Revisiting extraction and subextraction patterns from arguments

References

1. Abels, Klaus
   2003 “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Abels, Klaus
   2007 “Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement!” InLinguistic Variation Yearbook, edited byJeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 7:53–120. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/livy.7.04abe
   https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.04abe [Google Scholar]
3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou
   1998 “Parametrizing Agr: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16 (3): 491–539. 10.1023/A:1006090432389
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
4. Baltin, Mark
   2001 “A-movement.” InThe handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, edited byMark Baltin and Chris Collins, 226–254. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch8
   https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch8 [Google Scholar]
5. Barbosa, Pilar
   2001 “On Inversion in Wh-questions in Romance.” InSubject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, edited byAafke C. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock, 20–59. Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bayer, Josef
   2012 “From modal particle to interrogative marker: a study of German denn.” InFunctional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, edited byLaura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
7. Bayer, Josef, and Martin Salzmann
   2013 “That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired.” InRepairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong, edited byPatrick Brandt and Eric Fuß, 275–334. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614510796.275
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510796.275 [Google Scholar]
8. Beck, Sigrid
   1996 “Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form.” PhD diss., Universität Tübingen.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bentzen, Kristine
   2009 “Subject positions and their interactions with verb movement.” Studia Linguistica63 (3): 261–291. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2009.01162.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2009.01162.x [Google Scholar]
10. Boeckx, Cedric
    2008 Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein
    2005 “A Gap in the ECM Paradigm.” Linguistic Inquiry36 (3): 437–441. 10.1162/0024389054396926
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396926 [Google Scholar]
12. Bonet, Eulália
    1990 “Subjects in Catalan.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics13:1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bošković, Željko
    1997a “Coordination, Object Shift, and V-Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry28 (2): 357–365.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bošković, Željko
    1997b The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. 247. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Bošković, Željko
    2005 “On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica59 (1): 1–45. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2005.00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.x [Google Scholar]
16. Bošković, Željko
    2007 “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry38 (4): 589–644. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589 [Google Scholar]
17. Bošković, Željko
    2014 “Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry45 (1): 27–89. 10.1162/LING_a_00148
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148 [Google Scholar]
18. Bošković, Željko
    2016 “On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling.” The Linguistic Review33 (1): 17–66. 10.1515/tlr‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
19. Bošković, Željko
    2018 “On Movement out of Moved Elements, Labels, and Phases.” Linguistic Inquiry49 (2): 247–282. doi:  10.1162/LING_a_00273
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00273 [Google Scholar]
20. Branan, Kenyon
    2019 “Locality and anti-locality: the logic of conflicting requirements.” Ms., National University of Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Bresnan, Joan
    1977 “Variables in the theory of transformations.” InFormal Syntax, edited byPeter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 157–196. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Brillman, Ruth, and Aron Hirsch
    2016 “An anti-locality account of English subject/non-subject asymmetries.” InProceedings of CLS50.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Brody, Michael
    1998 “Projection and Phrase Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry29 (3): 367–398. 10.1162/002438998553798
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553798 [Google Scholar]
24. Browning, Marguerite
    1996 “CP Recursion and that-t Effects.” Linguistic Inquiry27 (2): 237–256.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Bruening, Benjamin
    2010a “Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (3): 519–562. 10.1162/LING_a_00012
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00012 [Google Scholar]
26. Bruening, Benjamin
    2010b “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (1): 281–305. 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287 [Google Scholar]
27. Bruening, Benjamin
    2018a “Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry49 (3): 537–559. 10.1162/ling_a_00281
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00281 [Google Scholar]
28. Bruening, Benjamin
    2018b “Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012.” Linguistic Inquiry49:123–150. 10.1162/LING_a_00268
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00268 [Google Scholar]
29. Burzio, Luigi
    1986 Italian Syntax. Reidel Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
30. Chacón, Dustin Alfonso, Michael Fetters, Margaret Kandel, Eric Pelzl, and Colin Phillips
    2015 “Indirect learning and language variation: Reassessing the that-trace effect.” Ms., University of Maryland & Yale University.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Chomsky, Noam
    1973 “Conditions on Transformations.” InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited byStephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt Rinehart / Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Chomsky, Noam
