosses a clause boundary. Employing a version of linking theory, this paper argues that Condition C-defying dependencies are ``upside-down''---rather than involving a name unexpectedly depending on a c-commanding pronoun, they involve a dependent pronoun c-commanding an antecedent name. In order to account for this possibility, a parametrized version of the Independence Principle (Safir 2004b) is invoked, whose domain in St'{\'a}t'imcets is restricted to the minimal clause. The facts here provide a direct challenge to the Universalist Hypothesis on anaphora.},
	Author = {Davis, Henry},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:33:26 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:37:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--43},
	Title = {Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: evidence from the {P}acific {N}orthwest},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Osborne:2009,
	Abstract = {The paper explores the syntax of comparatives in English and German. The account builds on the insight that the syntax of comparatives is a combination of coordination and subordination. At times a than-expression is coordinate to a string that immediately precedes it, and at other times, it is subordinate to it. Six key observations are the pillars of the account. These observations accomplish three goals: 1) They determine when comparative coordination obtains, as opposed to comparative subordination; 2) they predict the form that a particular than-expression can assume (e.g. phrasal, clausal); and most importantly, 3) they predict to a large extent the distribution of than-expressions. The key concept is functional equivalence. One can predict the distribution of many than-expressions by acknowledging where they can appear with respect to their functional equivalents. The theory-neutral account remains entirely in surface syntax.},
	Author = {Osborne, Timothy},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:30:28 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:31:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {427--454},
	Title = {Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Markman:2009,
	Abstract = {The paper argues that Case and Agreement are subject to parametric variation and explores the consequences of this claim with a particular attention to word order. Departing from much generative work, it is argued that languages can lack abstract Case and/or abstract Agreement. By modifying several Minimalist assumptions, it is demonstrated that languages without Case, but with Agreement will require overt NPs to appear in non-argumental, dislocated positions. These are exemplified by Mohawk and Kinande. In contrast, languages with Case features may allow, but not require NP dislocation. These are exemplified by all of the Indo-European languages and Japanese. Finally, languages that lack both Case and Agreement are predicted to have a rigid word order. Chinese is used as an example of such a language. In addition, the paper addresses a number of phenomena that pose a problem for the view that Case and Agreement are universal and are better understood if these properties are taken to vary parametrically. The phenomena include locative inversion and inverse voice constructions in Bantu languages, the distribution of subject anaphors in Japanese, and the non co-occurrence of overt accusative case with overt object agreement.},
	Author = {Markman, Vita G.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:29:02 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:30:09 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {379--426},
	Title = {On the parametric variation of case and agreement},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kim:2009a,
	Abstract = {The overarching goal of this article is to account for why the Internally-Headed Relative Clause, the direct perception, and the factive constructions in Korean have an identical form involving the pronominal kes and the relativizer -un, despite the fact that one construction instantiates relativization and the other two instantiate complementation. I solve this puzzle by recasting Kim's (2007) analysis of Internally-Headed relatives in a Kratzerian situation semantic framework (e.g., Kratzer 1989, 1998, 2002). The central claim is that the three kes-constructions have an identical form because they all instantiate situation subordination that is facilitated by an E-type pronoun and a relativization strategy. The proposed analysis shows that E-type pronouns and relativizers can have more flexible semantics than widely assumed. It also sheds new light on the connection between modification and complementation across languages. Furthermore, it provides an argument for Kratzerian situation semantic theory in dealing with the interpretations of complex clauses.},
	Author = {Kim, Min-Joo},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:26:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:28:39 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {345--377},
	Title = {E-type anaphora and three types of \emph{kes}-construction in {K}orean},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Kandybowicz:2009,
	Abstract = {Though well established as grammatical domains within phonology and morphology, edges have recently come to play a central role in both syntactic analysis and explanation within the Minimalist Program. This article adduces further empirical justification for the inclusion of edges in the Minimalist ontology. By way of two case studies, it is demonstrated that reference to edge domains in both the narrow syntax and at the syntax-phonology interface facilitates principled explanations to two unsolved puzzles in Nupe. The first study investigates a peculiar restriction on extraction from perfect domains. The most tenable solution emerges when both phase edges and Edge Features are embraced. New insights into the nature of Edge Features arise as a consequence. The second study concerns the proper characterization of Comp-trace effects in the language. The most tenable characterization emerges when they are viewed through the lens of the syntax-phonology interface. Comp-trace phenomena are shown to exhibit phono-syntactic edge sensitivity. New insights into the syntax-phonology interface arise as a consequence.},
	Author = {Kandybowicz, Jason},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:24:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:25:28 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {305--344},
	Title = {Embracing edges: syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in {N}upe},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Harris:2009,
	Abstract = {Although multiple exponence has long been recognized by some, morpheme-based theories predict that it will not exist. To deal with the existence of double exponence in some languages, a variety of ways have been sought around the restrictions imposed by these theories. In Batsbi, a language of the Nakh-Dagestanian family, in principle as many as six markers may occur in a single verb (five gendernumber markers and one person-number marker), each agreeing in many instances with the same argument; in fact, examples presented here have up to four agreement markers. The implications of this for linguistic theory are explored. An analysis is proposed in terms of word-based morphology.},
	Author = {Harris, Alice C.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:22:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:23:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {267--303},
	Title = {Exuberant exponence in {B}atsbi},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Borsley:2009,
	Abstract = {A notable feature of Welsh is a number of agreement phenomena, all of which only occur with pronouns. Finite verbs agree with a following pronominal subject, prepositions agree with a following pronominal complement, and a particle which introduces non-finite clauses agrees with a following pronominal subject. Similarly, nouns have a preceding clitic agreeing with a following pronominal possessor, non-finite verbs have a preceding clitic agreeing with a following pronominal object, and what looks like the non-finite form of bod ``be'', which introduces certain subordinate clauses, has a preceding clitic agreeing with a following pronominal subject. There seems to be a single phenomenon here. Approaches that involve an abstract level face problems and there is no evidence that the phenomenon involves an abstract level. It seems quite plausible to suggest that superficial linear order is crucial, and this idea can be implemented in a straightforward way within linearization-based Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). The properties of agreement also entail that unexpressed noun phrases of various kinds must be represented in the superficial constituent structure and not just at some abstract level, contrary to the view of some frameworks.},
	Author = {Borsley, Robert D.},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-17 09:18:29 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-17 09:20:29 -0400},
	Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {225--265},
	Title = {On the superficiality of {W}elsh agreement},
	Volume = {27},
	Year = {2009}}}

