Abe, Jun. 1999. On directionality of movement: A case of Japanese right dislocation. Ms., Nagoya University.Google Scholar

Abe, Jun. 2015. Two types of Japanese right dislocation under the bi-clausal analysis. Paper presented at Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 11, University of York, 4–6 June.Google Scholar

Abe, Jun. 2016. Against the “repair by ellipsis” approach: The case of Japanese multiple right dislocation. In Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG) 18, 3–16. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar

Ahn, Hee-Don. 2012. Cokakmwun yenkwu [Studies on Fragments]. Seoul: Hankuk Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar

Ahn, Hee-Don, and Cho, Sungeun. 2015. Right dislocation vs. fragment: A reply to Ko (2014). Studies in Generative Grammar 25: 427–46.Google Scholar

Ahn, Hee-Don, and Cho, Sungeun. 2016. A uniform analysis of right dislocation: A reply to Ko (2016). Language Research 52(2): 213–45.Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Dayal, Veneeta. 2007. Rightward scrambling as rightward remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valentina, Bianchi, and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2004. Edge coordinations: Focus and conjunction reduction. In Tsoulas, George, Adger, David, and de Cat, Cicile, eds., Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 313–28.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 249–87.Google Scholar

Cho, Jai-Hyoung. 1994. Scrambling in Korean: Crossover, reconstruction and binding theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1987. Successive-cyclic rightward movement in Korean. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 2. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 40–56.Google Scholar

Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Choi, Jaeyoung. 2008. Economy in rightward movement. Unpublished MA thesis, SNU.Google Scholar

Choi, Youngju. 2006. Base-generated right-dislocation. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 11. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 387–400.Google Scholar

Choi, Youngsik. 2012. Argument negative polarity items redux. Studies in Modern Grammar 68: 113–36.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, R. et al., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2008. Agree but not necessarily at the same time. Studies in Generative Grammar 18: 509–24.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2009. An elliptical coordination analysis of the right dislocated construction in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 17(4): 1–23.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2010. Replies to Lee (2009): In defense of a double clause approach to the right dislocated construction in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 61: 167–96.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2011. A constituency-based explanation of syntactic restrictions on Korean predicates. Linguistic Research 28(1): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2012. Pre- vs. post-verbal asymmetries and the syntax of Korean right dislocated construction. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(4):703–21.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2015. Some notes on Ko’s (2014b, 2015) hybrid approach to the Korean RDC. Studies in Generative Grammar 25(3): 735–54.Google Scholar

Chung, Daeho. 2016. On what determines the modification relation in Korean adnominal adjunct RDCs. Linguistic Research 33(3): 351–70.Google Scholar

Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiss, Katalin. 2010. Structural focus and exhaustivity. In Zimmermann, M. and Fery, C., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–88.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–69.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectivity: Implications for the LF interface. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiraiwa, Ken, and Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2012. Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax 15(2): 142–80.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Im, Hongbin, and Chang, Sowon. 1995. Kukemwunpeplon 1 [Korean Grammar 1]. Seoul: Korea Broadcasting University Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kim, Kwang-sup. 1999. A paradox in Korean NPI licensing. Studies in Generative Grammar 9:403–28.Google Scholar

Kim, Rhanghyeyun. 2013. On the negativity of negative fragment answers and ellipsis resolution. Studies in Generative Grammar 23:171–97.Google Scholar

Kim, Sun-Woong, and Hong, Yong-Tcheol. 2013. Hanging topic, pseudo right dislocation, and (pseudo) fragment answers. Talk presented at Dongguk University, December 7, 2013.Google Scholar