    1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Chomsky, Noam
    1986 Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The minimalist program. 420. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” InStep by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, edited byRoger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Chomsky, Noam
    2001a “Derivation by Phase.” InKen Hale: A Life in Linguistics, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Chomsky, Noam
    2001b “Derivation by phase.” InKen Hale: a life in language, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Chomsky, Noam
    2008 “On Phases.” InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited byRobert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
39. Chomsky, Noam
    2013 “Problems on Projection.” Lingua130:33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
40. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik
    1977 “Filters and control.” Linguistic Inquiry8 (3): 425–504.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey
    1983 “On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG.” Linguistic Inquiry14 (4): 704–713.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999 Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Citko, Barbara
    2014 Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139644037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037 [Google Scholar]
44. Collins, Chris
    2002 “Multiple verb movement in Hoan.” Linguistic Inquiry33 (1): 1–29. 10.1162/002438902317382161
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317382161 [Google Scholar]
45. Cowart, Wayne
    1997 Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Cuervo, Cristina
    2003 “Datives at Large.” PhD diss., Massachusets Institue of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Culicover, Peter
    1993 “Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect.” Linguistic Inquiry24 (3): 557–561.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Davis, Colin
    2020a “Crossing and stranding at edges: On intermediate stranding and phase theory.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5 (1): 1–32. ISSN: 2397-1835. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.854
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.854 [Google Scholar]
49. Davis, Colin
    2020b “Further insights and inquiries into possessor extraction in English.” Colloquim Handout presented at theUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles. 10-12-20.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Deal, Amy Rose
    2009 “The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from “Selection”.” Syntax12 (4): 285–323. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00127.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00127.x [Google Scholar]
51. Deal, Amy Rose
    2017 “Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination.” InWCCFL 34, edited byAaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel, and Edward Rubin, 141–150. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Diesing, Molly
    1990 “The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition.” PhD diss., UMASS-Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Doherty, Cathal
    1993 “Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English.” PhD diss., University of California Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Douglas, Jamie
    2017 “Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics2:1–28. 10.5334/gjgl.312
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.312 [Google Scholar]
55. Emonds, Joseph E.
    1976 A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York, New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Engdahl, Elisabet
    1983 “Parasitic Gaps.” Linguistics and Philosophy6 (1): 5–34. 10.1007/BF00868088
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868088 [Google Scholar]
57. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2014 “Anti-locality and Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” In31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byRobert Santana-LaBarge, 150–159. Arizona State University, Phoenix: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2016 “Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34 (2): 429–479. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9310‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z [Google Scholar]
59. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2017 “Why the null complementizer is special in complementizertrace effects.” InA pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, edited byClaire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, and Coppe van Urk, 371–380. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2020 “Anti-locality and subject extraction.” Glossa5 (1): 1–38. 10.5334/gjgl.1079
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079 [Google Scholar]
61. Etxepare, Ricardo, and Ángel Gallego
    2020 “No nominative case in Spanish.” Ms., IKER-CNRS & Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2001 “Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order.” Linguistic Inquiry32 (3): 405–437. 10.1162/002438901750372513
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372513 [Google Scholar]
63. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky
    2005 “Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure.” Theoretical Linguistics31 (1–2): 1–46. 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
64. Franco, Irene
    2012 “Subject requirement, complementizers and optionality.” Ms., University of Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Gallego, Ángel
    2007 “Phase Theory and Parametric Variation.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Gallego, Ángel
    2010 Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.152
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.152 [Google Scholar]
67. Gallego, Ángel
    2013 “Object shift in Romance.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory2 (2): 409–451. 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9188‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9188-6 [Google Scholar]
68. Georgala, Effi