@book{Ramchand:2008,
	Address = {Cambridge, United Kingdom},
	Author = {Gillian Catriona Ramchand},
	Date-Added = {2009-06-15 13:53:07 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-06-15 13:54:47 -0400},
	Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	Series = {Cambridge Studies in Linguistics},
	Title = {Verb Meaning and the Lexicon},
	Year = {2008}}

@article{Vicente:2009,
	Author = {Vicente, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-26 08:59:22 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-26 09:01:02 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {158--191},
	Title = {An Alternative to Remnant Movement for Partial Predicate Fronting},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Fernandez-Soriano:2009,
	Abstract = {In this paper we analyze the behavior of some temporal constructions in two varieties of Spanish: those with the verb llevar 'to carry', used in the standard variety, and those with tener 'to have', which are characteristic of some American dialects. Our purpose is twofold: on the one hand, we try to account for the argument structure of these constructions, and on the other, we seek to give an analysis of the aspectual restrictions they show. These restrictions will be related to the fact that both verbs are light verbs incorporating an abstract preposition, allative in the case of llevar and of central coincidence in the case of tener. The paper constitutes a further application of Hale and Keyser's framework to a new set of data. Some related constructions involving movement verbs will be described and discussed as well.},
	Author = {Fern{\'a}ndez-Soriano, Olga and Rigau, Gemma},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-26 08:57:15 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-26 08:58:21 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {135--157},
	Title = {On Certain Light Verbs in {S}panish: The Case of Temporal \emph{Tener} and \emph{Llevar}},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Aoshima:2009,
	Abstract = {This article presents two on-line self-paced reading studies and three off-line acceptability judgment studies on the processing of backward anaphoric dependencies in Japanese in which a pronoun precedes potential antecedent noun phrases. The studies investigate the real-time formation of coreference relations and operator-variable binding relations to determine whether speakers of head-final languages are able to construct grammatically accurate syntactic structures before they encounter a verb. The results of the acceptability rating studies confirm previous claims that backwards anaphoric dependencies in Japanese are more acceptable in configurations where a pronoun has been fronted via scrambling from a position where it would be c-commanded by its antecedent. The results of the on-line studies demonstrate that these acceptability contrasts have an immediate impact on parsing. Reading-time results showed immediate sensitivity to the semantic congruency between an NP and a preceding pronoun in noncanonical (``scrambled") word orders, and no immediate effect of semantic congruency otherwise. This contrast was found both for coreference relations involving the personal pronouns kare/kanojo (experiment 1) and for operator-variable relations involving the demonstrative pronoun soko (experiment 3). These findings go beyond previous evidence for incremental parsing in head-final languages by showing that Japanese speakers build compositional structures (such as anaphoric relations) in a grammatically constrained fashion in advance of encountering a verb in the input.},
	Author = {Aoshima, Sachiko and Yoshida, Masaya and Phillips, Colin},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-26 08:53:56 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-26 08:56:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Syntax},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {93--134},
	Title = {Incremental Processing of Coreference and Binding in {J}apanese},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@book{Winter:2001,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Winter, Yoad},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-18 08:19:59 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-18 08:21:14 -0400},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Title = {Flexibility Principles in {B}oolean Semantics},
	Year = {2001}}

