Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases. An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Wh-islands in degree questions: A semantic approach. Semantics & Pragmatics 4. 1–44.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 1997. The logical form of negation: A study of operator-variable structures in syntax. Garland outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Aelbrecht, Lobke and den Dikken, Marcel. 2013. Preposition doubling in Flemish dialects and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16. 33–68.Google Scholar

Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2. 1–23.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 491–540.Google Scholar

Allwood, Jens. 1982. The complex NP constraint in Swedish. In Engdahl, Elisabet and Ejerhed, Eva (eds), Readings in unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. 15–32.Google Scholar

Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8. 175–207.Google Scholar

Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119. 39–50.Google Scholar

Asudeh, Ash and Toivonen, Ida. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 321–80.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark. 1995. Floating quantifiers, PRO and predication. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 199–248.Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark. 2006. The non-unity of VP preposing. Language 82. 734–66.Google Scholar

Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Microvariation in negation in varieties of Dutch. In Barbiers, Sjef, Cornips, Leonie and van der Kleij, Susanne (eds), Syntactic microvariation. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics. 13–40.Google Scholar

Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf, and Lekakou, Marika. 2009. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 45. 1–46.Google Scholar

Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4. 1–56.Google Scholar

Beek, Janneke ter. 2008. Dutch indefinites, word order, and the mapping hypothesis. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 46. 55–72.Google Scholar

Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Bennis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, and den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 85–117.Google Scholar

Bentzen, Kristine. 2014. Subject and object extraction from embedded clauses. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1. 435–46.Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. 757–807.Google Scholar

Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, and Roberts, Ian. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 169–225.Google Scholar

Bjorkman, Bronwyn and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2014. Upward agree is superior. Ms., University of Toronto and Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar

Borovikoff, Natalie. 1997. Negated adjunct phrases are REALLY the genitive of negation. In Lindseth, Martina and Franks, Steven (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 5, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 67–85.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102. 1–20.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 1998. Multiple wh-fronting and economy of derivation. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 16. Stanford: Stanford University. 49–6.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 351–83.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2003. Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33. 54–96.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko and Lasnik, Howard. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 527–46.Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 2010. Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Branigan, Phil and MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2002. Altruism, A-bar movement and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 385–407.Google Scholar

Brentano, Franz. 1973. Psychology from an empirical standpoint. Translated by Rancurello, Antos, Terrell, D.B. and McAlister, Linda from Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte (1874). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 3–40.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1977. Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 157–96.Google Scholar

Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form: A radically minimalist approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, Hans. 1992. Chain government: Issues in Dutch syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. 1992. On what we know we don’t know: Explanation, theory, linguistics, and how questions shape them. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2004. Two types of wh-scope marking in Passamaquoddy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 229–305.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 25–49.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2014a. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90. 342–88.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2014b. Defects of defective intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 707–19.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural Language Semantics 12. 345–97.Google Scholar

Chesi, Cristiano. 2007. Five reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right. Nanzan Linguistics 3. 45–80.Google Scholar

Chesi, Cristiano. 2015. On directionality of phrase structure building. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44. 1–50.Google Scholar

Choi, Youngju and Yoon, James. 2006. Argument cluster coordination and constituency test (non-)conflicts. NELS 37, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. The logical basis of linguistic theory. In Lunt, H. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 914–77.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 232–86.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–66.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In di Domenico, Elisa, Hamann, Cornelia, and Matteini, Simona (eds), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–16.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425–504.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim et al. (eds), Syntax. An international handbook of contemporary research. Vol. I. Berlin: de Gruyter. 506–69. [Reprinted as chapter 1 of Chomsky 1995.]Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra and McCloskey, James. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island effects in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 703–14.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Collins, Chris. 1991. Why and how come. In Cheng, Lisa and Demirdache, Hamida (eds), More papers on wh-movement: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 31–45.Google Scholar

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen and den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Ellipsis and EPP repair. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 653–64.Google Scholar

Csirmaz, Anikó. 2006. Accusative case and aspect. In Kiss, Katalin É. (ed.), Event structure and the left periphery. Dordrecht: Springer. 159–200.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter. 1993. Evidence against ECP accounts of that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 557–61.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter and Rochemont, Michael. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 23–47.Google Scholar