    2010 “Why German is not an exception to the universal <IO, DO> base order of double object constructions.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics28. University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul, and John Whitman
    2008 “Expletive and Thematic Applicatives.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics26, 181–189. University of California, Berkley.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
    2003 “Successive Cyclicity Under (Anti-)Local Considerations.” Syntax6 (3): 260–312. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2003.00063.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2003.00063.x [Google Scholar]
71. Haddican, William
    2010 “Theme-goal ditransitives and Theme passives in British English dialects.” Lingua120:2424–2443. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.11.003 [Google Scholar]
72. Haddican, William
    2012 “Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics115:189–212. 10.1007/s10828‑012‑9051‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9051-x [Google Scholar]
73. Haddican, William, and Anders Holmberg
    2018 “Object symmetry effects in Germanic: Evidence for the role of case.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory37 (1): 91–122. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9404‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9404-5 [Google Scholar]
74. Haider, Hubert
    1990 “Topicalization and Other Puzzles of German Syntax.” InScrambling and Barriers, edited byGünther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 93–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.5.06hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.5.06hai [Google Scholar]
75. Haider, Hubert
    2017 “Mittelfeld Phenomena. Scrambling in Germanic.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom048
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom048 [Google Scholar]
76. Heck, Fabian, and Malte Zimmermann
    2004 “DPs and Phases.” Ms., University of Leipzig and HU Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Hegarty, Michael
    1991 “Adjunct extraction and chain configuration.” PhD diss., MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Hein, Johannes
    2019 “Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VPtopicalization in Germanic.” Ms. University of Postdam.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Holmberg, Anders
    1986 “Word Order and Syntactic Features.” PhD diss., Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Holmberg, Anders
    2000 “Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: how any category can become an expletive.” Linguistic Inquiry31 (3): 445–483. 10.1162/002438900554406
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554406 [Google Scholar]
81. Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan, and Jenneke Van der Wal
    2019 “Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical.” Linguistic Inquiry50 (4): 677–722. 10.1162/ling_a_00322
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00322 [Google Scholar]
82. Huang, C.-T. James
    1982 “Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Johnson, Kyle
    1991 “Object positions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory9 (4): 577–636. 10.1007/BF00134751
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134751 [Google Scholar]
84. Johnson, Kyle
    2004 “How to be Quiet.” InProceedings from the 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, edited byNikki Adams, Adam Cooper, Fey Parrill, and Thomas Wier, 1–20. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
85. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
86. Keine, Stefan
    2016 “Probes and their horizons.” PhD diss., Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
87. Keine, Stefan
    2019 “Selective opacity.” Linguistic Inquiry50 (1): 13–62. 10.1162/ling_a_00299
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00299 [Google Scholar]
88. Kiziak, Tanja
    2007 “Long extraction or parenthetical insertion? Evidence from judgement studies.” InParentheticals, edited byNicole Dehé and Yordanka Kavalova, 121–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.08kiz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.08kiz [Google Scholar]
89. Kiziak, Tanja
    2010 Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.163
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.163 [Google Scholar]
90. Koizumi, Masatoshi
    1994 “Secondary Predicates.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics3 (1): 25–79. 10.1007/BF01733149
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733149 [Google Scholar]
91. Larson, Richard
    1988 “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry19 (3): 335–392.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Larson, Richard
    2010 “On Pykkänen’s Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (4): 701–704. 10.1162/LING_a_00020
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00020 [Google Scholar]
93. Lasnik, Howard
    1995 “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings.” Linguistic Inquiry26 (4): 615–634.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Lasnik, Howard
    2001 “Subjects, Objects and the EPP.” InObjects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, edited byWilliam D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0991‑1_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_5 [Google Scholar]
95. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito
    1991 “On the Subject of Infinitives.” InChicago Linguistics Society27, edited byLise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, 27:324–343. Chicago University.
    [Google Scholar]
96. Legate, Julie Anne
    2003 “Some Interface Properties of the Phase.” Linguistic Inquiry34 (3): 506–516. 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506 [Google Scholar]
97. Little, Carol-Rose
    2020a “Left branch extraction, object shift, and freezing effects in Tumbalá Ch’ol.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5:1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.988
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.988 [Google Scholar]
98. Little, Carol-Rose
    2020b “Mutual dependencies of nominal and clausal syntax in Ch’ol.” PhD diss., Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
99. Lohndal, Terje
    2007 “That-t in Scandinavian and Elsewhere: Variation in the Position of C.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax79:47–73.
