1887

The Syntax of Information-Structural Agreement

image of The Syntax of Information-Structural Agreement

In this research monograph, Johannes Mursell discusses the syntactic impact of information-structural features on agreement. So far, the syntactic contribution of this type of feature has mostly been reduced to movement of topics or foci clause-initial position. Here, the author looks at a different phenomenon, syntactic agreement, and how this process can be dependent on information-structural properties. Based partly on original fieldwork from a typologically diverse set of languages, including Tagalog, Swahili, and Lavukaleve, it is argued that for most areas for which information-structural features have been discussed, it is possible to find cases where these features influence phi-feature agreement. The analysis is then extended to cases of Association with Focus, which does not involve phi-features but can still be accounted for with agreement of information-structural features. The book achieves two main goals: first it provides a uniform analysis for different constructions in unrelated languages. Second, it also gives a new argument that information-structural features should be treated as genuine syntactic features.

References

  1. Aboh, Enoch Oladé
    2010 Information structuring begins with the numeration. Iberia2:12–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adger, David
    2003Core Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. , Dixon, Robert M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki
    2001 Introduction. InNon-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language, 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald , Robert M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aissen, Judith
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory17: 673–711. 10.1023/A:1006335629372
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21:435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aldridge, Edith
    2004 Ergativity and Word order in Austronesian Languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Allan, Keith
    1983 Anaphora, cataphora, and topic focusing: Functions of the object prefix in Swahili. InCurrent Approaches to African Linguistics, Ivan R. Dihoff (ed.), 323–335. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Altmann, Hans
    1976Die Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111635163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111635163 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1978Gradpartikelprobleme. Zur Beschreibung von gerade, genau, eben, ausgerechnet, vor allem, insbesondere, zumindest, wenigstens. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Anderson, Stephen R.
    1972 How to get ’even’. Language48: 893–905. 10.2307/411993
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411993 [Google Scholar]
  11. Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus
    2010 Desintegration und Interpretation. Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft29:1–38. 10.1515/zfsw.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Arregi, Karlos
    2018 Focus projection theories. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 185–203. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Asarina, Alya & Jeremy Hartman
    2011a Genitive subject licensing in Uyghur subordinate clauses. InProceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic (WAFL), Andrew Simpson (ed.), 17–31. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Asarina, Alya & Hartman, Jeremy
    2011b Uyghur genitive subjects and the phase impenetrability condition. Presented atCUNY Syntax supper, February 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ashton, Eric Ormerod
    1944Swahili Grammar. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bailyn, John Frederick
    2020 The scrambling paradox. Linguistic Inquiry51(4):635–669. doi:  10.1162/ling_a_00361
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00361 [Google Scholar]
  17. Baker, Mark C.
    1985 The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry16: 373–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016On the status of object markers in Bantu languages. Rutgers University. https://sites.rutgers.edu/mark-baker/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/2019/07/status-of-OMs-in-Bantu-paper.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Baker, Mark C. & Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
    2015 On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. InHandbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon , Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds), 111–135. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bárány, András
    2015 Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bassi, Itai & Longenbaugh, Nicholas
    2019 Against Tanglewood by focus movement: A reply to Erlewine and Kotek (2018). Linguistic Inquiry51(3): 579–596. doi:  10.1162/ling_a_00348
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00348 [Google Scholar]
  24. Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt
    2012 Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. InProsody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 119–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261790.119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261790.119 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013 Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German. Lingua136:16–37. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bax, Anna & Diercks, Michael
    2012 Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies30:185–202. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737596
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737596 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bayer, Josef
    1996Directionality and Logical Form. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1272‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1272-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z.
    2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  29. Beck, Sigrid
    2006 Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics14: 1–56. 10.1007/s11050‑005‑4532‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [Google Scholar]
  30. Behaghel, Otto
    1932Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band IV: Wortstellung. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Bell, Sarah
    1978 Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics17:1–9. 10.2307/3622824
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622824 [Google Scholar]
  32. Belletti, Adriana
    2001 Inversion as focalization. InSubject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2004 Aspects of the low IP area. InThe Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2005 Past-participle agreement. InBlackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 493–521. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. den Besten, Hans
    1983 On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. InOn the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.3.03bes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.3.03bes [Google Scholar]
  36. Bhatt, Rajesh
    2005 Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory23: 757–807. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑4136‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4136-0 [Google Scholar]
  37. Bhatt, Rajesh & Keine, Stefan
    2016 Long distance agreement. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 2291–2321. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Bianchi, Valentina , Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio
    2016 Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics9:1–54. 10.3765/sp.9.3
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2019 Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry50: 527–569. 10.1162/ling_a_00319
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319 [Google Scholar]
  40. Bliss, Heather
    2009 Structuring information in Blackfoot: Against an A-bar-agreement analysis of cross-clausal agreement. InProceedings of the 2008 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, Susie Jones (ed.). homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Bliss.pdf (4February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1917 Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature3: 2–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
    2002 A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20:197–267. 10.1023/A:1015059006439
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015059006439 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008 Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. InPhi Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour , David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Börjesson, Kristin & Müller, Gereon
    2020 Long distance agreement and locality: A reprojection approach. In Smith , Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 283–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Bošković, Željko
    2003 Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis33:54–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2007 On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry38: 589–644. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589 [Google Scholar]
  47. Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko
    1998 Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry29: 347–366. 10.1162/002438998553789
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553789 [Google Scholar]
  48. Bouma, Gosse , Hendriks, Petra & Hoeksema, Jack
    2007 Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A comparison of Dutch, English, and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics10: 1–24. 10.1007/s10828‑006‑9006‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-006-9006-1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite
    2002 Altruism, A-bar movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry33: 385–407. 10.1162/002438902760168545
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168545 [Google Scholar]
  50. Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.
