Abebe, A. 1990. Relative Clauses in Chaha. A GB Approach. MA thesis. Addis Ababa University. http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/6332Google Scholar

Abeillé, A. 2017. Agreement and interpretation of binominals in French. Paper presented at the CSSP 2017. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/cssp2017/abstracts/An-Abeille.pdfGoogle Scholar

Abeillé, A., Godard, D., Miller, P. & Sag, I. 1998. French bounded dependencies. In Dini, L. & Balari, S., eds., Romance in HPSG. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 1–54.Google Scholar

Abels, K. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Abels, K. 2016. The fundamental left-right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 179–220.Google Scholar

Aboh, E. O. 2005. Deriving relative and factive clauses. In Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W., Turano, G., eds., Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. 265–85. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/757Google Scholar

Ackerman, F. & Nikolaeva, I. 2013. Descriptive Typology and Linguistic Theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Adger, D. 2011. Bare resumptives. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 343–65.Google Scholar

Adger, D., Drummond, A., Hall, D. & van Urk, C. 2017. Is there Condition C Reconstruction? In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K., eds., Proceedings of NELS 47. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 21–30. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003674Google Scholar

Adger, D., Harbour, D. & Watkins, L. 2009. Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase structure beyond free word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D. & Ramchand, G. 2005. Merge vs move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 161–93.Google Scholar

Åfarli, T. 1994. A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aghaei, B. 2003. Case attraction: Evidence for raising analysis for relative clauses in Farsi. Paper presented at SALA 23.Google Scholar

Aghaei, B. 2006. The syntax of Ke-clause and clausal extraposition in Modern Persian. PhD diss. University of Texas at Austin. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/2655Google Scholar

Aissen, J. 1972. Where do relative clauses come from? In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1. New York: Seminar Press. 187–98.Google Scholar

Ajíbóyè, Ọ. 2001. The internal structure of Yorùbá DP. MS. University of British Columbia. Presented at ACAL 32, UC Berkeley, 25 March.Google Scholar

Akiyama, T. 2014. On restrictions on the use of non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses in English. In Gawne, L. & Vaughan, J., eds., Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013. University of Melbourne. 335–54. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/40971Google Scholar

Akmajian, A. & Lehrer, A. 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2: 395–413.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 2008. Tyrolean A-bar movement: Doubling and resumptive pronoun structures. In Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M., eds., Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 36. Bingley: Emerald. 141–70.Google Scholar

Alcázar, E. A. 2007. A minimalist analysis of participial constructions: Towards a phase account of non-finite structures. PhD diss. University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Aldridge, E. 2004. Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics 5(1): 99–129. https://bit.ly/2QKqY0FGoogle Scholar

Aldridge, E. 2017. Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1)41: 1–33. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.175Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C. 2000. Introduction. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–51.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. & Varlokosta, S. 1996. The syntactic and semantic properties of free relatives in modern Greek. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 5: 1–31.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. 2006. Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 57–111.Google Scholar

Allen, C. L. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://bit.ly/2rsBvCRGoogle Scholar

Allwood, J. S. 1976. The complex np constraint as a non-universal rule and some semantic factors influencing the acceptability of Swedish sentences which violate the cnpc. In Stillings, J., ed., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–20.Google Scholar

Allwood, J. S. 1982. The complex noun phrase constraint in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Umeå: University of Umeå. 15–32.Google Scholar

Almeida, D. A. de A. & Yoshida, M. 2007. A problem for the preposition stranding generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almeida, M. 1989. A Description of Konkani. Panaji: Thomas Stephens Konknni kendr.Google Scholar

Alves, M. J. 2001. Noun phrase structure in Mon-Khmer languages. Handout for a presentation made at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan in April. https://bit.ly/2OiDi6JGoogle Scholar

Ambadiang, T. 2017. Relative clauses and relativization processes in Nugunu. In Atindogbé, G. G. & Grollemund, R., eds., Relative Clauses in Cameroonian Languages: Structure, function and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 67–87.Google Scholar

Amha, A. 2001. The Maale Language. Leiden: CNWS Publications. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/36408Google Scholar

Ananda, L. M. G. 2008. The Cleft Construction in Sinhala. MPhil diss. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Teferra, Anbessa. 2012. A Grammar of Sidaama: Phonology, morphology, and syntax. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert.Google Scholar

Andersen, T. 1998. Verb-coding in Madi relative clauses. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51: 295–326.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. 2005. Two types of Nepali correlatives. In Yadava, Y., Bhattarai, G., Lohani, R. R., Prasain, B. & Parajuli, K., eds., Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal. 1–12.Google Scholar

Andersson, L.-G. 1974. Topicalization and relative clause formation. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 25.Google Scholar

Andersson, L.-G. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Umeå: University of Umeå. 33–45.Google Scholar

Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. 1984. Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Andrews, A. D. III. 1975. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Andrews, A. D. III. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 206–36.Google Scholar

Annamalai, E. & Steever, S. B. 1998. Modern Tamil. In Steever, S. B., ed., The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge. 100–28.Google Scholar

Anonby, E. J. 2011. A Grammar of Mambay: An Adamawa language of Chad and Cameroon. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. & Choueiri, L. 1997. Resumption and Last Resort. MS. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Aoun, J., Choueiri, L. & Hornstein, N. 2001. Resumption, movement and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. The Diversity of Wh-Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Arad, T. 2014. The nature of resumptive pronouns. Evidence from parasitic gaps. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar

Arcodia, G. F. 2017. Towards a typology of relative clauses in Sinitic: Headedness and relativization strategies. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale/East Asian Languages and Linguistics 46: 32–72.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. 2016. Externally and internally headed relative clauses in Marori. In Arnold, D., Butt, M., Crysmann, B., Holloway King, T., Müller, S., eds., Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 23–42. https://stanford.io/34jTcmLGoogle Scholar

Arnold, D. 2004. Non-restrictive relative clauses in construction-based HPSG. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 27–47.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics 43: 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnold, D. & Bargmann, S. 2016. Idiom licensing in non-restrictive relative clauses (NRCs). Poster presented at PARSEME, 7th General Meeting, Dubrovnik, 26–27 September. https://bit.ly/34jyvYfGoogle Scholar

