On (partially) quirky subjects, numeral subjects, and subject-oriented anaphor binding

References

1. Adams, Marianne
   1987 From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/BF00161866
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161866 [Google Scholar]
2. Allen, Cynthia L.
   1995 Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modem English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
3. Amiridze, Nino
   2005 Georgian reflexives in subject function in special contexts. InStefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 10.21248/hpsg.2005.26
   https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2005.26 [Google Scholar]
4. Amritavalli, Raghavachari
   1999 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Kannada. InBarbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair, & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Andrews, Avery
   1982 The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. InJoan Bresnan (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Antonenko, Andrei
   2012 Feature-based binding and phase theory. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University dissertation.
7. Atlamaz, Ümit
   2013 Cyclic agreement and empty slots in Pazar Laz. InChundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, & Clare S. Sandy (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on languages of the Caucasus, –. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Babby, Leonard H.
   1987 Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/BF00161869
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161869 [Google Scholar]
9. Babby, Leonard H.
   1998 Subject control as direct predication: Evidence from Russian. InŽeljko Bošković, Steven Franks, & William Snyder (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, –. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bailyn, John
    1991 The configurationality of Case assignment in Russian. InAlmeida Jacqueline Toribio, & Wayne Harbert (eds.), Cornell working papers in linguistics, –. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bailyn, John
    2008 Some derivational binding effects. InJohn Bailyn, Carlos de Cuba, Ivana Mitrović, & Radmila Šević (eds.), Proceedings of the University of Novi Sad Workshop on Generative Syntax, –. University of Novi Sad.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bailyn, John
    2012 The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Barnes, Michael P.
    1986 Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica. –.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    1997 Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. –.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi
    1988 Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
16. Biberauer, Theresa
    2008 Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. InElliott Lash, Yi An Li, & Thomas Rainsford (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, –. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Bhatt, Rajesh
    2003 Experiencer subjects. Handout, MIT course “Structure of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages”.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Bošković, Željko
    1997 The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Bošković, Željko
    2004 Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑2541‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2541-z [Google Scholar]
20. Bošković, Željko
    2006a Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. InCedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.92.07bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.07bos [Google Scholar]
21. Bošković, Željko
    2006b Case checking versus Case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.3.522
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.3.522 [Google Scholar]
22. Bošković, Željko
    2008 What will you have, DP or NP?. InEmily Elfner & Martin Walkow, Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, –. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Bošković, Željko
    2012 On NPs and clauses. InGunther Grewendorf & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, –. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614511601.179
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179 [Google Scholar]
24. Bošković, Željko
    2013 Phases beyond clauses. InLilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou, & Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond, –. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614512790.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.75 [Google Scholar]
25. Bošković, Željko
    2022 On the limits of across-the-board movement: Distributed extraction coordinations. Philosophies, . 10.3390/philosophies7010010
    https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7010010 [Google Scholar]
26. Bošković, Željko
    2024a On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. The Linguistic Review. –. 10.1515/tlr‑2024‑2002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2024-2002 [Google Scholar]
27. Bošković, Željko
    2024b Binding and agreement in distributed coordinations. InJiayi Lu, Erika Petersen, Anissa Zaitsu, & Boris Harizanov (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, –. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Bošković, Željko
    . in press. Contextuality of syntax and adieu to the A/A’-distinction. InMaša Bešlin, Katherine Howitt, Alexandra Krauska, Luisa Seguin, & Juan Uriagereka eds. Structured sentences and computational theory of mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/008345
    [Google Scholar]
29. Butt, Miriam
    2006 The Dative-Ergative connection. InOlivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in syntax and semantics 6: Papers from CSSP 2005, –. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Cardinaletti, Anna
    2004 Towards a cartography of subject positions. InLuigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structure, Vol. 2, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
31. Chomsky, Noam
    2015 Problems of projection: Extensions. InElisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.223.01cho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho [Google Scholar]
32. Cole, Peter
    1982 Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Cole, Peter
    1987 Null objects in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Cole, Peter, and Janice Jake
    1978 Accusative subjects in Imbabura Quechua. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences:–.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Comrie, Bernard
    1974 The second dative: A transformational approach. InRichard D. Brecht & Catherine V. Chvany (eds.), Slavic transformational syntax, –. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Corbett, Greville G.