    1987 Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewâ. Language63: 741–782. 10.2307/415717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415717 [Google Scholar]
  51. Breul, Carsten
    2004Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach [Linguisik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.68
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.68 [Google Scholar]
  52. Brody, M.
    1997 Perfect chains. InElements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 139–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  53. Bruening, Benjamin
    2001 Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2001 QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry32: 233–273. 10.1162/00243890152001762
    https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001762 [Google Scholar]
  55. Burzio, Luigi
    1986Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Büring, Daniel
    1999 Topic. InFocus – Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds), 142–165. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2003 On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy26: 511–545. 10.1023/A:1025887707652
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2006 Focus projection and default prominence. InThe Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2015 Unalternative semantics. InProceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Sarah D’Antonio , Mary Moroney , & Carol Rose Little (eds), 550–575. Chicago IL: Linguistic Society of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2016Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Büring, Daniel & Hartmann, Katharina
    1995 Is it [only Rock’n Roll] or just like it?InProceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), José Camacho , Lina Choueiri , & Maki Watanabe (eds), 63–77. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2001 The syntax of focus sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19: 229–281. 10.1023/A:1010653115493
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010653115493 [Google Scholar]
  63. Cena, Resty M.
    1977 Patient primacy in Tagalog. Paper presented at theLSA Annual Meeting, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. InSubject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Chomsky, Noam
    1970 Remarks on nominalization. InReadings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1976 Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis2: 303–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. InThe View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin , David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–54. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2005 Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry36: 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008 On phases. InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2015 Problems of projection: Extensions. InStructures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 223], Elisa Di Domenico , Cornelia Haman & Simona Matteini (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.223.01cho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho [Google Scholar]
  75. 2019 Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2019: 263–285. doi:  10.5565/rev/catjl.287
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.287 [Google Scholar]
  76. Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
    1977 Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry8: 425–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 2010The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge MA: The MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. Colley, Justin & Privoznov, Dmitry
    2019 On the topic of subjects. Talk given atNELS50 at MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Collins, James N.
    2016 Composition and definiteness without articles: A case study in Tagalog. InNELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol.I, Cristopher Hammerly & Brandon Prickett (eds), 227–241. Amherst MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2017 Structure Sensitve Interpretation: A Case Study in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 2019 Definiteness determined by syntax. A case study in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory37:1367–1420. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9436‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9436-x [Google Scholar]
  83. Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia
    2012 Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. InMain Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht , Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.190.10con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.10con [Google Scholar]
  84. Coon, Jessica & Bale, Alan
    2014 The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd40: 85–101. 10.7557/12.3235
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3235 [Google Scholar]
  85. Creissels, Denis
    2004 Non-canonical applicatives and focalization in Tswana. Paper presented at theSymposium Syntax of the World’s Languages, Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Cruschina, Silvio
    2019 Focus fronting in Spanish: Mirative implicature and information structure. Probus31:119–146. 10.1515/probus‑2018‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2018-0008 [Google Scholar]
  87. D’Alessandro, Roberta
    2020 Agreement across the board: Topic agreement in Ripano. In Smith , Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 235–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
    2011Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  89. D’Angio, Sara
    2007 Negative polarity items in inverse scope and topicalized clauses. Swarthmore College, Dept. of Linguistics. https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/2007_dangio_sarah.pdf (4February 2021).
  90. Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus
    Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus 2020 From the Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. www.ids-mannheim.de/kl/projekte/korpora/ (4February 2021).
  91. De Guzman, Videa P.
    1988 Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. InStudies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 323–345. Athens OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Diesing, Molly
    1992Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise
    1995 Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics3: 123–176. 10.1007/BF01249836
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01249836 [Google Scholar]
  94. den Dikken, Marcel
    2006Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  95. Downing, Laura J.