@book{Nunes:2004,
	Address = {Cambridge, Massachusetts},
	Author = {Nunes, Jairo},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-18 08:18:04 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-18 08:21:29 -0400},
	Publisher = {MIT Press},
	Series = {Linguistic Inquiry Monographs},
	Title = {Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement},
	Year = {2004}}

@article{Potts:2009,
	Author = {Potts, Christopher and Asudeh, Ash and Cable, Seth and Hara, Yurie and McCready, Eric and Alonso-Ovalle, Luis and Bhatt, Rajesh},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:38:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:40:55 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {356--366},
	Title = {Expressives and Identity Conditions},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Lechner:2009,
	Author = {Lechner, Winfried},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:36:48 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:38:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {346--356},
	Title = {A Puzzle for Remnant Movement Analyses of Verb-Second},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Landau:2009,
	Author = {Landau, Idan},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:35:17 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:36:38 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {343--346},
	Title = {This Construction Looks Like a Copy is Optional},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Sprouse:2009,
	Abstract = {This reply revisits the topic of syntactic satiation as first discussed in Snyder 2000. I argue that the satiation effect reported in Snyder 2000 is the result of a response strategy in which participants attempt to equalize the number of yes and no responses, a strategy enabled by the design features of Snyder's original experiment. Four predictions differentiate the response strategy from a true satiation effect. Nine experiments are presented to test these predictions. The results are discussed with respect to the nature of satiation, the stability of acceptability judgments, and the consequences for linguistic methodology.},
	Author = {Sprouse, Jon},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:33:39 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:34:43 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {329--341},
	Title = {Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Johnson:2009a,
	Abstract = {Pseudogapping is no misnomer. Despite their many tempting similarities, gapping and pseudogapping are distinct constructions. Pseudo-gapping is a special instance of VP-ellipsis, while gapping, I argue, is a special instance of across-the-board movement. Squeezing gapping into across-the-board movement has its own discomforts, however, which I suggest can be remedied by retailoring our syntax to include string-based output constraints. I sketch one such alteration that involves apparent Left Branch Condition violations.},
	Author = {Johnson, Kyle},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:31:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:33:05 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {289--328},
	Title = {Gapping Is Not ({VP}-) Ellipsis},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Heinz:2009,
	Abstract = {Idsardi (2006) claims that Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2004) is ``in general computationally intractable" on the basis of a proof adapted from Eisner 1997a. We take issue with this conclusion on two grounds. First, the intractability result holds only in cases where the constraint set is not fixed in advance (contra usual definitions of OT), and second, the result crucially depends on a particular representation of OT grammars. We show that there is an alternative representation of OT grammars that allows for efficient computation of optimal surface forms and provides deeper insight into the sources of complexity of OT. We conclude that it is a mistake to reject OT on the grounds that it is computationally intractable.},
	Author = {Heinz, Jeffrey and Kobele, Gregory M. and Riggle, Jason},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:29:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:30:41 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {277--288},
	Title = {Evaluating the Complexity of {O}ptimality {T}heory},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Lopez:2009,
	Abstract = {The overarching question addressed here is how syntactic structures based on constituency (dominance, c-command) are to be mapped onto linear phonetic strings. I argue that both prosodic principles and narrow-syntactic principles play a role in the linearization of syntactic structures. I take Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom as a starting point: (asymmetric) c-command maps onto precedence relations. Two wide-ranging predictions of Kayne's theory are that specifiers precede their heads and that a head can only have one specifier or adjunct. Although abundant evidence supports these predictions, there is nonetheless a well-known class of apparent counterexamples: Romance languages allow both rightward and multiple dislocations. I take the LCA to be a soft constraint, overruled by a constraint of the WRAP family that seeks to combine a verb and its extended projection in one intonational phrase. Apparent rightward movement is the outcome of rightward linearization forced by WRAP. The possibility of multiple dislocations is compatible with the LCA within the assumptions made here.},
	Author = {L{\'o}pez, Luis},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-14 12:27:09 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:28:46 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {239--276},
	Title = {Ranking the Linear Correspondence Axiom},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Westergaard:2009,