Arnold, D. & Borsley, R. 2008. Non-restrictive relative clauses, ellipsis and anaphora. In Müller, S., ed., Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 325–45. https://stanford.io/37BGiCCGoogle Scholar

Arnold, D. & Borsley, R. 2010. Auxiliary-stranding relative clauses. In Müller, S., ed., Proceedings of the HPSG10 Conference, Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7, France. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 47–67. https://bit.ly/37CVe3FGoogle Scholar

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

Arsenijević, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2016. Agreement and the structure of relative clauses. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 17. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arsenijević, B. & Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2013. On the topical nature of non-restrictively used relative pronouns. Paper given at the 35th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society, Potsdam, 12–15 March.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. & Kumari, T. C. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Assmann, A. 2013. Three stages in the derivation of free relatives. In Heck, F. & Assmann, A., eds., Rule Interaction in Grammar. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. 203–45.Google Scholar

Asudeh, A. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Auger, J. 1994. Pronominal Clitics in Quebec Colloquial French: A Morphological Analysis. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. https://bit.ly/2KSero6Google Scholar

Auger, J. 1995. On the history of relative clauses in French and some of its dialects. In Andersen, H., ed., Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 19–32.Google Scholar

Austin, P. 1981. A Grammar of Diyari. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Authier, J.-M. & Reed, L. 2005. The diverse nature of non-interrogative wh. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 635–47.Google Scholar

Aygen, G. 2003. Are there ‘non-restrictive’ prerelatives in Turkish? Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 199–212.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Bayer, J. 2006. Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Bagchi, T. 1994. Bangla correlative pronouns, relative clause order and D-linking. In Butt, M., King, T. Holloway & Ramchand, G., eds., Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 13–30.Google Scholar

Bağrıaçık, M. 2014. Relativization in Pharasiot Greek. MS. University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Bağrıaçık, M. & Danckaert, L. 2016. On the emergence of prenominal and postnominal relative clauses in Pharasiot Greek. MS. University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 1–38.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–95.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. 2005. Extraposition. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 237–71.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. 2005. Word order variation in three-verb clusters and the division of labour between generative linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P., eds., Syntax and Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 233–64.Google Scholar

Barker, C. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 614–33.Google Scholar

Barker, C. 2019. Evaluation order, crossover, and reconstruction. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 357–85.Google Scholar

Barss, A., Hale, K., Perkins, E. A. & Speas, M. 1989. Aspects of logical form in Navajo. In Cook, E.-D. & Rice, K., eds., Athapaskan Linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 317–34.Google Scholar

Barss, A., Hale, K., Perkins, E. A. & Speas, M. 1992. Logical form and barriers in Navajo. In Huang, C.-T. J. & May, R., eds., Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 25–47.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.Google Scholar

Basilico, D. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 72: 498–532. https://www.jstor.org/stable/416277Google Scholar

Bassi, I. & Rasin, E. 2018. Equational-intensional relative clauses with syntactic reconstruction. In Sauerland, U. & Solt, S., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22. Vol. 1. ZASPiL 60. ZAS, Berlin. 143–59.Google Scholar

Battye, A. C. 1989. Free relatives, pseudo-free relatives and the syntax of CP in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 1 (2): 219–46.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–74.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. 1999. Final complementizers in hybrid languages. Journal of Linguistics 35: 233–71.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. & Bader, M. 2007. On the syntax of prepositional phrases. In Späth, A., ed., Interface and Interface Conditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 157–79.Google Scholar

Bayer, J., Bader, M. & Meng, M. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. & Salzmann, M. 2013. That-trace effects and resumption – How improper movement can be repaired. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E., eds., Repairs: The added value of being wrong. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 275–334.Google Scholar

Bayırlı, İ. K. 2017. The universality of concord. PhD diss. MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/113785Google Scholar

Beal, J. C. & Corrigan, K. P. 2002. Relatives in Tyneside and Northumbrian English. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa. 125–34.Google Scholar

Beck, D. 2016. Relative clauses in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Linguistic Discovery 14: 1–45. DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.469Google Scholar

Beermann, D. & Ephrem, B. 2007. The definite article and possessive marking in Amharic. In Hoyt, F., Seifert, N., Teodorescu, A. & White, J., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society IX Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 21–32. https://stanford.io/2qDRiz2Google Scholar

Belikova, A. 2008. Syntactically challenged rather than reduced: Participial relatives revisited. Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. https://bit.ly/2OmzAc3Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 1982. ‘Morphological’ passive and pro drop: The impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Reserch. 2 (4): 1–33.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, L., ed., The Structure of CP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press. 16–51.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 1994. La variazione sintattica. Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 1995. I dati dell’ASIS e la sintassi diacronica. In Banfi, E., Bonfadini, G., Cordin, P., & Iliescu, M., eds., Italia settentrionale: Crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 131–41.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2003. La frase relativa in fiorentino antico. V° Incontro di dialettologia, University of Bristol, 26–27 September.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2007. Headless relative clauses in Old Italian and some related issues. Handout of a paper presented at the Université de Paris VIII, 13 December.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2010. Headless relatives in some Old Italian varieties. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I., eds., Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 55–70.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2012a. Frasi relative e strutture copulari. In Orioles, V. and Borghello, P., eds., Per Roberto Gusmani: Studi in ricordo. Udine: Forum. 251–67.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2012b. Lexical complementizers and headless relatives. In Brugè, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. & Poletto, C., eds., Functional Heads. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 7. New York: Oxford University Press. 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benincà, P. 2012c. Determiners and relative clauses. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4 (1): 92–109.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2012d. Relatives and copular structures. Padua Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 29–44. https://bit.ly/2OkMhUW.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 1991. Participio presente. In Renzi, L. & Salvi, G., eds., Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione. Vol. II. Bologna: il Mulino. 604–9.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2010 La frase relativa. In Salvi, G. & Renzi, L., eds., Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Vol. I. Bologna: Il Mulino. 469–507.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2014 Kind-defining relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian. In Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A. & Vincent, N., eds., Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 257–78.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Poletto, C. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, L., ed., The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 52–75.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Tortora, C. 2009. Towards a finer-grained theory of Italian participial clausal architecture. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 15 (1), Article 4. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol15/iss1/4Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Vanelli, L. 1982. Appunti di sintassi veneta. In Cortelazzo, M., ed., Guida ai dialetti veneti IV. Padova: CLEUP. 7–38.Google Scholar