    2009 Linear disorder in Bantu reduplication. InWorkshop on the Division of Labor between Morphology and Phonology and Fourth Network Meeting, 16–17 January. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Drubig, Hans Bernhard
    1994Island Constraints and the Syntactic Nature of Focus and Association of Focus [Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Vol. 51]. Heidelberg: Das Wissenschaftliche Zentrum der IBM Deutschland.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Egg, Markus & Mursell, Johannes
    2017 The syntax and semantics of discourse particles. InDiscourse Particles. Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 15–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Endo, Yoshio
    2012 Illocutionary force of non-root sentences. Talk given atUniversity of Venice, March.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2014 Movement out of Focus. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Kotek, Hadas
    2018 Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. Linguistic Inquiry49: 441–463. 10.1162/ling_a_00263
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00263 [Google Scholar]
  101. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi , Ibnbari, Lena & Taube, Sharon
    2013 Missing objects as topic drop. Lingua136:145–169. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  102. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2006 On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure). InForm, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 137–159. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1524/9783050085555.137
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050085555.137 [Google Scholar]
  103. Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa
    2011 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29:169–209. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9109‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x [Google Scholar]
  104. Féry, Caroline
    1993German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111677606
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111677606 [Google Scholar]
  105. Fiedler, Ines , Hartmann, Katharina , Reineke, Brigitte , Schwarz, Anne & Zimmermann, Malte
    2010 Subject focus in West African languages. InInformation Structure. Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Carolin Féry (eds), 234–257. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Foley, William
    1998 Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at theThird Lexical Functional Grammar Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Foley, William & Van ValinJr., Robert
    1984Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Forker, Diana
    2012A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 2016 Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language40(1):1–25. doi:  10.1075/sl.40.1.01for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.01for [Google Scholar]
  110. Frank, Robert
    2006 Phase theory and tree adjoining grammar. Lingua116:145–202. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  111. Frantz, Donald G.
    1978 Copying from complements in Blackfoot. InLinguistic Studies of Native Canada, Eung-Do Cook & Johnathan Kaye (eds), 89–110. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Frascarelli, Mara
    2007 Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of null pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory25: 691–734. 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9025‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  113. Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland
    2007 Types of topics in German and Italian. InOn Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.100.07fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.07fra [Google Scholar]
  114. Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca
    2012 Phasing contrast at the interfaces: A feature-compositional approach to topics. InInformation Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada , Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández , Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 55–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.197.02fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.197.02fra [Google Scholar]
  115. Frey, Werner
    2004 Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German left dislocation. InThe Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds), 203–233. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110912111.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912111.203 [Google Scholar]
  116. Gallego, Ángel J.
    2014 Deriving feature inheritance from the copy theory of movement. The Linguistc Review31: 41–71. 10.1515/tlr‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  117. Gerdts, Donna
    1988 Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. InStudies in Austronesian Linguistics, McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    1998Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.23 [Google Scholar]
  119. Givón, Talmy
    1976 Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. InSubject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 149–188. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 1983 Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. InTopic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 5–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3.01giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv [Google Scholar]
  121. Grewendorf, Günther
    2005 The discourse configurationality of scrambling. InThe Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, Joachim Sabel & Mamoru Saito (eds), 75–135. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Grewendorf, Günther & Sabel, Joachim
    1999 Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory17: 1–65. 10.1023/A:1006068326583
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006068326583 [Google Scholar]
  123. Guéron, Jacqueline
    1980 On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry11: 637–678.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Guilfoyle, Eithne , Hung, Henrietta & Travis, Lisa
    1992 Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory10: 375–414. 10.1007/BF00133368
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133368 [Google Scholar]
  125. Gundel, Jeanette K. , Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69: 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  126. Guthrie, Malcom
    1971Comparative Bantu, Vol. 2: Bantu Prehistory, Inventory and Indexes. London: Gregg International.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Günthner, Susanne
    1999 Wenn-Sätze im Vor-Vorfeld: Ihre Formen und Funktionen in der gesprochenen Sprache [Technical Report], InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures11. kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/3771 (5February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Haegeman, Liliane
    2012Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  129. Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo
    2012 Complementizer agreement and the relation between C and T. Linguistic Inquiry43: 441–454. 10.1162/LING_a_00096
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00096 [Google Scholar]
  130. Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
    2010 Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics36: 111–152. 10.1515/thli.2010.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.008 [Google Scholar]
  131. Haida, Andreas
    2007 The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Wh-Words. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Haider, Hubert & Rosengren, Inger
    1998Scrambling [Sprache & Pragmatik 49]. Lund: University of Lund.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Hale, Kenneth
    2002 On the Dagur object relative: Some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian Linguistics11: 109–122. 10.1023/A:1014952628287
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014952628287 [Google Scholar]
  134. Hamann, Jakob
    2010 On the syntax an morphology of double agreement in Lavukaleve. In2 in Agreement [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 88], Sebastian Bank , Doreen Georgi & Jochen Trommer (eds), 197–225. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Hardt, Daniel & Romero, Maribel
    2004 Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Semantics21: 375–414. 10.1093/jos/21.4.375
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.4.375 [Google Scholar]
  136. Harley, Heidi
    2013 Getting morphemes in order: Merger, affixation and head movement. InDiagnosing Syntax, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 44–75. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  137. Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte
    2007 Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A reanalysis of the particle nee/cee. InFocus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, Enoch O. Aboh , Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds), 241–263. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 2009 Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua119: 1340–1365. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  139. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 Long distance agreement in Godoberi (Daghestanian) complement clauses. Folia Linguistica33: 131–152. 10.1515/flin.1999.33.1‑2.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.131 [Google Scholar]