    2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
37. D’Alessandro, Roberta
    2015 Null Subject. InAntonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu, & Michael Putnam (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters, –. London: Bloomsbury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Dalmi, Gréte
    2014 All-in-one: generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. InRobert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, –. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Davison, Alice
    1985 Experiencers and patients as subjects in Hindi-Urdu. InArlene R. K. Zide, David Magier, & Eric Schiller (eds.) Proceedings of the conference on participant roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, –. Bloomington, Ind.: IULC.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Demirok, Ömer Faruk
    2013 Agree as a unidirectional operation: Evidence from Laz. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Master’s thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Despić, Miloje
    2011 Syntax in the absence of Determiner Phrase. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
42. Dziwirek, Katarzyna
    1994 Polish subjects. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Fernández-Soriano, Olga
    1999a Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and Dative Subjects. Syntax. –. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00017
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017 [Google Scholar]
44. Fernández-Soriano, Olga
    1999b Datives in constructions with unaccusative Se. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics: –.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2002 Quirky “subjects” and other specifiers. InIngrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (ed.) More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, –. Boston: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Franks, Steven
    1994 Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/BF00992929
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992929 [Google Scholar]
47. Gelderen, Elly van
    2013 Null subjects in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/LING_a_00127
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00127 [Google Scholar]
48. George, Leland and Jaklin Kornfilt
    1981 Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. InFrank Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering, –. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Gerdts, Donna, and Cheong Youn
    1988 Korean psych construction: Advancement or Retreat?. InLynn MacLeod, Gary Larson, & Diane Brentari (eds.), Papers from the 24th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Gilligan, Gary M.
    1987 A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.
51. Giorgi, Alessandra
    (1990) On the Italian and French Pronominal Systems. Italian Journal of Syntax. –.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Glushan, Zhanna
    2013 The role of animacy in Russian morphosyntax. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
53. Harris, Alice C.
    1981 Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Harris, Alice C.
    1984 Inversion as a rule of universal grammar: Georgian evidence. InDavid Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar, –. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Heinat, Frank
    2006 Probes, pronouns, and binding in the Minimalist Program. Lund: Lund University dissertation.
56. Hermon, Gabriella
    1984 Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110849141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849141 [Google Scholar]
57. Hicks, Glyn
    2009 The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.139
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.139 [Google Scholar]
58. Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack
    1995 The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195067453.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195067453.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
59. Holmberg, Anders
    2016 Null subjects in Finnish and the typology of pro-drop. Unpublished manuscript., Newcastle University.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Hornstein, Norbert
    2001 Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Horvath, Julia
    2014 A Note on oblique case: Evidence from Serbian/Croatian. InAnna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi, & Alexander Grosu (eds.), Advances in the syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. 10.1075/la.217.05hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.05hor [Google Scholar]
62. Hubbard, Philip
    1983 Albanian reflexives: Violations of proposed universals. InLetta Strantzali (ed.) Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, –. Linguistics Graduate Student Association, University of Kansas. 10.17161/KWPL.1808.473
    https://doi.org/10.17161/KWPL.1808.473 [Google Scholar]
63. Iovtcheva, Snejana P.
    2019 The dative arguments in Bulgarian. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
64. Jayaseelan, K. A.
    1983 Case-marking and θ-marking in Malayalam: Implications for the projection principle. InAmy Dahlstrom, Claudia Brugman, Monica Macaulay, Inese Cirkulis, Michele Emanatian, Donna Sakima, & Raquel Teixeira (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Jayaseelan, K. A.
    2004 The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. InPeri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.60.13jay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.60.13jay [Google Scholar]
66. Joshi, Smita
    1993 Selection of grammatical and logical functions in Marathi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
67. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli
    2009 Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd: –. 10.7557/12.230
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.230 [Google Scholar]
68. Kathol, Andreas
    1999 Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. InRobert D. Levine & Georgia M. Green (eds.), Studies in contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Kachru, Yamuna
    1990 Experiencer and other oblique subjects in Hindi. InMahendra Verma & Karuvannur Puthanveettil Mohanan (eds.) Experiencer and subjects in South Asian languages, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Kageyama, Taro
    1978 On identifying grammatical relations. Gengo Kenkyu. –.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Kemenade, Ans van
    1997 V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English. InAns van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Kim, Young-Joo
    1990 The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interpretation between lexical and semantic levels of representation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.
73. Klaiman, Miriam H.
    1980 Bengali dative subjects. Lingua. –. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90096‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90096-0 [Google Scholar]
74. Kondrashova, Natalia
    1993 Dative subjects in Russian. InA. Davidson (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica, 200–219. Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Kratzer, Angelika
    2009 Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187 [Google Scholar]
76. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
    1997 Telugu. InSanford Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, –. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
    2003 The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486876
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486876 [Google Scholar]
78. Kulkarni, R. V.
    1988 Case in English and Marathi. Doctoral dissertation, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
79. LaFond, Larry
    2003 Historical changes in verb-second and null subjects from Old to Modern French. InD. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0195‑3_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0195-3_14 [Google Scholar]
80. Landau, Idan
    2000 Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3943‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3943-4 [Google Scholar]
81. Landau, Idan
    2008 Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9054‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0 [Google Scholar]
82. Laurençot, Elizabeth
    1997 On secondary predication and null Case. InMartina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches in Slavic Linguistics, –. Michigan Slavica Publishers, Ann Arbor.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Lehmann, Thomas
    1993 A grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Lightfoot, David
    1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
85. McCloskey, James
    2000 Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/002438900554299
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554299 [Google Scholar]
86. Masullo, Pascual J.
    1993 Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic. InAmy J. Schafer (ed.), Proceedings of the 23th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, –. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
87. Mathieu, Eric
    2006 Quirky Subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica. –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2006.00128.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00128.x [Google Scholar]
88. Messick, Troy
    2016 Pronouns and agreement in Telugu embedded contexts. InKyeong-min Kim, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Sophie Nickel-Thompson, & Lisa Shorten, Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, –. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna
    2005 Subjecthood of quirky subjects and GF-split. InK. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, J. Witkoś, G. Michalski, & B. Wiland (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Student Conference on Formal Linguistics, –. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
    [Google Scholar]
90. Mistry, P. J.
    2004 Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. InPeri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.61.03mis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.61.03mis [Google Scholar]
91. Mohanan, Karuvannur P.
    1982 Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. InJoan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Mohanan, Tara
    1994 Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
93. Nizar, Milla
    2010 Dative subject constructions in South-Dravidian languages. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaBA thesis..