Berg, R. van den. 1989. A Grammar of the Muna Language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Berizzi, M. 2001. The theory of relative clauses and the dialects of English. Thesis. University of Padua.Google Scholar

Berman, A. 1974. Infinitival relative constructions. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 37–46.Google Scholar

Berman, H. 1972. Subordinate clauses in Yurok – A preliminary report. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 256–61.Google Scholar

Berry, K. & Berry, C. 1999. A Description of Abun: A West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Bertollo, S. 2014. On relatives with a null head: German free relative clauses and clefts. PhD diss. University of Padua. https://bit.ly/2rsb0xHGoogle Scholar

Bertollo, S. & Cavallo, G. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. Generative Grammar in Geneva 8: 59–76. https://bit.ly/33mrBQzGoogle Scholar

Bertone, C. 2006. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). PhD diss. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. http://lear.unive.it/jspui/bitstream/11707/313/1/Bertone.pdfGoogle Scholar

Bevington, G. 1979. Relativization in Albanian dialects. Folia Slavica 3: 263–94.Google Scholar

Bhatia, T. K. 1993. Punjabi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 1997. Matching effects and the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence from Hindi correlatives. In Bruening, B., ed., Proceedings of SCIL 8. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 31. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 53–68.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 485–541.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 2005. Correlative clauses. Handout of a course at the 2005 LOT Summer School, Leiden, 16 June. http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/752-s05/n44.pdf.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 2006. Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 2015. Relative clauses and correlatives. In Alexiadou, A. & Kiss, T., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An international handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 708–49.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. 2012. Two superlative puzzles. Paper given at Generative Initiatives in Syntactic Theory (GIST), 22–23 March, University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. M. 1999. Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 1991. Le relative infinitive e altre strutture modali infinitive in italiano. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 5: 51–69.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 1993. An empirical contribution to the study of idiomatic expressions. Rivista di Linguistica 5: 349–85. http://linguistica.sns.it/RdL/5.2/Bianchi.pdfGoogle Scholar

Bianchi, V. 1995. Consequences of Antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. PhD diss. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2000a. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123–40.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2000b. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 53–81.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2002. Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Glot International, Part I, 6 (7): 197–204; Part II 6 (8): 235–47.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2004. Resumptive relatives and LF chains. In Rizzi, L., ed., The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 76–114.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2007. Wh-infinitives and the licensing of ‘Anaphoric Tense’. In Picchi, M. C. & Pona, A., eds., Proceedings of the XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. 35–47.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. 2011. Some notes on the specificity effects of optional resumptive pronouns. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 319–42.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. 1995. Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation: Entre syntaxe et morphologie en bélharien. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, XC 1: 391–427.Google Scholar

Bidese, E., Padovan, A. & Tomaselli, A. 2012. A binary system of complementizers in Cimbrian relative clauses. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90: 1–21. https://bit.ly/37IOscEGoogle Scholar

Bird, C. B. 1968. Relative clauses in Bambara. The Journal of West African Languages 5: 35–47.Google Scholar

Biskup, P. & Šimík, R. 2019. Structure of conditional and (cor)relative clauses: New evidence from locality. MS. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004573Google Scholar

Bliese, L. 1981. A Generative Grammar of Afar. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas.Google Scholar

Blümel, A. 2011. Derjenige determiner that wants a relative clause. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1): 21–9. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/4Google Scholar

Blümel, A. & Liu, M. 2019. Revisiting obligatory relatives in German: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. MS. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. Adjectival hydras: Restrictive modifiers above DP. In Mayr, C. & Williams, E., eds., Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 82. Vienna: Institute of Linguistics, University of Vienna. 13–22. https://bit.ly/2KYQxatGoogle Scholar

Bodomo, A. B. & Hiraiwa, K. 2004. Relativization in Dagaare. Journal of Dagaare Studies 4: 53–75.Google Scholar

Bodomo, A. B. & Hiraiwa, K. 2010. Relativization in Dàgáárè and its typological implications: Left-headed but internally-headed. Lingua 120: 953–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.008Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boef, E. 2012. Doubling in Dutch restrictive relative clauses: Rethinking the head external analysis. In Boone, E., Linke, K. & Schulpen, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE XIX. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. 125–49.Google Scholar

Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in relative clauses: Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in Dutch. PhD diss. Utrecht University. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/261909Google Scholar

Bogal-Allbritten, E. & Moulton, K. 2017. Navajo in the typology of internally-headed relatives. Proceedings of SALT 27. 700–20. https://bit.ly/2qELoh3Google Scholar

Bogal-Allbritten, E., Moulton, K. & Shimoyama, J. 2016. Stay inside: The interpretation of internally headed relative clauses in Navajo. Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association Meeting. https://elizabethba.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cla-talk.pdfGoogle Scholar

Boisson, C. 1981. Hiérarchie universelle des spécifications de temps, de lieu, et de manière. Confluents 7: 69–124.Google Scholar

Bokamba, E. & Dramé, M. 1978. Where do relative clauses come from in Mandingo? Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 28–43.Google Scholar

Bonneau, J. 1990. Logical form and an analysis of the matching effect in free relatives. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (2): 137–66.Google Scholar

Bonneau, J. 1992. The structure of internally headed relative clauses: Implications for configurationality. PhD diss. McGill University.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 219–60.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. D. 1984. Free relatives in Polish and English. In Fisiak, J., ed., Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton. 1–18.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. D. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. D. 2001. More on the raising analysis of relative clauses. MS. University of Essex.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. D. 2010. The diversity of relative clauses. Handout of a talk given at the Colchester which hunt – A workshop in relative clauses. 4 June.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2009. On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns. In Zybatow, G., Junghanns, U., Lenertová, D. & Biskup, P., eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 79–93.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Grewendorf, G. & Zimmermann, T. E., eds., Discourse and Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 179–242.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouton, L. 1970. Antecedent contained proforms. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 154–67.Google Scholar