Kim, Sun-Woong, and Park, Myung-Kwan. 2010. Parallel linearization: A thought on afterthought. The Journal of Studies in Linguistics 26(3): 459–80.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2014a. Edges in Syntax: Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2014b. Remarks on right dislocation construction in Korean: Challenges to bi-clausal analyses. Language Research 50(2): 275–310.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2015a. Two ways to the right: A hybrid approach to right-dislocation in Korean. Language Research 51(1): 3–40.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2015b. Types of right dislocation: Copies, adjuncts, and fragments in syntax. Paper presented at the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 11, University of York, June 4–6, 2015.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2016. Gapless right-dislocation: The role of overt correlates. Language Research 52: 1–30.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2017. Right dislocation: Copies vs. fragments. In Halpert, Claire, Kotek, Hadas, and van Urk, Coppe, eds., A Pesky Set: A festschrift for David Pesetsky, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 253–62.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2018. Scrambling in Korean syntax. In Aronoff, Mark, ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong, and Choi, Jaeyoung. 2009. Rightward movement and output economy. In Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG) 11, 247–55. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1998. On rightward movement in Turkish. In Johanson, L., ed., The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 107–23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish. In Sabel, Joachim and Saito, Mamoru, eds., The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163–80.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Danwa-no Bunpo [Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar

Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 498–519.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Kund. 2001. Dislocation. In Haspelmath, Martin, ed., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook Vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1050–78.Google Scholar

Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2009. The structure of Korean afterthought constructions [written in Korean]. Emwunyenkwu 142: 31–54.Google Scholar

Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2010. Some notes on Korean after-thought constructions [written in Korean]. Studies in Generative Grammar 59: 119–32.Google Scholar

Lee, Chung-Hoon. 2013. Why are WH-afterthoughts impossible? [written in Korean]. Studies in Modern Grammar 72: 105–19.Google Scholar

Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2007. Deriving SOV from SVO in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 15: 1–20.Google Scholar

Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2008. Notes on right dislocated constructions in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 16: 47–68.Google Scholar

Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2009. A verb-initial single clause analysis of right-dislocated constructions in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 57: 1270.Google Scholar

Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2013. Replies to Chung (2012): On pre- vs. post-verbal asymmetries in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 23: 171–97.Google Scholar

Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2016. Right dislocated elements and fragments in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 26(2): 115–41.Google Scholar

Lee, Wooseung. 2009. The role of case-marked noun phrase in clause structure building. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar

Lee, Wooseung. 2010. The architecture of right dislocation constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar 20: 521–43.Google Scholar

Lidz, Jeffrey. 1999. The morphosemantics of object case in Kannada. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 325–36.Google Scholar

Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1988. Scrambling, weak crossover and binding. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA [recited from Mahajan 1997].Google Scholar

Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A’-distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1997. Rightward scrambling. In Beerman, Dorothee et al., eds., Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–213.Google Scholar

Manetta, Emily. 2012. Reconsidering rightward scrambling: Postverbal constituents in Hindi-Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 43–74.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–44.Google Scholar

Ott, Dennis, and de Vries, Mark. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 641–90.Google Scholar

Pak, Miok D. 2008. Types of clauses and sentence end particles in Korean. Korean Linguistics 14(1): 113–56.Google Scholar

Park, Bum-Sik. 2005. Island-insensitive fragment answers in Korean. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 317–25.Google Scholar

Park, Bum-Sik, and Kim, Hyosik. 2016. Case-drop, left-branch extraction and multiplicity in the right-dislocation construction. Linguistic Research 33(2): 259–97.Google Scholar

Park, Bum-Sik, and Sei-Rang, Oh. 2017a. On the island-(in)sensitivity in the right-dislocation construction in Korean. The Journal of Linguistic Science 83: 135–53.Google Scholar

Park, Bum-Sik, and Sei-Rang, Oh. 2017b. On the nature of the gap in the gapped RDC. Studies in Generative Grammar 27(4): 735–78.Google Scholar

Park, Myung-Kwan. 2012. Left branch extraction in fragment and truncated cleft construction in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(1): 219–33.Google Scholar

Park, Myung-Kwan. 2013. On amwuto “anyone” and its kin in Korean: Their status and licensing as a fragment answer. Studies in Generative Grammar 23: 171–97.Google Scholar

Park, Myung-Kwan, and Kim, Sun-Woong. 2009. The syntax of afterthoughts in Korean: Move and delete. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 17: 25–53.Google Scholar

Park, So-Young. 2013. Polarity mismatches in Korean fragments. Studies in Generative Grammar 23(4): 867–81.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N., eds., Wh-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 97–133.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. Cartography, criteria, and labeling. In Shlonsky, Ur, ed., Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–38.Google Scholar