  140. Hawkins, John A.
    1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality. Journal of Linguistics27: 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  141. Heck, Fabian , & Juan Cuartero
    2012 Long distance agreement in relative clauses. InLocal Modelling of Non-local Dependencies in Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou , Tibor Kiss , & Gereon Müller (eds), 49–85. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294774.49
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294774.49 [Google Scholar]
  142. Heim, Irene
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Heim, Johannes , Keupdjio, Hermann , Lam, Zoe Wai-Mai , Osa-Gómez, Adriana & Wiltschko, Martina
    2014 How to do things with particles. InProceedings of CLA 2014, Laura Teddiman (ed), https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/Heim_Keupdjio_Lam_Osa-Gomez_Wiltschko-2014.pdf (5February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Henderson, Brent Mykel
    2006 The Syntax and Typology of Bantu Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of IllinoisatUrbana-Champaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. von Heusinger, Klaus
    2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics19: 245–274. 10.1093/jos/19.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  147. Himmelmann, Nikolaus
    1991 The Philippine challenge to universal grammar. Arbeitspapier, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft15:1–59. publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24331 (5February 2021).
  148. Hoeksema, Jack
    2000 Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope and c-command. InNegation and Polarity, Laurence R. Horn & Yasuhiko Kato (eds), 115–146. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Hole, Daniel
    2004Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese. London: RoutledgeCurzon. 10.4324/9780203565193
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203565193 [Google Scholar]
  150. 2015 A distributed syntax for evaluative ‘only’ sentences. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft34: 43–77. 10.1515/zfs‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  151. Horn, Laurence Robert
    1969 A presuppositional analysis of only and even. InPapers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robert I. Binnick , Alice Davison , Georgia M. Green & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 98–107. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Hornstein, Norbert
    1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry30: 69–96. 10.1162/002438999553968
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968 [Google Scholar]
  153. Huang, C-T James
    1982 Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review1: 369–416. 10.1515/tlir.1982.1.4.369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1982.1.4.369 [Google Scholar]
  154. Hyman, Larry M.
    2009 How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences31: 213–238. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  155. Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson
    2014 Introduction. Linguistics52(2): 271–279. doi:  10.1515/ling‑2013‑0062
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0062 [Google Scholar]
  156. Issah, Samuel A.
    2019 On the Structure of A-bar Constructions in Dagbani: Perspectives of Wh-questions and Fragment Answers. PhD dissertation, Goethe-University Frankfurt.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Jackendoff, Ray
    1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Jacobs, Joachim
    1983Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111351889
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111351889 [Google Scholar]
  159. 1984 Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte91: 25–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 1986 The syntax of focus and adverbials. InTopic, Focus, and Configurationality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 4], Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds), 103–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.06jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.06jac [Google Scholar]
  161. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan
    2001 IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica55: 39–75. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00074
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00074 [Google Scholar]
  162. Jenks, Peter
    2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry49: 501–536. 10.1162/ling_a_00280
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00280 [Google Scholar]
  163. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.
    2010 Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacritica24: 25–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2014 A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua145: 276–302. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  165. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Spyropoulos, Vassilios
    2013 Feature inheritance, vP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica67: 185–224. 10.1111/stul.12013
    https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12013 [Google Scholar]
  166. Johns, Alana & Kučerová, Ivona
    2017 Towards an information structure analysis of ergative patterning in the Inuit language. InThe Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon , Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 397–419. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Joswig, Andreas
    1996Die grammatischen Rollen des Objekts im Swahili. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln Arbeitspapiere26:1–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Julien, Marit
    2002Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Kadmon, Nirit
    1990 Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy13: 273–324. 10.1007/BF00627710
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627710 [Google Scholar]
  170. Kallulli, Dalina
    2000 Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. InClitic Phenomena in European Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 30], Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 209–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.30.09kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.30.09kal [Google Scholar]
  171. 2016 Clitic doubling as differntial object marking. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa38: 161–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Kamp, Hans
    1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk , Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin B. J. Stokhof (eds), 189–222. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Kaufman, Daniel
    2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics35:1–49. 10.1515/THLI.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  174. Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves
    2001 New thoughts on stylistic inversion. InSubject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 107–162. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Khalilova, Zaira
    2008 Long-distance agreement in Khwarshi. InProceedings of LingO 2007, Miltiadis Kokkonidis (ed.), 116–124. Oxford: Faculty of Linguistics, Philology,and Phonetics, University of Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. 2009A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Kiss, Katalin É.
