1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Advances in the Syntax of DPs
  4. Chapter

The structure of null subject DPs and agreement in Polish impersonal constructions

image of The structure of null subject DPs and agreement in Polish impersonal constructions

This paper is concerned with the function of the SIĘ particle in the impersonal construction and with the internal structure of impersonal pronouns in Polish. It is proposed that SIĘ is a functional element heading its own projection, dubbed SIĘP, taking pro as its complement. This makes the SIĘP similar to canonical DPs. As for pronouns, it is argued that they enter the derivation as bundles of features that get bound by operators and logophoric categories in the course of the syntactic derivation. Differences in the interpretation of the null impersonal subject pronoun will depend on the kind of elements its sub-features will be bound by.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    1998 Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16: 491–539. doi: 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellert, Irena
    1977 On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry8(2): 337–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Benvieniste, Émile
    1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blake, Barry, J
    2001 Case. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164894
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164894 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bondaruk, Anna & Charzyńska-Wójcik, Magdalena
    2003 Expletive pro in impersonals passives in Irish, Polish and Old English. Linguistische Berichte195: 325–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Borer, Hagit
    2005a Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005b Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia
    2006 ‘Arbitrary’ pro and the theory of pro-drop. InAgreement and Arguments, Peter Ackema , Patrick Brandt , Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman , 230–258. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cardinaletti, Anna
    1993 On the internal structure of DPs. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics3(2): 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1995a Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. InThe Generic Book, Gregory Carlson , Norman & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 176–223, Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1995b The variability of impersonal subjects. InQuantification in Natural Language, Emmon Bach , Eloise Jelinek , Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds), 107–143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2817‑1_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi, Jaehoon
    2012 The locus of person feature, agreement, and DP/CP parallelism. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society (NELS). October 19–21, City University of New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InStructures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–132. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1988 On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry19(4): 521–581.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalmi, Gréte
    2013 All-in-one: Generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31 : 115–123, Robert LaBarge (ed.). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. D’Alessandro, Roberta
    2004 Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. PhD dissertation. University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 Impersonal ‘si’ constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. D’Alessandro, Roberta & Alexiadou, Artemis
    2003 Inclusive and exclusive impersonal pronouns: A feature geometrical analysis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa27: 31–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald, M
    2000 Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language76: 759–798. doi: 10.2307/417199
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417199 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diesing, Molly
    1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
    2001 Adverbs of quantification and genericity. InEmpirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4, Claire Beyssade , Olivier Bonami , Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr & Francis Corblin , 27–44. Paris: Sorbonne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dotlačil, Jakub & Šimik, Radek
    2012 Peeling, structural case, and Czech retroactive infinitives. Retrieved fromLingBuzz/001555on7August, 2012.
  25. Dziwirek, Katarzyna
    1994 Polish Subjects. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Egerland, Verner
    2003 Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax71: 75–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, Charles
    1971/1997 Lectures on Deixis. Stanford CA: CSLI. (originally distributed as Fillmore [1975/1971], Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Frascarelli, Mara
    2007 Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25: 691–734. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9025‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  29. Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland
    2007 Types of topics in German and Italian. InOn Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.100.07fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.07fra [Google Scholar]
  30. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InThe View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Jay S. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language78(3): 482–526. doi: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  32. Holmberg, Anders
    2010a Null subject parameters. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 88–125. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010b The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts , & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 200–231. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kamp, Hans
    1981 A theory of truth and discourse representation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk , Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaplan, David
    1989 Demonstratives. InThemes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog , John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 483–540. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kibort, Anna
    2004 Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. Ms, University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Impersonals in Polish: An LFG perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society106(2): 246–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00213.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. InPhrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Krzek, Małgorzata
    2013 The Syntax of Impersonal Constructions in Polish. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lavine, James, E
    2005 The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –NO/–TO. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics13(1): 75–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, Christopher
    1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  42. Maienborn, Claudia
    2001 On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics9: 191–240. doi: 10.1023/A:1012405607146
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012405607146 [Google Scholar]
  43. Marantz, Alec
    1991 Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) , 234–253. Columbus OH: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. McFadden, Thomas
    2004 The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 German inherent datives and argument structure. InDatives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole , André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds),47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.75
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    2008 Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation.Transactions of Philological Society106 (2): 290–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00210.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00210.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Moltmann, Friederike
    2006 Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics14: 257–281. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑006‑9002‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9002-7 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nagórko, Alicja
    1997 Zarys gramatyki polskiej (Polish Grammar. An Outline), 2nd edn. Warszawa: PWN.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2004 The syntax of valuation and interpretability of features. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/ 10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  50. Progovac, Ljiljana
    1998 Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics34(1): 165–179. doi: 10.1017/S0022226797006865
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006865 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts, Ian
    2010 A deletion analysis of null subjects. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 58–88. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders
    2010 Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 1–58. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Siewierska, Anna
    2008 Introduction: impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent-centred perspective. Transactions of Philological Society106(2): 115–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00211.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00211.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
    2003 Case: abstract vs. morphological. InNew Perspectives on Case Theory, Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–268. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics16: 219–251. Special issue edited by Valentina Bianchi & Kenneth Safir .
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sigurðsson, Halldór, Ármann