Bowern, C. 2012. A Grammar of Bardi. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Boyle, J. P. 2007. Hidatsa morphosyntax and clause structure. PhD diss. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Boyle, J. P. 2016. The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses in Hidatsa. In Rudin, C. & Gordon, B. J., eds., Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press. 255–87.Google Scholar

Bradley, C. H. & Hollenbach, B. E. 1992, eds., Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages. Vol. 4. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

Bradshaw, J. 2009. Relative-clause bracketing in Oceanic languages around the Huon Gulf of New Guinea. In Adelaar, A. & Pawley, A., eds., Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 143–61.Google Scholar

Brame, M. 1967. A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory. MS. MIT.Google Scholar

Brame, M. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: North Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Branchini, C. 2014. On Relativization and Clefting: An analysis of Italian sign language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton and Preston: Ishara Press.Google Scholar

Branchini, C. & Donati, C. 2009. Relatively different: Italian sign language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 157–91.Google Scholar

Brandner, E. & Bräuning, I. 2013. Relative wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 234: 131–69.Google Scholar

Breivik, L. E. 1997. Relative infinitives in English. Studia Neophilologica 69: 109–37.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 1973. ‘Headless’ relatives. Mimeograph. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J.. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331–91.Google Scholar

Bretonnel Cohen, K. 2000. Aspects of the Grammar of Kukù. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Brillman, R. 2015. Improper movement in tough constructions and gapped degree phrases. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Article 4. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol21/iss1/4Google Scholar

Brito, A. M. 1991. A sintaxe das oraçoes relativas em português. PhD diss. Centro de Linguística da Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar

Brito, A. M. 2005. As relativas não restritivas como um caso particular de aposição. Actas do XX Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. 401–19.Google Scholar

Browne, W. 1970. Noun phrase definiteness in relatives and questions: Evidence from Macedonian. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 267–70.Google Scholar

Browne, W. 1986. Relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian in comparison with English. The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian–English Contrastive Project. Vol. 4. Zagreb, University of Zagreb.Google Scholar

Browning, M. 1987. Null Operator Constructions. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Brucart, J. M. 1992. Some asymmetries in the functioning of relative pronouns in Spanish. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 113–43. https://ddd.uab.cat/record/20988Google Scholar

Brucart, J. M. 1999. La estructura del sintagma nominal: Las oraciones de relativo. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V., eds., Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 395–522.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD diss. MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/8198Google Scholar

Bruening, B. 2015. Idioms: Movement and non-movement dependencies. MS. University of Delaware. http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/IdiomsMovement1.pdfGoogle Scholar

Brugger, G. & Prinzhorn, M. 1996. Some Properties of German Determiners. MS. University of Vienna.Google Scholar

Brunelli, M. 2006. The grammar of Italian sign language, with a study about its restrictive relative clauses. MA diss. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.Google Scholar

Brunelli, M. 2011. Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam and Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. https://bit.ly/37J5W8JGoogle Scholar

Bugaeva, A. & Whitman, J. 2014. Deconstructing clausal noun modifying constructions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23: 1–12. https://stanford.io/2ruaQFWGoogle Scholar

Büring, D. 2002. Orphan attributes. In Mikkelsen, L. & Potts, C., eds., Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 100–13. https://bit.ly/37HIJUnGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13: 391–419.Google Scholar

Bury, D. 2003. Phrase structure and derived heads. PhD diss. University College London.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Butler, A. 2002. Relatives and there-insertion. In van Koppen, M., Thrift, E., van der Torre, E. J. & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE IX. 28–40. https://bit.ly/2ruQ4GkGoogle Scholar

Butt, M., Holloway King, T. & Roth, S. 2007. Urdu correlatives: Theoretical and implementational issues. In Butt, M. & Holloway King, T., eds., Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. https://stanford.io/33p2yfYGoogle Scholar

Cable, S. 2005. Free relatives in Lingít and Haida: Evidence that the mover projects. MS. MIT. https://bit.ly/2OPoc7JGoogle Scholar

Cable, S. 2010a. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cable, S. 2010b. Against the existence of pied-piping: evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 563–94.Google Scholar

Cable, S. 2012. Pied-Piping: Introducing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (12): 816–32.Google Scholar

Cable, S. 2013. Pied-Piping: Comparing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (2): 123–40.Google Scholar

Cabredo Hofherr, P. 2014. Reduced definite articles with restrictive relative clauses. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Zribi-Hertz, A., eds., Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 39. Leiden: Brill. 172–211. https://bit.ly/2DnFfZbGoogle Scholar

Cagri, I. M. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Caha, P. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD diss. CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Callegari, E. 2014. Why locality-based accounts of the left periphery are unfit to account for its variation. Paper given at the Variation in C Workshop, Venice, 21 October.Google Scholar

Camacho, J. 2003. The Structure of Coordination: Conjunction and agreement phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Camilleri, M. & Sadler, L. 2016. Relativisation in Maltese. Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 117–45. https://bit.ly/2rvN10BGoogle Scholar

Canac Marquis, R. & Tremblay, M. 1998. The wh-feature and the syntax of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives in French and English. In Lema, J. & Treviño, E., eds., Theoretical Analyses of Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 127–41.Google Scholar