    1995 Introduction. InDiscourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 3–28. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74: 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  179. Klein, Wolfgang & von Stechow, Arnim
    1982Intonation und Bedeutung von Fokus [Sonderforschungsbereich, 99: Linguistik]. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Kornfilt, Jacklin
    2008 Subject case and Agr into types of Turkish RCs. InProceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic (WAFL) [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 56], Cedric Boeckx & Suleiman Ulutas (eds). Cambridge MA: MIT, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Kramer, Ruth
    2014 Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory32: 593–634. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9233‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0 [Google Scholar]
  182. Krapova, Ilyana & Cinque, Guglielmo
    2005 On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics15: 171–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Kratzer, Angelika
    1991 The representation of focus. InSemantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 6], Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 825–835. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Krifka, Manfred
    1992 A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. InInformationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  185. 1995 Swahili. InSyntax. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs , Arnim von Stechow , Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1397–1418. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  186. 1998a Additive particles under stress. InProceedings of SALT 8, Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds), 111–129. Ithaca NY: Cornell University. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/101 (5February 2021) 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799 [Google Scholar]
  187. 1998b Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry29: 75–112. 10.1162/002438998553662
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553662 [Google Scholar]
  188. 2006 Association with focus phrases. InThe Architecture of Focus, Valeria Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.105 [Google Scholar]
  189. 2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55: 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  190. Kroeger, Paul
    1993Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  191. König, Ekkehard
    1991a Gradpartikeln. InSemantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 786–803. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  192. 1991bThe Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  193. 1993 Focus particles. InSyntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 978–987. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  194. Latrouite, Anja
    2011 Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf.
    [Google Scholar]
  195. Ledgeway, Adam
    2005 Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy. Transactions of the Philological Society103: 339–396. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2005.00157.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2005.00157.x [Google Scholar]
  196. Legate, Julie Anne
    2005 Phases and cyclic agreement. InPerspectives on Phases [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49], Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 147–156. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  197. Lenerz, Juergen
    1977Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  198. Leonetti, Manuel
    2004 Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics3:75–114. 10.5565/rev/catjl.106
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.106 [Google Scholar]
  199. Levin, Theodore
    2019 On the nature of differential object marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory37: 167–213. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9412‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9412-5 [Google Scholar]
  200. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1989Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1991 In defence of the correspondence hypothesis: Island effects and parasitic consructions in logical form. InLogical Form and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, C.-T. James Huang & Robert May (eds), 149–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  202. López, Luis
    2009A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  203. Maclachlan, Anna & Nakamura, Masonori
    1994 Case checking and specificity in Tagalog. The Linguistic Review14: 307–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M.
    2002 Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. InSubjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 157–200. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Marantz, Alec
    1991 Case and licensing. InProceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Germán Westphal , Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds), 234–253. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  206. Marten, Lutz & Kula, Nancy C.
    2012 Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. South African Journal of African Languages30: 237–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. Maw, Joan
    1974Swahili Style. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. 1976 Focus and morphology of the Swahili verb. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London39: 389–402. 10.1017/S0041977X00050060
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00050060 [Google Scholar]
  209. McFadden, Tom
    2004 The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  210. Meinunger, André
    1999 Topicality and agreement. InFunctionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Vol. II: Case Studies [Studies in Language Companion Series 42], Michael Darnell , Edith Moravscik , Frederick Newmeyer , Michael Noonan & Kathleen Wheatly (eds), 203–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.42.12mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.42.12mei [Google Scholar]
  211. Merchant, Jason
    2006 Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. InProceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol.42, Jacqueline Bunting , Sapna Desai , Robert Peachey , Christopher Straughn & Zuzana Tomkova (eds), 57–76. Chicago IL: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  212. 2019 Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. InThe Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds), 19–45. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  213. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2010Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  214. 2011 Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua121: 1265–1282. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  215. 2017Agreement beyond Phi. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  216. Molnárfi, László
    2002 Focus and antifocus in modern Afrikaans and West Germanic. Linguistics40: 1007–1130. 10.1515/ling.2002.042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.042 [Google Scholar]
  217. Molnár, Valéria
    1993 Zur Pragmatik und Grammtik des Topik-Begriffes. InWortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed.), 155–203. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111658469.155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111658469.155 [Google Scholar]
  218. Murrell, Paul
    2012 The applicative construction and object symmetry as a parameter of variation in Kiswahili and Maragoli. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies30: 255–275. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737604
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737604 [Google Scholar]
  219. Mursell, Johannes
    2016 Syntactic association with focus – an agreement-based approach. InConsole XXIV: Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Kate Bellamy , Elena Karvovskaya & George Saad (eds), 324–351. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  220. 2018 Object marking in Swahili is topic agreement. Jezikoslovlje19: 427–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. 2020 Long distance agreement and information structure. In Smith , Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 251–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  222. Mursell, Johannes & Repp, Sophie
    2019 Encoding varieties of topic and focus: The role of contrast and information status. Talk given at theannual meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) in Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Mursell, Johannes & Tan, Jennifer
    2019 Ang-marking and Givenness in Tagalog. InConsole XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Astrid van Alem , Mirella De Sisto , Elisabeth J. Kerr & Joanna Wall (eds), 150–174. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Müller, Stefan
    2003 Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache31: 29–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  225. 2005 Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte203: 29–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  226. 2014Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  227. Nakamura, Masonori
    1996 Economy of Chain Formation. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Naylor, Paz Buenaventura
    1995Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In Subject, Voice and Ergativity, David C. Bennett , Theodora Bynon & B. George Hewitt (eds). London: SOAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  229. Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi, Kriszta
    2004 Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry35:149–159. 10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149 [Google Scholar]
  230. Neeleman, Ad & van der Koot, Hans
    2008 Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics11: 137–189. 10.1007/s10828‑008‑9018‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0 [Google Scholar]
  231. Nevins, Andrew
    2004 Derivations without the Activity Condition. InPerspectives on Phases [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49], Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 287–310. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  232. 2011 Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. InThe Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4: Phonological Interfaces, Marc van Oostendorp , Colin Ewen , Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0099
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0099 [Google Scholar]
