The emergence of clausal nominalizations in Laz

References

1. Avcı-Bucaklişi, Ismail, Özge Bakay, and Belma Haznedar
   2018 Yaşayan Lazca Projesi: Doğu Karadeniz ve Batı Karadeniz’de Lazcanın Durumu. 32. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 3–4 May 2018, Eyluül University, İzmir.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aygen, Guülşat
   2002a Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
3. Aygen, Gülşat
   2002b Subject case in Turkic subordinate clauses: Kazakh, Turkish and Tuvan. InProceedings of NELS 32, ed.Masako Hirotani, –. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Boeder, Winfried
   2005 The South Caucasian languages. Lingua:–. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.06.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.06.002 [Google Scholar]
5. Borsley, Robert D., and Jaklin Kornfilt
   1999 Mixed Extended Projections. InThe Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, ed.Robert Borsley. Brill. 10.1163/9781849500098_006
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849500098_006 [Google Scholar]
6. Demirok, Ömer
   2019 A Semantic Characterization of Turkish Nominalizations. InProceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.Richard Stockwell, Maura O’Leary, Zhongshi Xu, and Z. L. Zhou, –. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Demirok, Ömer
   2019 Scope Theory Revisited: Lessons from pied-piping in wh-questions. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
8. Emgin, Betül
   2009 Finiteness and complementation patterns in Pazar Laz. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Eren, Ömer
   2022 Preference for Transparency and Locality in Heritage Laz. Theoretical Linguistics and Languages of the Caucasus, İstanbul Bilgi University, 18th June 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser
    1998 What determines the choice of nominalizer in Turkish nominalized complement clauses?InProceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Linguists, ed.Bernard Caron. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Göksel, Aslı, and Celia Kerslake
    2005 Turkish. A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Griffiths, James, and Güliz Güneş
    2015 Ki issues in Turkish. InParenthesis and Ellipsis, ed.Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott, and Mark de Vries, –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614514831.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831.173 [Google Scholar]
13. Göksu, Duygu
    2018 Subject infinitives in turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Göksu, Duygu, and Balkız Öztuürk Başaran
    2021 A complexity hierarchy-based solution to the clausal subject puzzle in turkish. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America:–. 10.3765/plsa.v6i1.5146
    https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.5146 [Google Scholar]
15. Harris, Alice
    1981 Georgian Syntax. A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Harris, Alice
    1991 Laz. InThe Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus: Kartvelian Languages, –. Caravan Books: Delmar, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Haznedar, Belma
    2018 Türkiye’de Lazcanın Mevcut Durumu-2018. Laz Enstitüsü. URLhttps://www.lazenstitu.com/rapor.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
18. Johnson, Kyle
    1997 A review of The antisymmetry of syntax. Lingua:–. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(93)00025‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00025-4 [Google Scholar]
19. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1997 Turkish. Descriptive Grammars. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    2001 Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. InThe Verb in Turkish, ed.Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, –. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.44.08kor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.44.08kor [Google Scholar]
21. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    2003 Subject case in turkish nominalized clauses. InSyntactic structures and morphological information, ed.U. Junghanns and L. Szucsich. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110904758.129
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110904758.129 [Google Scholar]
22. Kornfilt, Jaklin, and John Whitman
    2011 Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua:–. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008 [Google Scholar]
23. Kutscher, Silvia
    2008 The Language of the Laz in Turkey: Contact-induced change or gradual language loss?Turkic Languages:–.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Lucas, Christopher
    2012 Contact-induced grammatical change: Towards an explicit account. Diachronica:–. 10.1075/dia.29.3.01luc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.29.3.01luc [Google Scholar]
25. Montrul, Silvina
    2016 The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Öztürk, Balkız, and Markus Pöchtrager
    2011 Pazar Laz. LINCOM.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Polinsky, Maria
    2015 Incomplete Acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics:–.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Polinsky, Maria, and Olga Kagan
    2007 Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass:–. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00022.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x [Google Scholar]
29. Putnam, Michael T., and Liliana Sánchez
    2013 What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?: A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism:–. 10.1075/lab.3.4.04put
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.4.04put [Google Scholar]
30. Scontras, Gregory, Zuzanna Fuchs, and Maria Polinsky
    2015 Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in psychology:. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01545
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01545 [Google Scholar]
31. Vamling, Karina
    1989 Complementation in Georgian. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Vamling, Karina, and Revaz Tchantouria
    1991 Complement Clauses in Megrelian. Studia Linguistica.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Vamling, Karina, and Revaz Tchantouria
    2018 Complementation in the Kartvelian Languages. InComplementation in the Northwest and South Caucasian Languages, ed.Karina Vamling. Malmö University. 10.24834/978‑91‑7104‑973‑5
    https://doi.org/10.24834/978-91-7104-973-5 [Google Scholar]
34. Wurmbrand, Susanne
    2001 Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Wurmbrand, Susi, and Magdalena Lohninger
    2019 An implicational universal in complementation: Theoretical insights and empirical progress. InPropositional arguments in cross-linguistic research: Theoretical and empirical issues, ed.Jutta Hartmann and Angelika Wollstein. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Yıldırım-Gündoğdu, Hilal
    2017 The structure of diye clauses in turkish. MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University.
    [Google Scholar]