Dayal, Veneeta. 1994. Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 137–70.Google Scholar

de Cuba, Carlos and Ürögdi, Barbara. 2009. Eliminating factivity from syntax: Sentential complements in Hungarian. In den Dikken, Marcel and Vago, Robert (eds), Approaches to Hungarian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 29–64.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 1987. Secundaire predicatie en de analyse van small clauses. GLOT 10. 1–28.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18. 19–41.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2006a. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2006b. A reappraisal of vP being phasal – A reply to Legate. Unpublished Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2006c. Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 689–749.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2007a. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 1–41.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2007b. Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: Stimuli and results. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center; www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Linguistics/Dikken/dutch_that_trace_results.pdf.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2009a. Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: A critical review. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9. 89–126.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2009b. On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Cinque, Guglielmo and Rizzi, Luigi (eds), Mapping spatial PPs. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 6. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 74–126.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2013. Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft sentences. In Hartmann, Katharina and Veenstra, Tonjes (eds), Cleft structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 35–70.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2014. On feature interpretability and inheritance. In Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven, Radeva-Bork, Teodora, and Schürcks, Lilia (eds), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 37–55.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2015. Raising the subject of the ‘object of’ relation. In Gallego, Ángel and Ott, Dennis (eds), 50 years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 85–98.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. 2016. Preposing polarity particles. Paper presented at the Budapest–Potsdam–Lund Linguistics Colloquium, Budapest, June 2016; Ms., Eötvös Loránd University and Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel. forthcoming. Overtly-marked wh-paths. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds), The Blackwell companion to syntax (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel, Meinunger, André, and Wilder, Chris. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54. 41–89.Google Scholar

Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden/HIL. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 1993. WH-movement and specificity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 85–120.Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2004. Egy igekötőelmélet vázlata. Magyar Nyelv 100. 15–43.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl, Elisabet and Ejerhed, Eva (eds), Readings in unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. 151–74.Google Scholar

Epstein, Samuel David and Daniel Seely, T.. 2002. Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Epstein, Samuel David and Daniel Seely, T. (eds), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell. 65–89.Google Scholar

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 429–79.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Fanselow, Gisbert. 2006. Partial movement. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. III. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fanselow, Gisbert and Ćavar, Damir. 2001. Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In Müller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds), Competition in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 107–50.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 2006. Number in Hungarian and beyond. Paper presented at ‘The Hungarian Language: Past and Present’, UCLA, 5 May 2006.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1987. DO pro in Hungarian. In Kenesei, István (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Vol II. Szeged: JATE Press. 191–213.Google Scholar

Felix, Sascha. 1985. Parasitic gaps in German. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 173–200.Google Scholar

Felser, Claudia. 2001. Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement reconsidered. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13. 5–38.Google Scholar

Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7. 395–421.Google Scholar

Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 427–73.Google Scholar

Fong, Sandiway. 2005 Computation with probes and goals: A parsing perspective. In di Sciullo, Anna-Maria (ed.), UG and External Systems: Language, brain and computation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Franck, Julie, Lassi, Glenda, Frauenfelder, Ulrich and Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. Agreement and movement: a syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101. 173–216.Google Scholar

Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Frank, Robert. 2006. Phase theory and Tree Adjoining Grammar. Lingua 116. 145–202.Google Scholar

George, Leland. 1980. Analogical generalization in natural language syntax. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Gervain, Judit. 2003. Syntactic microvariation and methodology: Problems and perspectives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 405–34.Google Scholar

Gervain, Judit. 2005. Two strategies of focus-raising: Movement and resumption. In Piñón, Christopher and Siptár, Péter (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 9. Papers from the Düsseldorf conference. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar

Gervain, Judit. 2009. Resumption in focus(-raising). Lingua 119. 687–707.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 270–326.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University. [Published in Grimshaw, Jane, 2005. Words and Structure. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 151, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 373–422.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane and Vikner, Sten. 1993. Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Reuland, Eric and Abraham, Werner (eds), Knowledge and language, Vol. 2: Lexical and conceptual structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 143–55.Google Scholar

Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gross, Maurice. 1979. On the failure of generative grammar. Language 55. 859–85.Google Scholar

Guasti, Maria Teresa and Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. Agreement and tense as distinctive syntactic positions: Evidence from acquisition. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 1. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 167–94.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, M. Juncal. 2005. The Acquisition of English LD Wh-questions by Basque/Spanish Bilingual Subjects in a School Context. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane and van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between C° and T°. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 441–54.Google Scholar

Haider, Hubert. 2005. How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the VO-OV contrasts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8. 1–53.Google Scholar

Haider, Hubert. 2010. Wie wurde Deutsch OV? Zur diachronen Dynamik eines Strukturparameters der germanischen Sprachen. In Ziegler, Arne (ed.), Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen – Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–32.Google Scholar

Haider, Hubert. 2013. Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser, S.. 1993. Argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay (eds), The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53–109.Google Scholar

Han, Chung-Hye. 2001. Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review 18. 289–325.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–426.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. 31–70.Google Scholar

Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 393–430.Google Scholar

Heck, Fabian. 2010. Against direct recursion in syntax. Ms., Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar

Helmantel, Marjon. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 57. 209–40.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101–39.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, Teun. 2008. Arguments and structure: Studies on the architecture of the sentence. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, Teun and Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.Google Scholar

Höhle, Tilman. 1996. The w- … w-construction: Appositive or scope-indicating? In Lutz, Uli and Müller, Gereon (eds), Papers on wh-scope marking. Universität Stuttgart/Universität Tübingen/IBM Deutschland. 37–58.Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Honcoop, Martin. 1998. Dynamic excursions on weak islands. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden/HIL. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert and Weinberg, Amy. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 55–91.Google Scholar

Horvath, Julia. 1992. The anti-c-command and case-compatibility in the licensing of parasitic chains. The Linguistic Review 9. 183–218.Google Scholar

Horvath, Julia. 1997. The status of ‘Wh-expletives’ and the partial Wh-movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 509–72.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 103–38.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Negation. In von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter (eds), Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössigen Forschung. Berlin: de Gruyter. 560–96.Google Scholar

Janke, Vikki and Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 151–90.Google Scholar

Jánosi, Adrienn. 2014. Long split focus constructions in Hungarian with a view on speaker variaton. PhD dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. London: Allen.Google Scholar

Kampen, Jacqueline. 1997. First steps in wh-movement. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar

Kampen, Jacqueline. 2009. The ‘phased’ learnability of long wh-questions. In Crawford, J., Otaki, K., and Takahashi, M. (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition in North America (GALANA 2008). Amherst, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. In Baumer, Donald, Montero, David, and Scanlon, Michael (eds), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 220–8.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1989. Notes on English agreement. CIEFL Bulletin 1. 41–67.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–86.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1998. Class notes. New York: New York University.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Epstein, Samuel David and Daniel Seely, T. (eds), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. 133–66.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 2015. The silence of heads. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 2016. The unicity of there and the definiteness effect. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar

Keresztes, Júlia. 2012. On Hungarian object-drop. MA thesis, Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem.Google Scholar

Kim, Jong-Bok and Sells, Peter. 2006. Case assignment in the clause on adjuncts. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11. 507–19. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Kimball, John and Aissen, Judith. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 241–6.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon (eds), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 867–916.Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda. 1983. ECP effects in main clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 346–50.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Jay Keyser, S. (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53–64.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 1989. Left-right asymmetries in the Dutch complementizer system. In Jaspers, Dany, Klooster, Wim, Putseys, Yvan, and Seuren, Pieter (eds), Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris. 271–82.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 2000. Extraposition as parallel construal. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 2009. IM not perfect: The case against copying. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds), Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 109–37.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Molnár, Valéria and Winkler, Susanne (eds), The architecture of focus. Mouton de Gruyter. 105–36.Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Ms., University of Pennsylvania. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/3/.Google Scholar

Kush, Dave, Omaki, Akira, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. Reanalyzing relative clause island effects. Paper presented at GLOW 32, University of Nantes. Slideshow available at: http://ling.umd.edu//~kush/GLOW_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar

Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10. 127–64.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1975. On the semantics of negation. In Hockney, D. J. (ed.), Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 279–311.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Lappin, Shalom and Benmamoun, Elabbas (eds), Fragments. Studies in ellipsis and gapping. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 141–74.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 535–71.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 235–89.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part I: The general session, ed. Dobrin, Lise M., Nichols, Lynn, and Rodriguez, Rosa M., 324–43. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Stowell, Tim. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10. 127–64.Google Scholar

Law, Paul. 1991. Effects of head movement on theories of subjacency and proper government. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 2003. Phrase structure paradoxes, movement and ellipsis. In Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne (eds), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 198–203.Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506–16.Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2011. Under-inheritance. Paper presented at NELS 42, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Lipták, Anikó. 2001. On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden/HIL.Google Scholar

Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds). 2000. Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo (eds), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 49–74.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan, Kim, Jong Sup, and Kim, Soowon. 2001. Case marking on duration adverbials revisited. In Ahn, Hee-Don and Kim, Namkil (eds), Selected papers from the 12th International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Kyungjin Munhwasa. 323–35.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan and Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður. 2002. The new impersonal construction in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5. 97–142.Google Scholar

McCawley, James. 1972. A program for logic. In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert (eds), Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. 498–544. Reprinted with notes in McCawley 1973, Grammar and meaning. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 1991. There, it and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 563–7.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 57–84.Google Scholar

McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 565–604.Google Scholar

Melvold, Janis. 1986. Factivity and definiteness. Ms., Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Montalbetti, Mario. 1984. After binding. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mulder, René and den Dikken, Marcel. 1992. Tough parasitic gaps. In NELS 22. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA. 303–17.Google Scholar

Németh T., Enikő. 2016. Interaction between grammar and pragmatics: The case of implicit subject and direct object arguments in Hungarian language use. Academy Doctoral dissertation, University of Szeged.Google Scholar

Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1984. On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review 4. 153–202.Google Scholar

Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre. Thèse de doctorat d’état, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar

Pafel, Jürgen. 1991. Zum relativen Skokpus von W- und Q-Phrasen (W/QInteraktion). In Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 2. MdD: Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. 33–74.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. On accusative adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In The Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the IATL, Jerusalem. 165–90.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David M. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 2015. Complementizer-trace effects. Ms., MIT; to appear in Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds), Companion to syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 355–426.Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37–90.Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin and Lewis, Shevaun. 2013. Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics 6. 11–47.Google Scholar

Piñón, Christopher. 2001. Töprengtem egyet azon, hogy mit jelent az egyet. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne, Bánréti, Zoltán, and Kiss, Katalin É. (eds), Újabb tanulmányok a strukturális magyar nyelvtan és a nyelvtörténet köréből: Kiefer Ferenc tiszteletére barátai és tanítványai. Budapest: Osiris. 182–98.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 583–646.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303.Google Scholar

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1981. On case and imperson constructions. In May, Robert and Koster, Jan (eds), Levels of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 219–52.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1988. Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 635–70.Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer and Polinsky, Maria. 2015. Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 565–99.Google Scholar

Reeve, Matthew. 2012. Clefts and their relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Reis, Marga. 2000. On the parenthetical features of German was … w-constructions and how to account for them. In Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds), Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 359–407.Google Scholar

Resenes, Mariana and den Dikken, Marcel. 2012. Semi-clefts as a window on the syntax of predication and the ‘object of’ relation. In Proceedings of CLS 48. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 1998. The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 599–629.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2006. A distinctness condition on linearization. Ms., Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1983. Correspondence effects and the Empty Category Principle. In Otsu, Yukio et al. (eds). Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition: A report on recent trends in linguistics. Tokyo: International Christian University.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1988. The representation of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Basque Language, Basque World Congress. Vol. I, 104–16.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 1–48.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, Guglielmo and Salvi, Giampaolo (eds), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Rizzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 287–96.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structure and beyond. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 223–51.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, Lisa and Corver, Norbert (eds), Wh-movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–133.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2007. On some properties of Criterial Freezing. CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition 1. 145–58.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Cartography, criteria, and labeling, Ms., Universities of Geneva and Siena.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2 and the EPP. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 297–328.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, Peter. 1965. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. PhD dissertation, MIT; published under the same title by MIT Press, 1967.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1984. Inner islands. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 258–65.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Pleonastics and the interpretation of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 499–529.Google Scholar

Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 445–501.Google Scholar

Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive prolepsis. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden/HIL.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul. 1981. Lovely to look at. Linguistic Analysis 8. 431–48.Google Scholar

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2009. Wh-agreement and bounded unbounded movement. In Brucart, José, Gavarró, Anna, and Solà, Jaume (eds), Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 46–59.Google Scholar

Schütze, Carson. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 467–84.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar

Seuren, Pieter. 2001. A view of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shlonsky, Ur and Soare, Gabriela. 2011. Where’s why? Linguistic Inquiry 42. 651–69.Google Scholar

Sichel, Ivy. 2015. Anatomy of a counterexample: Extraction from relative clauses. Ms., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2006. The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic. Ms., Lund University.Google Scholar

Sobin, Nicholas. 1987. The variable status of comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 33–60.Google Scholar

Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 318–43.Google Scholar

Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425–49.Google Scholar

Sprouse, Jon, Caponigro, Ivano, Greco, Ciro, and Cecchetto, Carlo. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 307–44.Google Scholar

Stabler, Edward. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science 5. 611–33.Google Scholar

Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar

Stepanov, Arthur and Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: A cross-linguistic perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 569–638.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1986. Null antecedents and proper government. In Berman, S., Choe, J.-W., and McDonough, J. (eds), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 16. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 476–93.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1991. Small clause restructuring. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Cinque, Guglielmo and Rizzi, Luigi (eds), Mapping spatial PPs. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 6. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 127–60.Google Scholar

Swart, Henriëtte. 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. In Barker, Chris and Dowty, David (eds), Proceedings of SALT II. Columbus: OSU WLP 40. 387–406.Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, Anna and den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. Islands. In Cheng, Lisa and Sybesma, Rint (eds), The second Glot International state-of-the-article book. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 213–40.Google Scholar

Szucsich, Luka. 2001. Case licensing and nominal adverbials in Slavic. Paper presented at FASL10; Ms., University of Leipzig. http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~szucsicl/x.fasl-10.pdfGoogle Scholar

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1981. The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi (eds), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 475–516.Google Scholar

Thornton, Rosalind. 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Thornton, Rosalind. 1995. Referentiality and wh-movement: Juvenile D-linkuency. Language Acquisition 4. 139–75.Google Scholar

Tortora, Christina and den Dikken, Marcel. 2009. Subject agreement variation: support for the configurational approach. Lingua 120. 1089–1108.Google Scholar

Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases, and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert (eds), Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 251–82.Google Scholar

Urk, Coppe and Richards, Norvin. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 113–55.Google Scholar

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Vries, Mark. 2009. Specifying coordination: An investigation into the syntax of dislocation, extraposition and parenthesis. In Dreyer, Cynthia (ed.), Language and linguistics: Emerging trends. New York: Nova. 37–98.Google Scholar

Wanner, Eric and Maratsos, Michael. 1978. An ATN approach in comprehension. In Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan, and Miller, George A. (eds), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 119–61.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 255–91.Google Scholar

Wechsler, Stephen and Lee, Yae-Sheik. 1996. The domain of direct case assignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 629–64.Google Scholar

Wilder, Christopher. 1991. Tough-movement constructions. Linguistische Berichte 132. 115–32.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 287–308.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 2006. The subject-predicate theory of there. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 648–51.Google Scholar

Wurff, Wim. 1988. A remarkable gap in the history of English syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 9. 117–59.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2003. Infinitives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Yoshida, Masaya, Nakao, Chizuru and Ortega-Santos, Ivan. 2015. The syntax of why stripping. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33. 323–70.Google Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441–83.Google Scholar

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues related to a derivational theory of binding. In Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel (eds), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. 269–304.Google Scholar

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2009. Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8. 161–87.Google Scholar

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2015. Precede-and-command revisited revisited. Language 91. 169–78.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 2007. Whom shall I say [___ is calling]? Language Log post, 23 January 2007. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004084.html.Google Scholar