	Abstract = {Based on spontaneous speech data from adults and children in an acquisition corpus, this paper discusses `optional' verb-second (V2) word order in wh-questions in present-day Norwegian dialects, arguing that hte variation is due to a diachronic change in progress. The argument is based on the nature of the variation and te frequencies with which the different wh-questions are attested in typical child-directed speech. The paper takes a microparametric approach to V2 which assumes the existence of many V2 grammars, differeing from each other with respect to informaiton structure and the status of the various wh-elements. These grammars are learnable because children are sensitive to minor but linguistically relevant distinctions in the acquisition process. Nevertheless, certain distinctions are vulnerable to change if the corresponding cues are expressed in the children's input with a very low frequency. On this perspective, gradual historical development may be considered to be the result of many small I-language changes in succession.},
	Author = {Westergaard, Marit},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 10:41:01 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 10:41:52 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {49--79},
	Title = {Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Poletto:2009,
	Abstract = {In this work I analyze a construction containing an additional past participle auxiliary in Romance and German dialects and show that, although apparently similar, they semantic value ofthe additional auxiliary is different in the two sets of dialects: in German it is an index of terminativity, in Romance of anteriority. However, an implicational scale ruling the distribution of the additional auxiliary which goes from unergative to passive verbs (going through unaccusative verbs) is valid across all dialects shows that there is a strict relation between the two auxiliaries \emph{have} and \emph{be} which can be captured in terms of incorporation of a preposition/determiner as proposed by Kayne.},
	Author = {Poletto, Cecilia},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 10:37:53 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 10:38:32 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {1--48},
	Title = {Double auxiliaries, anteriority and terminativity},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Bayer:2009,
	Abstract = {The topic of hte follwing article is an exceptiona use of the negative quantifier \emph{nothing} and its correspondents in German, Dutch and Italian in which this element turns out to act like a negative polarity item (NPI). The circumstance under which this is the case have very briefly been describedin Bayer (2006). \emph{Nothing} is interpreted like an NPI whenever it is not licensed as an argument. Closer inspection reveals that adjunct status alone is too corase a distinciton, and that \emph{nothing} must in fact be associated with the structural object position of the verb. The article is organized as follows. Section 1 presents that key observation using English data. Sections 2, 3, and 4 present constructted as well as attested data from English, German and Dutch respectively. Sectin 5 contains considerations of argument structures which trigger the interpretation of \emph{nothing} as an NPI. Section 6 presents the core account. Section s7 ketches a diachronic scenario. Section 8 turns to negative concord and expandst he account to Italian data. Section 9 contains a conlcusion.},
	Author = {Bayer, Josef},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 10:33:18 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 10:33:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {5--30},
	Title = {Nominal negative quantifiers as adjuncts},
	Volume = {12},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Conroy:2009,
	Abstract = {We demonstrate a U-shaped developmental trajectory in the interpretation of scopally ambiguous sentences, with 4-year-olds and adults, but not 5-year-olds, accessing inverse scope. These results argue against any view that treats 5-year-olds failures as resulting from immaturity of a single mechanism. Instead, we propose that this developmental pattern derives from the development of (a) parsing mechanisms that generate multiple interpretations in addition to (b) processes involved in selecting or revising among these.},
	Author = {Conroy, Anastasia and Lidz, Jeffrey and Musolino, Julien},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 09:51:35 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 09:52:54 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {106--117},
	Title = {The Fleeting Isomorphism Effect},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@article{Valois:2009,
	Abstract = {This article examines noun-drop constructions in French-speaking children. French being intermediate between English (which rarely allows noun-drop) and Spanish (which freely allows it) with respect to the richness of their respective morphological systems, it provides a fertile testing ground for various agreement-based analyses of noun-drop. We conclude, along with Snyder, Senghas, & Inman (2001) that agreement is not a factor in the licensing of these constructions. Moreover, limitations on the occurrence of this phenomenon (i.e., not all adjective types allow it) in French lead us to propose that semantic, rather than syntactic, factors are responsible for noun-drop in French, i.e., partitivity and atomization (in the sense of Bouchard 2002). This in turn assigns the determiner a more important role than had previously been assumed in the licensing of noun-drop. Ultimately, our analysis illustrates how child language can be used to discriminate between competing analyses of a given syntactic process.},
	Author = {Valois, Daniel and Royle, Phaedra},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 09:49:03 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 09:51:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {82--105},
	Title = {Partitivity, Atomization, and Noun-Drop: A Longitudinal Study of {F}rench {C}hild Language},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}