  233. Ngonyani, Deo S.
    2016 Pairwise combinations of Swahili applicative with other verb extensions. Nordic Journal of African Studies25: 52–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  234. Nicolle, Steve
    2000 The Swahili object marker: Syntax, semantics and mythology. InProceedings of the World Congress of African Linguistics, Leipzig 1997, H. Ekkehard Wolff & Orin D. Gensler (eds), 679–691. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
    [Google Scholar]
  235. Nuger, Justin
    2016Building Predicates. New York NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑28682‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28682-2 [Google Scholar]
  236. Nurse, Derek & Philippson, Gérard
    2003 Introduction. InThe Bantu Languages, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds), 1–12. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. Obata, Kazuko
    2003A Grammar of Bilua. A Papuan Language from the Solomon Islands [Pacific Linguistics 50]. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  238. Ostrove, Jason
    2018 When Phi-agreement Targets Topics: The View from San Martin Peras Mixtec. PhD dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  239. Oxford, Will
    2014 Multiple instances of agreement in the clausal spine: Evidence from Algonquian. InProceedings of WCCFL 31, Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), 335–343. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  240. Partee, Barbara H.
    1991 Topic, focus and quantification. InProceedings of SALT 1, Steven Moore & Adam Wyner (eds), 159–187. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v1i0.2918
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.2918 [Google Scholar]
  241. Paul, Waltraud
    2002 Sentence-internal topics in Mandarin Chinese: The case of object preposing. Language and Linguistics3: 695–714.
    [Google Scholar]
  242. Paul, Waltraud & Whitman, John
    2017 Topic prominence. InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 4473–4504. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom065
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom065 [Google Scholar]
  243. Payne, Thomas E.
    1982 Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Languages6(1):75–106. 10.1075/sl.6.1.05pay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.05pay [Google Scholar]
  244. Perlmutter, David M.
    1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusativity hypothesis. InProceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeri J. Jaeger , Anthony C. Woodbury , Farrell Ackermann , Christine Chiarelio , Orin D. Gensler , John Kingston , Eve E. Sweetser , Henry Thompson & Kenneth W. Whistler (eds), 157–190. Berkeley CA: BLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  245. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  246. Peterson, David A.
    2007Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  247. Poletto, Cecilia
    2006 Old Italian scrambling: The low left periphery of the clause. InForm, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 209–229. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1524/9783050085555.209
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050085555.209 [Google Scholar]
  248. 2013 On V2 types. InThe Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (ed.), 154–165. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  249. Polinsky, Maria
    2003 Non-canonical agreement is canonical. Transactions of the Philological Society101: 279–312. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00120
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00120 [Google Scholar]
  250. 2017 Antipassive. InThe Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon , Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 308–332. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  251. Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric
    2001 Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19: 583–646. 10.1023/A:1010757806504
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010757806504 [Google Scholar]
  252. Pollock, Yean-Ives
    1989 Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry20: 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  253. Preminger, Omer
    2009 Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry40: 619–666. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619 [Google Scholar]
  254. 2013 That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review30: 491–500. 10.1515/tlr‑2013‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0015 [Google Scholar]
  255. 2014Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  256. Preminger, Omer & Polinsky, Maria
    2015Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms, University of Maryland. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002363 (7February 2021)
    [Google Scholar]
  257. Prince, Ellen
    1981 Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. InRadical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  258. Quek, Yihui & Hirsch, Aron
    2017 Severing focus form and meaning in Standard and Colloquial Singapore English. InProceedings of NELS 47, Vol.3, Andrew Lamont & Katarina Tetzloff (eds), 15–25. Amherst MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  259. Rackowski, Andrea
    2002 The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  260. Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin
    2005 Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistc Inquiry36: 565–599. 10.1162/002438905774464368
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368 [Google Scholar]
  261. Ramchand, Gillian
    2017 The event domains. InThe Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alessandro , Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds), 233–255. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  262. Reich, Ingo
    2004 Association with focus and choice functions – A binding approach. Research on Language and Computation2: 463–489. 10.1007/s11168‑004‑0902‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-004-0902-8 [Google Scholar]
  263. Reid, Lawrence , & Liao, Hsiu-Chuan
    2004 A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics5(2):433–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  264. Reinhart, Tanya
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27: 53–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  265. Reis, Marga
    1995 Wer glaubst du hat Recht? On so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache & Pragmatik36: 27–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  266. 2005 On the syntax of so-called focus sensitive particles. A reply to Büring & Hartmann 2001. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory23: 459–483. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑0766‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-0766-5 [Google Scholar]
  267. 2013 ”Weil-V2”-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32: 221–262. 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
  268. Reis, Marga & Rosengren, Inger
    1997 A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German auch. Journal of Semantics14: 237–309. 10.1093/jos/14.3.237
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.3.237 [Google Scholar]
  269. Repp, Sophie
    2016 Contrast: Dissecting an ilusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 270–290. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  270. Richards, Marc D.