Cantrall, W. R. 1972. Relative identity. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., Phares, G. C., eds., Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 22–31.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. PhD diss. UCLA.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives cross-linguistically. In Young, R. B., ed., Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University CLC Publications. 38–55.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. 2019. In defense of what(ever) free relative clauses they dismiss: A reply to Donati and Cecchetto (2011). Linguistic Inquiry 50 (2): 356–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00311Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Fălăuş, A. 2018a. Free choice free relatives in Italian and Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 323–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9375-yGoogle Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Fălăuş, A. 2018b. The functional nature of multiple wh- free relative clauses. Proceedings of SALT 28. 566–83. https://bit.ly/37H208qGoogle Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2008. Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R., eds., Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 365–85. https://bit.ly/2L0r0xzGoogle Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2009. The nominal nature of where, when, and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 155–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.155Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Polinsky, M. 2008. Relatively speaking (in Circassian). Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 81–9. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1819.pdfGoogle Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Polinsky, M. 2011. Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 71–122.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I., Torrence, H. & Cisneros, C. 2013. Free relative clauses in two Mixtec languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(1): 61–96. https://bit.ly/2L0FJsxGoogle Scholar

Cardoso, A. 2010. Variation and change in the syntax of relative clauses. New evidence from Portuguese. PhD diss. University of Lisbon. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12423109.pdfGoogle Scholar

Cardoso, A. & De Vries, M. 2010. Internal and external heads in appositive constructions. MS. https://bit.ly/2XSLFsRGoogle Scholar

Carlson, G. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53: 520–42.Google Scholar

Carlson, R. 1994. A Grammar of Supyire. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Casalicchio, J. 2013a. Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: affinità (solo) superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. Munich: Lincom Europa. https://bit.ly/2QWd9fxGoogle Scholar

Casalicchio, J. 2013b. The pseudo-relatives and other correspondent constructions in the Romance languages. In Windhaber, I. & Anreiter, P., eds., Proceedings of the 4th Austrian Students’ Conference of Linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 64–84.Google Scholar

Casalicchio, J. 2015. La costruzione ‘con + DP + pseudorelativa’: Proposta per una duplice interpretazione. In Plurilinguismo/Sintassi: Atti del XLVI Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Rome: Bulzoni. 467–82.Google Scholar

Casalicchio, J. 2016a. The use of gerunds and infinitives in perceptive constructions: The effects of a threefold parametric variation in some Romance varieties. In Bidese, E., Cognola, F. & Moroni, M. C., eds., Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 53–87.Google Scholar

Casalicchio, J. 2016b. Pseudo-relatives and their left-periphery. A unified account. In Carrilho, E., Fiéis, A., Lobo, M. & Pereira, S., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 23–42.Google Scholar

Catasso, N. 2013. For a headed analysis of free relatives in German and English: The ‘free relative economy principle’. Linguistics Journal 7: 273–93.Google Scholar

Catasso, N. 2014. Wie viele Jungs haben Anna geküsst? Zum besonderen Status von V2-Relativsätzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistik Online 67 (5): 45–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.67.1599Google Scholar

Catasso, N. & Hinterhölzl, R. 2016. On the question of subordination or coordination in V2-relatives in German. In Reich, I. & Speyer, A., eds., Co- and Subordination in German and Other Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. 99–124.Google Scholar

Cattaneo, A. 2007. Italian null objects, resultative/depictive predication, and HAB. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 1.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C. 2006. Reconstruction in relative clauses and the copy theory of traces. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 73–103.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C. 2010. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13: 241−78.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C 2011. Relabeling heads: a unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–60. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001014Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C 2015. (Re)labeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C 2020. Relabeling participial constructions. In L. Franco & P. Lorusso, eds., Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 149–62.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C. & Zucchi, S. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 945–75.Google Scholar

Cennamo, M. 1997. Relative clauses. In Maiden, M. & Parry, M., eds., The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. 190–201.Google Scholar

Čeplová, M. 2007. Infinitives under ‘have’/’be’ in Czech. In Dočekal, M., Karlík, P. & Zmrzlíková, , eds., Czech in Generative Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa. 31–45.Google Scholar

Cha, J.-Y. 1998. Relative clause or noun complement clause: Some Diagnoses. MS. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Cha, J.-Y. 1999. Semantics of Korean Gapless Relative Clause Constructions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 25–41.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Chaves, R. P. 2012. Conjunction, cumulation and respectively readings. Journal of Linguistics 48: 297–344. DOI:10.1017/S0022226712000059Google Scholar

Chen, Y. & Fukuda, S. 2018. An experimental investigation of the reconstruction of anaphors in Japanese relative clauses. In Guillemot, C., Yoshida, T. & Lee, S. J., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 311–18.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L.-S. 2000. Moving just the feature. In Lutz, U., Müller, G. & von Stechow, A., eds., Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–99.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L.-S. & Downing, L. J. 2010. Locative relatives in Durban Zulu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 53: 33–51.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. 2005. A Chinese relative. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 69–76.Google Scholar

Chidambaram, V. S. 2013. On resumptive pronouns in Slavic. PhD diss. Princeton University.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. & Caponigro, I. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Handout of a paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung, Vitoria, Basque Country. https://bit.ly/2r5EO3fGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on tranformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 232–86.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1: 75–109.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. 104–31.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–66.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2015. A discussion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. In Fukui, N., ed., Noam Chomsky: The Sophia lectures. Sophia Linguistica Working Papers in Linguistics 64. Tokyo: Sophia University. 71–97.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. Gallego, Á. J. & Ott, D. 2017/2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. MS. MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar

Choueiri, L. 2002. Issues in the syntax of resumption: Restrictive relatives in Lebanese Arabic. PhD diss. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Christensen, K. R. & Nyvad, A. M. 2014. On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 29–45. DOI: 10.1017/S0332586514000055Google Scholar

Chung, S. 1987. The syntax of Chamorro existential sentences. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 191–225.Google Scholar

Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 704–13.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1976. ‘Mica’: note di sintassi e pragmatica. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Padova, 1. 101–12. http://lear.unive.it/jspui/bitstream/11707/5924/1/Mica.pdfGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 1978. La sintassi dei pronomi relativi ‘cui’ e ‘quale’ nell’italiano moderno. Rivista di grammatica generativa 3 (1): 31–126. https://bit.ly/33FwhRNGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 1979. Left dislocation in Italian: A syntactic and pragmatic analysis. Cahiers de lexicologie XXXIV: 96–127.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1981. On Keenan and Comrie’s primary relativization constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 293–308.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1982. On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. The Linguistic Review 1: 247–94. Reprinted with corrections in G. Cinque 1995 Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 54–103.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1988. La frase relativa. In Renzi, L., ed., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Vol 1. Bologna: Il Mulino. 443–503.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’- Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1991. Teoria linguistica e sintassi italiana. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. & Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 85–110.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1995. The pseudo-relative and ACC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In Cinque, G., Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 244–75.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1996. The antisymmetric programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics 32: 447–64.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2002. Complement and adverbial PPs: Implications for clause structure. MS. University of Venice.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2003. The prenominal origin of relative clauses. Paper presented at the Workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, 31 October–1 November.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2004a. ‘Restructuring’ and functional structure. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. 132–91.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2004b. A phrasal movement analysis of the Romanian DP. In Minuţ, A. & Munteanu, E., eds., Studia linguistica et philologica in honorem D. Irimia. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘A. I. Cuza’. 129–42. https://bit.ly/34JVcVFGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–32. https://bit.ly/2Y8YoHSGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2006a. Two types of appositives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 7–56. https://bit.ly/35ZcMp1Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2006b. Restructuring and Functional Heads. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2007. A note on linguistic theory and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 93–106. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/123Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2008a. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: 99–137. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2008b. More on the indefinite character of the Head of restrictive relatives. In Benincà, P., Damonte, F. & Penello, N., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Padova: Unipress. https://bit.ly/34HacDSGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2009a. The fundamental left–right asymmetry of natural languages. In Scalise, S., Magni, E. & Bisetto, A., eds., Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht: Springer 165–84. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_9Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2009b. Five notes on correlatives. In Mohanty, R. & Menon, M., eds., Universals and Variation: Proceedings of Glow in Asia VII 2009. Hyderabad: EFL University Press. 1–20. https://bit.ly/2YdzJluGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2010a. The Syntax of Adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2010b. On a selective ‘violation’ of the complex NP constraint. In Zwart, J.-W. & De Vries, M., eds., Structure Preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81–90. https://bit.ly/2DEGkMmGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2011a. Greenberg’s universal 23 and SVO languages. In Frascarelli, M., ed., Structures and Meanings: Cross-theoretical perspectives. Paris and Rome: L’Harmattan. 75–80. https://bit.ly/2LjMGoGGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2011b. On double-headed relative clauses. Linguística. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto. 6: 67–91.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2013a. Word order typology. A change of perspective. In Biberauer, T. M. & Sheehan, M., eds., Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47–73. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/154Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2013b Typological Studies: Word order and relative clauses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2014. Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the ‘mirror principle’. In Svenonius, P., ed., Functional Structure from Top to Toe. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 9. New York: Oxford University Press. 232–65.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2015a. Three phenomena discriminating between ‘raising’ and ‘matching’ relative clauses. Semantics-Syntax Interface 2 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2015b. A note on ‘other’. In Brandner, E., Czypionka, A., Freitag, C. & Trotzke, A., eds., Charting the Landscape of Linguistics: Webschrift for Josef Bayer. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. 22–7.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2017a. On a difference between Italian, and English and French present participle relatives. In Mayr, C. & Williams, E., eds., Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 82. 37–50.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2017b. A microparametric approach to the head-initial/head-final parameter. In Karimi, S. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M., eds., Parameters: What are they? Where are they? Linguistic Analysis 41. 309–66. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/6084Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2018. Some notes on meaningless movement. Paper presented at the University of Geneva, 6 February, and at the 44th Annual Meeting of Generative Grammar, Rome, 1–3 March.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2020. On the double-headed analysis of ‘headless’ relative clauses’. In Franco, L. & Lorusso, P., eds., Linguistic Variation: Structure and interpretation. Studies in generative grammar 132. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 169–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505201-011Google Scholar

Cinque, G. In preparation. On Greenberg’s universal 20: Refinements and replies.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. & Benincà, P. 2018. Notes on infinitival relatives in Italian. In Grimaldi, M., Lai, R., Franco, L. & Baldi, B., eds., Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond: In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 73–84.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2000. Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives. PhD diss. State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of NELS 31. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 131–45.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2002. Anti-reconstruction effects in free relatives: A new argument against the comp account. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 507–11.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2004. On headed, headless and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2008a. An argument against assimilating appositive relatives to coordinate structures. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 633–55.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2008b. Nominal and non-nominal appositives. In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. F. & Bethin, C., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook meeting 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 97–114.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2008c. Missing labels. Lingua 118: 907–44.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2009. What don’t wh-questions, free relatives, and correlatives have in common? In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 49–79.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2010. On the distribution of -kolwiek ‘ever’ in Polish free relatives. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 18: 221–58.Google Scholar

Citko, B. 2016. Types of appositive relative clauses in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (3): 85–110.Google Scholar

Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2011. Wh-coordination in free relatives. MS. University of Washington and Middle East Technical University, Ankara. https://bit.ly/2P8x5tiGoogle Scholar

Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2016. Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 393–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9306-8Google Scholar

Cocchi, G. 2004. Relative clauses in Bantu: Affixes as relative markers. Rivista di grammatica generativa 29: 61–84. https://bit.ly/2P1a4rWGoogle Scholar

Colburn, M. A. 1984. The functions and meanings of the Erima deictic articles. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 23: 209–72. http://sealang.net/archives/plGoogle Scholar

Cole, P. 1976. An apparent asymmetry in the formation of relative clauses in modern Hebrew. In Cole, P., ed., Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 231–47.Google Scholar

Cole, P. 1987. The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 277–302.Google Scholar

Cole, P. & Hermon, G. 1994. Is there LF WH-Movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25: 239–62.Google Scholar

Collins, C. & Radford, A. 2015. Gaps, ghosts and gapless relatives in spoken English. Studia Linguistica 69: 191–235.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1996. The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8–10, 1996. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya. 1077–88.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 2003. The verb-marking relative clause strategy, with special reference to Austronesian languages. Linguistik Indonesia 21: 1–18.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. & Kuteva, T. 2005. Relativization strategies. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 494–7.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M. 1999. Form and function in syntax: Relative clauses in Tsez. In Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M. & Wheatley, K., eds., Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics II: Case studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–92.Google Scholar