@article{Syrett:2009,
	Abstract = {We show that 4-year-olds assign the correct interpretation to antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) sentences because they have the correct representation of these structures. This representation involves Quantifier Raising (QR) of a Quantificational Noun Phrase (QNP) that must move out of the site of the verb phrase in which it is contained to resolve a case of verb phrase ellipsis. Furthermore, not only do children provide clear justifications for such sentenceswith ACD, but they treat ACD sentences differently from sentenceswith coordinated conjunction, a plausible alternative if they lacked QR. The findings have implications for the interpretation of experimental results in which children appear to lack this grammatical operation, and instead point to extragrammatical factors as the source of this pattern.},
	Author = {Syrett, Kristen and Lidz, Jeffrey},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 09:45:41 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2010-09-26 17:48:18 -0400},
	Journal = {Language Acquisition},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {67--81},
	Title = {{QR} in {C}hild {G}rammar: Evidence from Antecedent-Contained Deletion},
	Volume = {16},
	Year = {2009}}}

@book{Repp:2009,
	Address = {Oxford},
	Author = {Repp, Sophie},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-11 09:40:49 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-11 09:42:55 -0400},
	Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	Series = {Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics},
	Title = {Negation in Gapping},
	Year = {2009}}

@book{Johnson:2008d,
	Address = {Cambridge, United Kingdom},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-08 12:20:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-08 12:21:38 -0400},
	Editor = {Johnson, Kyle},
	Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	Title = {Toics in Ellipsis},
	Year = {2008}}

@article{Ross:1970a,
	Author = {Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:53:06 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:52:19 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {363--366},
	Title = {A Note on {I}mplicit {C}omparatives},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Culicover:1970,
	Author = {Culicover, Peter},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:51:08 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-01 20:51:45 -0600},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {366--369},
	Title = {One More Can of Beer},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Perlmutter:1970c,
	Author = {Perlmutter, David M.},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:49:56 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:52:35 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {187--255},
	Title = {Surface {S}tructure {C}onstraints in Syntax},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Lakoff:1970a,
	Author = {Lakoff, George and Ross, John Robert},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:48:41 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2010-03-31 11:49:33 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {271--272},
	Title = {Two Kinds of \emph{And}},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Akmajian:1970a,
	Author = {Akmajian, Adrian},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:47:34 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2010-04-06 14:52:57 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {149--168},
	Title = {On Deriving {C}left Sentences from {P}seudo-{C}left Sentences},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Bolinger:1970,
	Author = {Bolinger, Dwight},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:46:17 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-01 20:46:56 -0600},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {140--144},
	Title = {The Meaning of Do So},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@article{Postal:1970,
	Author = {Postal, Paul M.},
	Date-Added = {2009-05-01 20:42:57 -0600},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-01 20:43:56 -0600},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {1},
	Pages = {37--120},
	Title = {On the Surface Verb `Remind'},
	Volume = {1},
	Year = {1970}}}

@phdthesis{Gibson:1991,
	Address = {Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania},
	Author = {Gibson, Edward},
	Date-Added = {2009-04-29 10:57:52 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-04-29 10:59:12 -0400},
	School = {Carnegie Mellon University},
	Title = {A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing: Memory Limitations and Processing Breakdown},
	Year = {1991}}

@inproceedings{Yoon:2005,
	Author = {Yoon, James Hye Suk and Lee, Wooseung},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics},
	Date-Added = {2009-04-17 07:46:14 -0500},
	Date-Modified = {2009-04-17 07:50:57 -0500},
	Editor = {Alderete, John and Han, Chung-hye and Kochetov, Alexei},
	Pages = {379--387},
	Title = {Conjunction Reduction and its Consequences for {N}oun {P}hrase Morphosyntax in {K}orean},
	Volume = {24},
	Year = {2005}}

@article{Burge:1973,
	Author = {Burge, Tyler},
	Date-Added = {2009-04-14 17:28:20 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-04-14 17:29:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Journal of Philosophy},
	Pages = {425--439},
	Title = {Reference and proper names},
	Volume = {70},
	Year = {1973}}