    2007 On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry38: 563–572. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  271. Richards, Norvin
    2000 Another look at Tagalog subjects. InFormal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 49], Ileana Paul , Vivianne Phillips & Lisa Travis (eds), 105–115. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1580‑5_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1580-5_6 [Google Scholar]
  272. Richter, Frank & Soehn, Jan-Philipp
    2006 Braucht niemanden zu scheren: A survey of NPI licensing in German. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Müller Stefan (ed.), 421–440. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  273. Riedel, Kristina
    2009 The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Bantu Perspective. PhD dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  274. Rizzi, Luigi
    1986 Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry17: 501–557.
    [Google Scholar]
  275. 1990Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  276. 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of Grammar. A Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  277. Roberts, Craige
    2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26: 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  278. Roberts, Ian
    2010Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  279. Rochemont, Michael
    1978 A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussets.
    [Google Scholar]
  280. 1986Focus in Generative Grammar [Studies in Generative Linguistic Analysis 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sigla.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4 [Google Scholar]
  281. 2016 Givenness. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 41–64. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  282. Rooth, Mats
    1985 Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  283. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1: 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  284. Rothstein, Susan
    1991 Heads, projections, and category determination. InViews on Phrase Structure, Katherine Leffel & Denis Bouchard (eds), 97–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3196‑4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3196-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  285. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 On denoting. Mind14: 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  286. Sabbagh, Joseph
    2009 Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory27: 675–719. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9083‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9083-3 [Google Scholar]
  287. 2014 Word order and prosodic-structure constraints in Tagalog. Syntax17: 40–89. 10.1111/synt.12012
    https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12012 [Google Scholar]
  288. 2016 Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics52: 639–688. 10.1017/S0022226716000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000025 [Google Scholar]
  289. Sabel, Joachim
    2002 A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review19: 271–315. 10.1515/tlir.2002.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2002.002 [Google Scholar]
  290. 2011 Deriving linear order in OV/VO languages: Evidence from Oceanic languages. InTopics in Oceanic Morphosyntax, Claire Moyse-Faurie & Joachim Sabel (eds), 27–65. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110259919.27
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110259919.27 [Google Scholar]
  291. 2018 Syntactic effects of verbal morphology in Malagasy. Talk given at theSyntax Colloquim, Goethe-University, Frankfurt.
    [Google Scholar]
  292. Sabel, Joachim & Jochen Zeller
    2006 Wh-question formation in Nguni. InSelected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, John M. Mugane , John P. Hutchinson & Dee A. Worman (eds), 271–283. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  293. Schachter, Paul
    1976 The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. InSubject and Topic, Charles N. Li , 493–518. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  294. 1996The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15]. Los Angeles CA: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  295. Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe
    1972Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520321205
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520321205 [Google Scholar]
  296. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics7: 141–177. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  297. Scontras, Gregory & Nicolae, Andreea C.
    2016 Saturating syntax: Linkers and modification in Tagalog. Lingua149: 17–33. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  298. Seidl, Amanda & Dimitriadis, Alexis
    1997 The discourse function of object marking in Swahili. InCLS 33: Papers from the Main Session, April 17–19, 1997, Kora Singer , Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds), 373–389. Chicago IL: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  299. Selkirk, Elisabeth
    1995a The prosodic structure of words. InUniversity of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, Jill Beckman , Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), 439–469. Amherst MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  300. 1995b Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. InThe Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  301. 2008 Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55: 331–346. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.8
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.8 [Google Scholar]
  302. Sener, Serkan
    2008Non-canonical case licensing is canonical: Accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish. Ms, University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  303. Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner
    2004 ‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ leftperipheral elements in German and English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics35: 465–502. 10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.238
    https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.238 [Google Scholar]
  304. Shanon, Benny
    1976 On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language14(2): 247–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  305. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1988 Voice in Philippine languages. InPassive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.16.06shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.06shi [Google Scholar]
  306. Sikuku, Justine , Diercks, Michael & Marlo, Michael
    2018Pragmatic effect of clitic doubling: Two kinds of object markers in Lubusku. Linguistic Variation18: 359–429. lingbuzz/003653.