    2009 Remarks on features. InExploration of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments, Kleanthes Grohmann (ed.), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213966.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.21 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vainikka, Anne
    1989 Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vendler, Zeno
    1976 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    1998 Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16: 491–539. doi: 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellert, Irena
    1977 On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry8(2): 337–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Benvieniste, Émile
    1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blake, Barry, J
    2001 Case. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164894
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164894 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bondaruk, Anna & Charzyńska-Wójcik, Magdalena
    2003 Expletive pro in impersonals passives in Irish, Polish and Old English. Linguistische Berichte195: 325–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Borer, Hagit
    2005a Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005b Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia
    2006 ‘Arbitrary’ pro and the theory of pro-drop. InAgreement and Arguments, Peter Ackema , Patrick Brandt , Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman , 230–258. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cardinaletti, Anna
    1993 On the internal structure of DPs. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics3(2): 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1995a Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. InThe Generic Book, Gregory Carlson , Norman & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 176–223, Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1995b The variability of impersonal subjects. InQuantification in Natural Language, Emmon Bach , Eloise Jelinek , Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds), 107–143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2817‑1_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi, Jaehoon
    2012 The locus of person feature, agreement, and DP/CP parallelism. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society (NELS). October 19–21, City University of New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InStructures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–132. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1988 On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry19(4): 521–581.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalmi, Gréte
    2013 All-in-one: Generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31 : 115–123, Robert LaBarge (ed.). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. D’Alessandro, Roberta
    2004 Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. PhD dissertation. University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 Impersonal ‘si’ constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. D’Alessandro, Roberta & Alexiadou, Artemis
    2003 Inclusive and exclusive impersonal pronouns: A feature geometrical analysis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa27: 31–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald, M
    2000 Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language76: 759–798. doi: 10.2307/417199
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417199 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diesing, Molly
    1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
    2001 Adverbs of quantification and genericity. InEmpirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4, Claire Beyssade , Olivier Bonami , Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr & Francis Corblin , 27–44. Paris: Sorbonne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dotlačil, Jakub & Šimik, Radek
    2012 Peeling, structural case, and Czech retroactive infinitives. Retrieved fromLingBuzz/001555on7August, 2012.
  25. Dziwirek, Katarzyna
    1994 Polish Subjects. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Egerland, Verner
    2003 Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax71: 75–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, Charles
    1971/1997 Lectures on Deixis. Stanford CA: CSLI. (originally distributed as Fillmore [1975/1971], Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Frascarelli, Mara
    2007 Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25: 691–734. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9025‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  29. Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland
    2007 Types of topics in German and Italian. InOn Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.100.07fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.07fra [Google Scholar]
  30. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InThe View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Jay S. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language78(3): 482–526. doi: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  32. Holmberg, Anders
    2010a Null subject parameters. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 88–125. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010b The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts , & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 200–231. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kamp, Hans
    1981 A theory of truth and discourse representation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk , Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaplan, David
    1989 Demonstratives. InThemes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog , John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 483–540. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kibort, Anna
    2004 Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. Ms, University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Impersonals in Polish: An LFG perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society106(2): 246–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00213.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. InPhrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Krzek, Małgorzata
    2013 The Syntax of Impersonal Constructions in Polish. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lavine, James, E
    2005 The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –NO/–TO. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics13(1): 75–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, Christopher
    1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  42. Maienborn, Claudia
    2001 On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics9: 191–240. doi: 10.1023/A:1012405607146
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012405607146 [Google Scholar]
  43. Marantz, Alec
    1991 Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) , 234–253. Columbus OH: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. McFadden, Thomas
    2004 The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 German inherent datives and argument structure. InDatives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole , André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds),47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.75
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    2008 Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation.Transactions of Philological Society106 (2): 290–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00210.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00210.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Moltmann, Friederike
    2006 Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics14: 257–281. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑006‑9002‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9002-7 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nagórko, Alicja
    1997 Zarys gramatyki polskiej (Polish Grammar. An Outline), 2nd edn. Warszawa: PWN.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2004 The syntax of valuation and interpretability of features. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/ 10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  50. Progovac, Ljiljana
    1998 Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics34(1): 165–179. doi: 10.1017/S0022226797006865
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006865 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts, Ian
    2010 A deletion analysis of null subjects. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 58–88. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders
    2010 Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. InNull Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 1–58. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Siewierska, Anna
    2008 Introduction: impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent-centred perspective. Transactions of Philological Society106(2): 115–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00211.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00211.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
    2003 Case: abstract vs. morphological. InNew Perspectives on Case Theory, Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–268. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics16: 219–251. Special issue edited by Valentina Bianchi & Kenneth Safir .
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sigurðsson, Halldór, Ármann
    2009 Remarks on features. InExploration of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments, Kleanthes Grohmann (ed.), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213966.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.21 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vainikka, Anne
    1989 Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vendler, Zeno
    1976 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269690-la.217.06krz
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269690-la.217.06krz
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269690
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error