Constant, N. 2011. Re-diagnosing appositivity: Evidence for prenominal appositives from Mandarin. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 47–61. https://bit.ly/2LiI16jGoogle Scholar

Cornilescu, A. 1981. Non-restrictive relative clauses: An essay in semantic description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique XXVI: 41–67.Google Scholar

Corrêa, L. M. S., Augusto, M. R. A. & Marcilese, M. 2018. Competing analyses and differential cost in the production of non-subject relative clauses. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 62. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.401Google Scholar

Cortés Rodríguez, L. 1990. Usos anómalos del relativo en español hablado. Revista Española de Lingüística 20 (2): 431–46.Google Scholar

Coto-Solano, R., Molina-Muñoz, A. & Segura, A. G. 2016. Correlative structures in Bribri. In Sadlier-Brown, E., Guntly, E., & Weber, N., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas 20. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 43. 27–41. https://bit.ly/383hWlqGoogle Scholar

Craenenbroeck, J. van & Lipták, A. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9 (3): 248–74.Google Scholar

Crane, T. M., Hyman, L. M. & Tukumu, S. N. 2011. A Grammar of Nzadi (B.865): A Bantu language of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. 2006. Syntaxe générale: Une introduction typologique. 2 vols. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. 2009. Les relatives corrélatives: Le cas du malinké de Kita. Langages 174: 39–52.Google Scholar

Cresti, D. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122.Google Scholar

Cresti, D. 2000. Ellipsis and reconstruction in relative clauses. In Proceeding of NELS 30. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 153–62.Google Scholar

Crum, B. & Dayley, J. P. 1993. Western Shoshoni Grammar. Boise: Boise State University.Google Scholar

Csató, É. Á. & Uchturpani, M. A. 2010. On Uyghur relative clauses. Turkic Languages 14: 69–93.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. 2011. A reconsideration of English relative constructions. Constructions 2. https://bit.ly/380l4P9Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. 2013. Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English. In Culicover, P., ed., Explaining Syntax: Representations, structures and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 212–55.Google Scholar

Culy, C. 1990. The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses. PhD diss. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Czypionka, A., Dörre, L. & Bayer, J. 2018. Inverse case attraction: Experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21: 135–88.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, P. 1980. Questions and relative and complement clauses in a Bangla grammar, PhD diss. New York University.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, P. 2006. Unifying relativization and control in Bangla. In Banerjee, M. et al., eds., Felicitation Volume of Professor V.N. Jha. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. 138–70.Google Scholar

Daskalaki, E. 2005. The external category of free relatives: Evidence from modern Greek. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2: 87–107.Google Scholar

Daskalaki, E. 2011. Case mis-matching as Kase stranding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 17 (1): Article 10. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/10/Google Scholar

d’Avis, F. J. 2004. In front of the prefield – inside or outside the clause? In Lohenstein, H. & Trissler, S., eds., The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 139–77.Google Scholar

Davis, H. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’at’imcets (Lilloet Salish). In Papers from the 39th ICSNL. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers.Google Scholar

Davis, H. 2010. A unified analysis of relative clauses in St’át’imcets. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 4: 1–43. https://bit.ly/2ONBPFTGoogle Scholar

Davison, A. 2009. Adjunction, features and locality in Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu correlatives. In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223–62.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh-Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. 99–116.Google Scholar

Deal, A. R. 2016. Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 47: 427–70.Google Scholar

Declerck, R. 1981. Pseudo-modifiers. Lingua 54: 135–63.Google Scholar

Declerck, R. 1982. The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Linguistic Analysis 10: 1–26.Google Scholar

Dehghani, Y. 2000. A Grammar of Iranian Azari Including Comparisons with Persian. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2001. Appositives schmappositives in Chinese. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–25.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2002. Appositives and Chinese relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 1. The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 175–190.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the interface. PhD diss. University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2004. On prenominal relative clauses and appositive adjectives. In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A. & Rodriguez, A., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 182–94.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2005. Chinese relative clauses: Restrictive, descriptive or appositive? In Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G., eds., Contributions to the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. 287–305. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/757Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. In Dehè, N. & Kavalova, Y., eds., Parentheticals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 173–201.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2010. On Chinese appositive relative clauses. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 385–417.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2015. Appositives in Mandarin Chinese and cross-linguistically. In Li, A., Simpson, A. & Tsai, W.-T. D., eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. 73–99.Google Scholar

Del Gobbo, F. 2017. More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 49. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.14Google Scholar

Dékány, É. 2016. Relative clauses. Handout of a course at the Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG) School 2016. Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar

Demeke, G. 2001. N-final relative clauses: The Amharic case. Studia Linguistica 55: 191–215.Google Scholar

Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Demirok, Ö. 2017a. A compositional semantics for Turkish correlatives. In Zidani-Eroğlu, L., Ciscel, M. & Koulidobrova, E., eds., Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 79–90. https://bit.ly/3602NjbGoogle Scholar

Demirok, Ö. 2017b. Free relatives and correlatives in wh-in-situ. In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K., eds., Proceedings of NELS 47. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 271–84.Google Scholar

Demuth, K. & Harford, C. 1999. Verb raising and subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20: 41–61.Google Scholar

Depiante, M. 2000. The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

De Roberto, E. 2010. Le relative con antecedente in italiano antico. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar

de Sousa, H. 2006. The Menggwa Dla language of New Guinea. PhD diss. University of Sydney. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1341Google Scholar

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

Dik, S. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

Dikken, M. den 2005. A comment on the topic of topic-comment. Lingua 115: 691–710.Google Scholar

Dimova, E. 2014. A new look at multiple free relatives: Evidence from Bulgarian. Paper given at the 9th Slavic Linguistics Society Annual Conference, University of Washington, Seattle. 19–21 September. https://bit.ly/35QEhB0Google Scholar

Dimova, E. & Tellier, C. 2015. On multiple free relatives that are not. Paper presented at FDSL 11, Potsdam, 2–4 December. https://bit.ly/34LPEKoGoogle Scholar