@article{Kratzer:2009,
	Abstract = {This article argues that natural languages have two binding strategies
that create two types of bound variable pronouns. Pronouns of the first
type, which include local fake indexicals, reflexives, relative pronouns,
and PRO, may be born with a ``defective'' feature set. They can acquire
the features they are missing (if any) from verbal functional
heads carrying standard  -operators that bind them. Pronouns of the
second type, which include long-distance fake indexicals, are born
fully specified and receive their interpretations via context-shifting
 -operators (Cable 2005). Both binding strategies are freely available
and not subject to syntactic constraints. Local anaphora emerges under
the assumption that feature transmission and morphophonological
spell-out are limited to small windows of operation, possibly the phases
of Chomsky 2001. If pronouns can be born underspecified, we need
an account of what the possible initial features of a pronoun can be
and how it acquires the features it may be missing. The article develops
such an account by deriving a space of possible paradigms for referential
and bound variable pronouns from the semantics of pronominal
features. The result is a theory of pronouns that predicts the typology
and individual characteristics of both referential and bound variable
pronouns.},
	Author = {Kratzer, Angelika},
	Date-Added = {2009-04-14 14:54:27 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-05-14 12:25:16 -0400},
	Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {187--237},
	Title = {Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns},
	Volume = {40},
	Year = {2009}}}

@incollection{Johnson:2009,
	Author = {Johnson, Kyle},
	Booktitle = {Proceedings of hte 2007 Workshop in {G}reek Syntax and Semantics at {MIT}},
	Date-Added = {2009-04-09 08:31:11 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-04-09 08:33:07 -0400},
	Editor = {Halpert, Claire and Hartman, Jeremy and Hill, David},
	Pages = {409--424},
	Publisher = {MIT Working Papers in Linguistics},
	Title = {{PEPPER} and {PF} Movement: Reactions to {Y}amashita},
	Volume = {57},
	Year = {2009}}

@incollection{Bjerre:2008,
	Address = {Lund, Sweden},
	Author = {Bjerre, Tavs and Engels, Eva and J{\o}rensen, Henrik and Vikner, Sten},
	Booktitle = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian {S}yntax 82},
	Date-Added = {2009-03-21 14:00:24 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-03-21 14:01:48 -0400},
	Pages = {131--166},
	Publisher = {Center of Language and Literature},
	Title = {Points of convergence between functional and formal approaches to syntactic analysis},
	Year = {2008}}

@incollection{Hrafnbjargarson:2008,
	Abstract = {In this paper, the distributin of modals in Icelandic `that'-clauses is explored. It will be shown that the presence of certain modals overturns restrictions on root transformations and extraction. Based on this finding, the paper makes two claims (i) the size of the left periphery is constant irrespectiv of selectional properties of matrix verbs, and (ii) the observed differences between root and non-root environments arise from a differene in how much of hte left periphery of the complement clause is part of the matrix predicate itself. The presence of modals decreases the amount of structure available to the matrix verb.},
	Address = {Lund, Sweden},
	Author = {Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn},
	Booktitle = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian {S}yntax 82},
	Date-Added = {2009-03-21 13:56:58 -0400},
	Date-Modified = {2009-03-21 13:58:12 -0400},
	Pages = {103--130},
	Publisher = {Center of Language and Literature},
	Title = {Liberalizaing modals and floating clause boundaries},
	Year = {2008}}

@incollection{Brandtler:2008a,
	Abstract = {This paper is an attempt to solve the somewhat elusive polarity item licensing properties of wh-questions in Swedish. As has been observed by Klima (1964) for English, NPIs are generally not compatible with genuinely information seeking wh-questions, but tend to induce rhetorical interpretations. Distinguishing between thre types of wh-questions and the kind of information they request, I will systematically review the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of each wh-type. Based on that overview, I argue that NPI-licensing in wh-questions is dependent on the relation bewteen teh implication of existence associated with the wh-word and the presupposition induced by the expressed proposition. According to my analysis, wh-words shouldnot be regarded as NPI-licensing operators, Being place-holders, wh-words inherit whatever properties are associated with the item they replace. The licensing property of the wh-word is thus dependent on the licensing property of the referent. Thus, only wh-words referring to downward entailing expressions will license NPIs in their scope (e.g. when pointing to an empty set). Such wh-questions tend to be interpreted rhetorically.},
	Address = {Lund, Sweden},
	Author = {Brandtler, Johan},
	Booktitle = {Working Papers in {S}candinavian {S}yntax 82},
	Date-Added = {2009-03-21