    [Google Scholar]
100. Lohndal, Terje
     2009 “Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C.” Studia Linguistica63:204–232. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2009.01159.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2009.01159.x [Google Scholar]
101. Lohndal, Terje
     2011 “Freezing effects and objects.” Journal of Linguistics47:163–199. 10.1017/S0022226710000010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000010 [Google Scholar]
102. Maling, Joan
     2001 “Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles.” Lingua111:419–464. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00039‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00039-5 [Google Scholar]
103. Marantz, Alec
     1993 “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.” InTheoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1, edited bySam A. Mchombo, 113–151. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Matushansky, Ora
     2005 “Going through a phase.” InPerspectives on phases, edited byMartha McGinnis and Norvin Richards, 151–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguisitcs.
     [Google Scholar]
105. McFadden, Thomas
     2006 “German inherent datives and argument structure.” InDatives and Other Cases: Between argument structure and event structure, edited byDaniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.75.05mcf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.05mcf [Google Scholar]
106. McGinnis, Martha
     2017 “Applicatives.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom124
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom124 [Google Scholar]
107. McIntyre, Andrew
     2006 “The interpretation of German datives and English “have”.” InDatives and Other Cases, edited byDaniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 185–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.75.09mci
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.09mci [Google Scholar]
108. Merchant, Jason
     2001 The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
109. Merchant, Jason
     2013 “Voice and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry44 (1): 77–108. 10.1162/LING_a_00120
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120 [Google Scholar]
110. Messick, Troy
     2020 “The derivation of highest subject questions and the nature of the EPP.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5:1–12. 10.5334/gjgl.1029
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1029 [Google Scholar]
111. Müller, Gereon
     1998 Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht ; Boston ; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1864‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1864-6 [Google Scholar]
112. Müller, Gereon
     2010 “On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (1): 35–82. 10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35 [Google Scholar]
113. Nissenbaum, Jon
     2000 “Covert movement and parasitic gaps.” InProceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, edited byMasako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim, 541–556. Rutgers University: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Nylsen, Øystein
     1997 “Adverbs and A-shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax59:1–39.
     [Google Scholar]
115. Perlmutter, David
     1968 “Deep and surface constraints in syntax.” PhD diss., Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
116. Pesetsky, David
     1995 Zero syntax. 351. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
117. Pesetsky, David
     2017 “Complementizer-Trace effects.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108 [Google Scholar]
118. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego
     2001 “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.” InKen Hale: A life in language, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 355–426. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
119. Platzack, Christer
     2012 “Cross Germanic variation in the realm of support verbs.” InComparative Germanic Syntax: The state of the art, edited byPeter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, and Guido Vanden Wyngærd, 279–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.191.10pla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.191.10pla [Google Scholar]
120. Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gómez Gallo, Peter Graff, Ekaterina Kravtchenko, Adam Milton Morgan, and Sturgeon Anne
     2015 “Subject islands are different.” InExperimental syntax and island effects, edited byJon Sprouse, 286–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
121. Pollock, Jean-Yves
     1989 “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry20 (3): 365–424.
     [Google Scholar]
122. Preminger, Omer
     2019 “What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics4 (1): 1–42. ISSN: 2397-1835. 10.5334/gjgl.315
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315 [Google Scholar]
123. Pylkkänen, Liina
     2002 “Introducing Arguments.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
124. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards
     2005 “Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case Study.” Linguistic Inquiry36 (4): 565–599. 10.1162/002438905774464368
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368 [Google Scholar]
125. Reis, Marga
     1995 “Extractions from Verb-Second Clauses in German?” InOn Extraction and Extraposition in German, edited byUli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel, 45–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.11.03rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.11.03rei [Google Scholar]
126. Richards, Marc
     2007 “On feature inheritance.” Linguistic Inquiry38:563–572. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
127. Richards, Marc, and Theresa Biberauer
     2006 “True Optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind.” InMinimalist Essays, edited byCedric Boeckx, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.91.08bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.91.08bib [Google Scholar]
128. Richards, Norvin
     1997 “Competition and disjoint reference.” Linguistic Inquiry28 (1): 178–187.