    [Google Scholar]
  307. Smeets, Liz & Wagner, Michael
    2018 Reconstructing the syntax of focus operators. Semantics and Pragmatics11. doi:  10.3765/sp.11.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.6 [Google Scholar]
  308. Smith, Lawrence R.
    1982 Labrador Inuktitut (Eskimo) and the theory of morphology. Studies in Language6: 221–244. 10.1075/sl.6.2.04smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.2.04smi [Google Scholar]
  309. Smith, Peter W. , Mursell, Johannes & Hartmann, Katharina
    (eds) 2020Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  310. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy25: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  311. Starke, Michael
    2001 Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.
    [Google Scholar]
  312. Stebbins, Tonya , Evans, Bethwyn & Terrill, Angela
    2018 The Papuan languages of Island Melanesia. InThe Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area, Bill Palmer (ed.), 775–895. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  313. von Stechow, Arnim
    1991 Focussing and backgrounding operators. InDiscourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 37–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.12.04ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.04ste [Google Scholar]
  314. Strawson, Peter F.
    1950 On referring. Mind59: 320–344. 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  315. Struckmeier, Wolfgang
    2017 Against information structural heads: A relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa2: 1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.56
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.56 [Google Scholar]
  316. Sudhoff, Stefan
    2010 Fokuspartikeln innerhalb von DPn im Deutschen. In40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Theo Harden & Elke Hentschel (eds), 169–181. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  317. Surányi, Balázs
    2016 Discourse-configurationality. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 422–441. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  318. Svenonius, Peter
    2002 Introduction. InSubjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 3–29. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  319. Taglicht, Josef
    1984Message and Emphasis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  320. Tancredi, Christopher Damian
    1992 Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  321. Terrill, Angela
    1999 A Grammar of Lavukaleve: A Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  322. 2003A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110923964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110923964 [Google Scholar]
  323. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
    The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 From the Bodleian Libraries University of Oxford on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (8February 2021).
  324. Thiersch, Craig
    1978 Topics in German syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  325. Thráinsson, Höskuldur
    2001 Object shift and scrambling. InThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Marc Batin & Chris Collins (eds), 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  326. Torregrossa, Jacopo
    2012 Towards a taxonomy of focus types. The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics16:151–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  327. Truckenbrodt, Hubert
    2016 Focus, intonation and tonal height. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 165–185. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  328. van Urk, Coppe
    2015 A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Dinka Bor Case Study. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  329. Wagner, Michael
    2006 Association by movement. Natural Language Semantics14: 297–324. 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9005‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9005-z [Google Scholar]
  330. van der Wal, Jenneke
    2009Word Order and Information Structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  331. 2017Flexibility in symmetry: An implicational relation in Bantu double object constructions. In Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure, Michelle Sheehan & Laura R. Bailey (eds.), 115–152. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  332. 2020 The AWSOM correlation in comparative Bantu object marking. In Smith , Mursell & Hartmann (eds), 185–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  333. Wald, Benji
    1979 The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse in discourse and syntax. Syntax and Semantics12: 505–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  334. Wiltschko, Martina
    2014The Universal Structure of Categories. Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]
  335. Wold, Dag E.
    1996 Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. InProceedings of SALT VI, Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds), 311–328. Ithaca NY: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766 [Google Scholar]
  336. Woolford, Ellen
    1999 Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. InNew Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages [Trends in African Linguistics 3], Paul Kotey , (ed) 205–215. Trenton NJ: Africa World Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  337. Wurmbrand, Susi
    2003Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908329
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908329 [Google Scholar]
  338. 2012 Agree(ment): Looking up or looking down?Ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  339. 2016aFeature dependencies – The ups and downs of agree. Lecture notes from a course given at Institute of Linguistics, Cognition and Culture (NYI), St. Petersburg, Russia.
    [Google Scholar]
  340. 2016bThe ups and downs of agree. Lecture notes from a course given at the Netherlands Graduate School in Linguistics, LOT Summer School, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  341. Zaenen, Annie , Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur
    1985 Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory3: 441–483. 10.1007/BF00133285
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133285 [Google Scholar]
  342. Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2014 On the uninterpretability of interpretable features. InMinimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta , Steven Franks , Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 109–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11 [Google Scholar]
  343. Zeller, Jochen
    2012 Object marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies30: 219–235. 10.2989/16073614.2012.737600
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.737600 [Google Scholar]
  344. 2014 Three types of object marking in Bantu. Linguistische Berichte239: 347–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  345. 2015 Argument prominence and agreement: Explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua156: 17–39. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  346. Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
    2011 Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua121: 1651–1670. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  347. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
    2016 Nuclear stress and information structure. InThe Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 463–483. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  348. Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
    1983 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language59: 502–513. 10.2307/413900
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413900 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027259738
Loading
/content/books/9789027259738
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259738
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