Dimova, E. & Tellier, C. 2018. Bulgarian multiple wh relatives revisited. In Franks, S. L., Chidambaram, V., Joseph, B. D. & Krapova, I., eds., Katerino Mome: Studies in Bulgarian Morphosyntax in Honor of Catherine Rudin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. 79–91.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Doherty, C. 1993. Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. PhD diss. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Doherty, C. 1994. The syntax of subject contact relatives. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 55–65. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Dombrowski, A. 2012. Multiple relative marking in 19th century West Rumelian Turkish. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 79–90. https://bit.ly/2rN71vHGoogle Scholar

Donati, C. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & Corver, N., eds., Wh-movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 21–46.Google Scholar

Donati, C. & Cecchetto, C. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–60.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. 2004. A grammar of the Skou language of New Guinea. MS. National University of Singapore. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0012-7AAC-9Google Scholar

Doron, E. 1982. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum 19: 1–48.Google Scholar

Doron, E. & Reintges, C. H. 2006. On the syntax of participial modifiers. MS. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Douglas, J. 2015. Agreement (and disagreement) among relatives. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 33–60.Google Scholar

Douglas, J. 2016. The syntactic structures of relativization. PhD diss. University of Cambridge. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003182Google Scholar

Downing, B. T. 1973. Correlative relative clauses and universal grammar. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2: 1–17.Google Scholar

Downing, B. T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4. Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 375–418.Google Scholar

Dramé, M. 1981. Aspects of Mandingo grammar. PhD diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Dreyfuss, G. R. 1977. Relative clause structure in four Creole languages. PhD diss. University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 2005. Order of relative clause and noun. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B., eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 366–7.Google Scholar

Duncan, J. D. 2004. The syntax of headed restrictive relative clauses with special reference to Spanish. PhD diss. Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/2606Google Scholar

du Plessis, H. 1977. Wh movement in Afrikaans. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723–6.Google Scholar

Dwivedi, V. 1994a. Topicalization in Hindi and the correlative construction. In Butt, M., King, T. Holloway & Ramchand, G., eds., Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 91–118.Google Scholar

Dwivedi, V. 1994b. Syntactic dependencies and relative phrases in Hindi. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Dzameshie, A. K. 1995. Syntactic characteristics of Ewe relative clause constructions. Research Review (NS) 11: 27–42. https://bit.ly/364h7qZGoogle Scholar

Ebert, C., Endriss, C. & Gärtner, H.-M. 2007. An information structural account of German integrated verb second clauses. Research on Language and Computation 5: 415–34.Google Scholar

Ehrenkranz, J. & Hirschland, E. C. 1972. Latin relative clauses. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 23–9.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. 2013. Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–43.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Endriss, C. & Gärtner, H.-M. 2005. Relativische Verbzweitsätze und Definitheit. In D’Avis, F. J., ed., Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Teorie. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet. 195–220.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. 1980. Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency. In Jensen, J. T., ed., Cahiers Linguisticques D'Ottawa: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Department of Linguistics. 89–108.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. 151–74.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 51–79. https://bit.ly/363R6InGoogle Scholar

Enrico, J. 2003. Haida Syntax. Vol. 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. & Gould, I. 2016. Unifying Japanese relative clauses: Copy-chains and context-sensitivity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1): 51. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.174Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2014. Intervention in focus pied-piping. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E. & Rysling, A., eds., Proceedings of NELS 43. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 117–30.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2015a. The structure and interpretation of non-restrictive relatives: Evidence from relative pronoun pied-piping. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago : Chicago Linguistic Society. 149–63. http://hkotek.com/CLS51_Erlewine_Kotek_final.pdfGoogle Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2015b. Relative pronoun pied-piping in English non-restrictive relatives. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002700/Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. 1982. Extractability in Danish and the pragmatic principle of dominance. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. 175–91.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. & Lappin, S. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–85.Google Scholar

Espinal, M. T. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67 (4): 726–62.Google Scholar

Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–62.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–78.Google Scholar

Fachner, R. 1986. Der Relativsatz im Bambara. Arbeitspapier Nr. 50. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Cologne University. https://bit.ly/2reVbKKGoogle Scholar

Falk, Y. N. 2010. An unmediated analysis of relative clauses. MS. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~msyfalk/Relatives.pdfGoogle Scholar

Faltz, L. M. 1995. Towards a typology of natural logic. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B. H., eds., Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 271–319.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. 1986. On the sentential nature of prenominal adjectives in German. Folia Linguistica 20: 341–80.Google Scholar

Fedden, O. S. 2007. A grammar of Mian, a Papuan language of New Guinea. PhD diss. University of Melbourne. http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/2044Google Scholar

Feldman, H. 1986. A Grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Felix, S. W. 1985. Parasitic gaps in German. In Abraham, W., ed., Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. 173–200.Google Scholar

Felser, C. 1999. Verbal Complement Clauses: A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fiengo, R. & May, R. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fintel, K. von 1999. Amount relatives and the meaning of chains. MS. MIT. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-1999-amount.pdfGoogle Scholar

Fintel, K. von 2000. Whatever. Proceedings of SALT 10. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 27–39.Google Scholar

Fiorentino, G. 1999. Relativa debole. Sintassi, uso, storia in italiano. Pavia: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar

Fleischmann, L. 1981. Bine relativization. MS. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea. https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/31148Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. A. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–98.Google Scholar

Foley, S. 2013. The syntax of Georgian relative clauses. Honors thesis. New York University. https://bit.ly/2OLCqHRGoogle Scholar

Foley, W. A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Fontana, J. 1990. Is ASL like Diegueño or Diegueño like ASL? A study of internally headed relative clauses in ASL. In Lucas, C., ed., Sign Language Research. Theoretical Issues. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 238–55.Google Scholar

Fox, D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fox, D. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.Google Scholar

Fox, D. & Johnson, K. 2016. QR is restrictor sharing. In Kim, K. M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 1–16.Google Scholar

Fox, D. & Nissenbaum, J. 1999. Extraposition and scope. A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 132–44.Google Scholar