     [Google Scholar]
129. Richards, Norvin
     1998 “The principle of minimal compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry29 (4): 599–629. 10.1162/002438998553897
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553897 [Google Scholar]
130. Ritchart, Amanda, Grant Goodall, and Mark Garellek
     2016 “Prosody and the That-Trace Effect: An Experimental Study.” In33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byKim Kyeong-min, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Shopie Nickel-Thompson, and Lisa Shorten, 320–328. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
     [Google Scholar]
131. Rizzi, Luigi
     1982 Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110883718
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
132. Rizzi, Luigi
     1990 Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
133. Rizzi, Luigi
     1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.” InElements of grammar, edited byLiliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
134. Rizzi, Luigi
     2006 “On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects.” InOn Wh movement, edited byNorbert Corver and Lisa Cheng, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
135. Roberts, Ian
     2010 Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
136. Ross, John
     1967 “Constraints on variables in syntax.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
137. Sauerland, Uli
     1996 “Guess how?” InProceedings of ConSoLE, 297–311.
     [Google Scholar]
138. Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollman
     2007 “Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect.” InStructural-functional studies in English grammar, edited byMike Hannay and Gerard Steen, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.83.06sie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.06sie [Google Scholar]
139. Sobin, Nicholas
     1987 “The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory5 (1): 33–60. 10.1007/BF00161867
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161867 [Google Scholar]
140. Sobin, Nicholas
     2002 “The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect, and minimal CP.” Journal of Linguistics38:527–560. 10.1017/S0022226702001652
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001652 [Google Scholar]
141. Suñer, Margarita
     1994 “V-Movement and the licensing of argumental whphrases in Spanish.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory12:335–372. 10.1007/BF00993148
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993148 [Google Scholar]
142. Svenonius, Peter
     1994 “Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages.” PhD diss., University of CaliforniaatSanta Cruz.
     [Google Scholar]
143. Svenonius, Peter
     2001 “On Object Shift, Scrambling, and the PIC.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics39:267–289.
     [Google Scholar]
144. Svenonius, Peter
     2002 “Subject Positions and the Placement of Adverbials.” InSubjects, Expletives, and the EPP, edited byPeter Svenonius, 199–240. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
145. Takahashi, Daiko
     1994 “Minimality in movement.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
     [Google Scholar]
146. Torrego, Esther
     1984 “On Inversion in Spanish and some of its effects.” Linguistic Inquiry15 (1): 103–129.
     [Google Scholar]
147. Truswell, Robert
     2007 “Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events.” Lingua117:1355–1377. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.003 [Google Scholar]
148. Uriagereka, Juan
     1999 “Multiple spell-out.” InWorking minimalism, edited bySamuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
149. Van Urk, Coppe
     2015 “A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor.” PhD diss., MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
150. Van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards
     2015 “Two Components of Long-Distance Extraction: Successive Cyclicity in Dinka.” Linguistic Inquiry46:113–155. 10.1162/LING_a_00177
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00177 [Google Scholar]
151. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús
     2011 “A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language.” PhD diss., Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
152. Vikner, Sten
     1995 Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. 294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
153. Vikner, Sten
     2005 “Object Shift.” InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
154. Watanabe, Akira
     1993 “Larsonian CP Recursion, Factive Complements, and Selection.” InProceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, edited byAmy J. Schafer, 523–537. University of Ottawa: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
     [Google Scholar]
155. Webelhuth, Gert
     1992 Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
156. Westergaard, Marit
     2009 “Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics12 (1): 49–79. 10.1007/s10828‑009‑9025‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-009-9025-9 [Google Scholar]
157. Westergaard, Marit, Terje Lohndal, and Artemis Alexiadou
     2019 “The asymmetric nature of V2: Evidence from learner languages.” InThe Sign of the V – Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, edited byKen Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørensen, and Johanna Wood, 709–733. Aarhus: AU-TRYK: Aarhus University. 10.7146/aul.348.121
     https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.121 [Google Scholar]
158. Wexler, Ken, and Peter Culicover
     1980 Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
159. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Kristine Bentzen, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
     2007 “Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics10 (3): 203–233. 10.1007/s10828‑007‑9014‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-007-9014-9 [Google Scholar]
160. Wiltschko, Martina
     1997 “Superiority in German.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byEmily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 431–445. University of Washington: Stanford Linguistics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
161. Wurmbrand, Susi
     2014 “The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection.” InMinimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the interfaces, edited byPeter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork, and Lilia Schürcks, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.11.06wur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.06wur [Google Scholar]
162. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
     1997 Word order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]