    [Google Scholar]
94. O’Grady, William
    1991 Categories and case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.71 [Google Scholar]
95. Pankau, Andreas
    2016 Quirky subjects in Icelandic, Faroese, and German: A Relational Grammar account. InDoug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King, & Stefan Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 10.21248/hpsg.2016.26
    https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2016.26 [Google Scholar]
96. Perlmutter, David
    1984 Working 1s and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua. InDavid Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2, –. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Pesetsky, David
    1982 Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
98. Pesetsky, David
    2013 Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
99. Pica, Pierre
    1987 On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. InJoyce McDonough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, –. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
100. Pollard, Carl, & Ivan A. Sag
     1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
101. Poole, Ethan
     2015 Deconstructing quirky subjects. InThuy Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), Proceedings of 45th meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, –. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Poole, Ethan
     2016 Deconstructing subjecthood. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
103. Postal, Paul
     2004 A paradox in English syntax. InSkeptical linguistic essays, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195166712.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195166712.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
104. Rákosi, György
     2006 Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
105. Reuland, Eric
     2005 Agreeing to bind. InHans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
106. Reuland, Eric
     2011 Anaphora and language design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
107. Rivero, María Luisa
     2004 Spanish quirky wubjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494 [Google Scholar]
108. Rivero, María Luisa
     2005 Topics in Bulgarian morphology and syntax: A minimalist perspective. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.006 [Google Scholar]
109. Rizzi, Luigi
     1990 On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica. –.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Rizzi, Luigi
     2006 On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. InLisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, –. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
111. Safir, Ken
     2004 The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
112. Saito, Mamoru
     2009 Optional A-scrambling. InYukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak & Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics. –.
     [Google Scholar]
113. Schein, Вarry
     1982 Non-finite complements in Russian, InAlec Marantz & Timothy Stowell (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, –. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Shibatani, Masayoshi
     1977 Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language. –. 10.2307/412912
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412912 [Google Scholar]
115. Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
     2002 To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1023/A:1020445016498
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020445016498 [Google Scholar]
116. Smith, Peters
     2015 Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
117. Sridhar, S. N.
     1976 Dative subjects. InSalikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker, & Sanford B. Steever (eds.), Papers from the 12th meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, –. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
118. Sridhar, S. N.
     1979 Dative subjects and the notion of subject. Lingua. –. 10.1016/0024‑3841(79)90018‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(79)90018-4 [Google Scholar]
119. Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, and Peri Bhaskararao
     2004 Non-nominative subjects in TeluguInPeri Bhaskararao, & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.61.10sub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.61.10sub [Google Scholar]
120. Sundaresan, Sandhya, and Thomas McFadden
     2009 Subject distribution in Tamil and other languages: selection vs. Case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics. –.
     [Google Scholar]
121. Takahashi, Daiko
     2013 Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam. Nanzan Linguistics. –.
     [Google Scholar]
122. Thráinsson, Höskuldur
     2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619441
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619441 [Google Scholar]
123. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen
     2004 Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.
     [Google Scholar]
124. Turano, Giuseppina
     2024 Quirky subjects in nonactive sentences in Albanian. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103687
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103687 [Google Scholar]
125. Ura, Hiroyuki
     1996 Multiple feature-checking: a theory of grammatical function splitting. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
126. Verma, Manindra, and Karuvannur P. Mohanan
     1990 Introduction to the experiencer subject construction, InManindra Verma & Karuvannur P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
127. Wali, Kashi
     2004 Non-nominative subjects in Marathi. InPeri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.61.13wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.61.13wal [Google Scholar]
128. Walkden, George
     2014 Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712299.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712299.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
129. Wechsler, Stephen, & Larisa Zlatić
     2000 A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language. –. 10.2307/417200
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417200 [Google Scholar]
130. Williams, Kemp
     1988 Exceptional behavior of anaphors in Albanian. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
131. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson
     1985 Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1007/BF00133285
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133285 [Google Scholar]
132. Zhang, Niina Ning
     2010 Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
133. Zimmerling, Anton
     2008 The Null-Subject Parameter, overt expletives and zero subjects in Scandinavian languages. Paper presented atRevisiting Parameters: Holmberg and Platzack (1995) Reloaded. Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
134. Zimmermann, Michael
     2009 On the evolution of expletive subject pronouns in Old French. InGeorg A. Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, –. Konstanz: Universität, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]