Ross, John. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Baltin, M. and Kroch, A., eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 182–200.Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long-distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 1999. Japanese postposing involves no movement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Lancaster.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter, and Kim, Shin-Sook. 2006. Korean NPIs scope over negation. Language Research 42(2): 275–97.Google Scholar

Seo, Saetbyol. 2017. The syntax of jussives: Speaker and hearer at the syntax-discourse interface. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University.Google Scholar

Simpson, Andrew, and Choudhury, Arunima. 2015. The nonuniform syntax of postverbal elements in SOV languages: Hindi, Bangla, and the rightward scrambling debate. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3): 533–51.Google Scholar

Sohn, Keun-Won. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope, and economy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Takano, Yuji. 2007. Making rightward scrambling possible. In Kawano, Y. and Takahashi, H., eds., Kinjo gakuin daigaku ronshu [Studies in Humanities] Vol. 3. Nagoya, Japan: Kinjo Gakuin University, pp. 17–58.Google Scholar

Takano, Yuji. 2014. A comparative approach to Japanese postposing. In Saito, M., ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–80.Google Scholar

Takita, Kensuke. 2011. Argument ellipsis in Japanese right dislocation. In McClure, W. and den Dikken, M., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 380–91.Google Scholar

Takita, Kensuke. 2014. Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic constructions. Lingua 140: 137–57.Google Scholar

Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2001. Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551–79.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation: MIT occasional papers in linguistics 2. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 559–612.Google Scholar

Whitman, John. 2000. Right dislocation in English and Japanese. In Takami, et al., eds., Syntactic and Functional Exploration: In Honor of Susumu Kuno. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, pp. 445–70.Google Scholar

Yamashita, Hideaki. 2011. An(other) argument for the “repetition” analysis of Japanese right dislocation: Evidence from distribution of thematic topic -wa. In McClure, W. and den Dikken, M., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 410–22.Google Scholar

Yim, Changguk. 2013. Bi-clausal evidence for right dislocation in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 23(1): 25–39.Google Scholar

Yoon, James Hye Suk. 2013. Implications of constraints on null constituents for analyses of the right dislocation construction. Paper presented at the Department of English Colloquium, Dongguk University.Google Scholar

Yoon, James. 2016. Implications of constraints on null constituents for analyses of the right dislocation construction. In Kenstowicz, Mike, Levin, Ted, and Masuda, Ryo, eds., Japanese-Korean Linguistics 23. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Yoon, James, and Lee, Wooseung. 2005. Conjunction reduction and its consequences for noun phrase morphosyntax in Korean. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei, eds., West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 379–87.Google Scholar

Yun, Suyeon. 2013. Post-verbal arguments in Korean: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, Sun. 1977. Korean reflexive pronoun caki and its referent NP’s point of view. Language Research 13: 35–48.Google Scholar

Cho, Mi-Hui. 1994. On the orientation problem in Korean “caki” binding and the typology of X reflexive binding. In Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 165–83.Google Scholar

Choe, Hyon-Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A transformational approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C.-T.. 2001. Long-distance reflexives: The state of the art. In Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C-T, eds., Syntax and Semantics: Long-Distance Reflexives Vol. 33. New York: Academic Press, pp. xiii–xlvii.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and Sung, Li-May. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1–22.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter, and Sung, Li-May. 1994. Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 355–406.Google Scholar

Cooper, Robin M. 1974. The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory and language processing. Cognitive Psychology 6: 84–107.Google Scholar

Crain, Stephen, and Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations into Universal Grammar: A Guide to Research in Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gill, Kook-Hee. 1999. The long-distance anaphora conspiracy: The case of Korean. In Alexander, Jim, Han, Na-Rae, and Fox, Michelle Minnick, eds., Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Vol. 6.1 of U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 171–183. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Han, Chung-hye, Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan, Leung, Betty Hei Man, and Kim, Kyeong-min. 2015. The time course of long-distance anaphor processing in Korean. Korean Linguistics 17: 1–32.Google Scholar

Hermon, Gabriella. 1992. Binding theory and parameter setting. The Linguistic Review 9: 145–81.Google Scholar

Hong, Sungshim. 1985. A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government-binding parameters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar

Kaiser, Elsi, Runner, Jeffrey T., Sussman, Rachel S., and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2009. Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition 112: 55–80.Google Scholar

Kang, Beom-Mo. 2001. The grammar and use of Korean reflexives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6: 134–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Kang, Nam-Kil. 2000. Reflexives and the Linking Theory in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Kanno, Kazue. 1997. The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research 13: 265–87.Google Scholar

Kim, Eunah, Kim, Myeong Hyeon, and Yoon, James H.. 2013. An experimental investigation of online and offline binding properties of Korean reflexives. In Giriko, Mikio, Kanzaki, Kyoko, Nagaya, Naonori, and Takemura, Akiko, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kim, Ji-Hye, Montrul, Silvina, and Yoon, James. 2009. Binding interpretation of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 16: 3–35.Google Scholar

Kim, Ji-Hye, and Yoon, James H.. 2008. An experimental syntactic study of binding of multiple anaphors in Korean. Journal of Cognitive Science 9: 1–30.Google Scholar

Kim, Ji-Hye, and Yoon, James H.. 2009. Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean – An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua 119: 733–55.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyeong-min, and Han, Chung-hye. 2016. Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, Patrick and Patel Grosz, Pritty, eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation, Studies in Generative Grammar series. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–72.Google Scholar

Kim, Soo-Yeon. 2000. Acceptability and preference in the interpretation of anaphors. Linguistics 38: 315–53.Google Scholar

Koak, Heeshin. 2008. A morpho-syntactic approach to pronominal binding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 227–40.Google Scholar

Lee, Chungmin. 1973. Abstract syntax and Korean with reference to English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Indiana.Google Scholar

Madigan, Sean. 2006. Exhaustive and partial control in Korean: Long-distance caki as an overt form of PRO. In Kuno, Susumu, Lee, Ikhwan, Whitman, John, Maling, Joan, Kang, Young-Se, Sells, Peter, and Sohn, Hyang-Sook, eds., Havard Studies in Korean Linguistics XI,. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 642–55.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–41.Google Scholar

Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73: 770–97.Google Scholar

O’Grady, William. 1987. The interpretation of Korean anaphora: The role and representation of grammatical relations. Language 63: 251–77.Google Scholar

Park, Sung-Hyuk. 1986. Parametrizing the theory of binding: The implications of caki in Korean. Language Research 22: 229–53.Google Scholar

Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In McDonough, Joyce and Plunkett, Bernadette, eds., Proceedings of NELS 17, Vol. 2. Amherst: GLSA, pp. 483–99.Google Scholar

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

Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–79.Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann. 1986. Moods and (long-distance) reflexives in Icelandic. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. Linguistics Department, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sohng, Hong-Ki. 2004. A minimalist analysis of X⁰ reflexivization in Chinese and Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 14: 375–96.Google Scholar

Suh, Jinhee. 1990. Scope phenomena and aspects of Korean syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., and Sedivy, J. E.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632–4.Google Scholar

Thráinsson, Höskulder. 1992. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster, Jan and Reuland, Eric, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–75.Google Scholar

Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1989. Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their cross-linguistic implications. In Wiltshire, Caroline, Graczyk, Randolph, and Music, Bradley, eds., Papers from the 25th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 479–95.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian. 2010. On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals. In Alexiadou, Artemis and Rathert, Monika, eds., The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 9–38.Google Scholar

An, Duk-Ho. 2014. Genitive case in Korean and its implications for noun phrase structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 361–92.Google Scholar

Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Barker, Chris. 1998. Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 74: 694–727.Google Scholar

Busa, Federica. 1996. Compositionality and the semantics of nominals. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar

Busa, Federica. 1999. The semantics of event-based nominals. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick, ed., Predicative Forms in Natural Language and in Lexical Knowledge Bases. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 349–74.Google Scholar

Cho, Young-Mee Yu, and Sells, Peter. 1995. A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 119–74.Google Scholar

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

Han, Eunjoo. 1994. A prosodic analysis of Korean compounding. In Kim-Renaud, Young-Key, ed., Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar

Ihm, H., Hong, K., and Chang, S.. 2001. Korean Grammar for International Learners. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar

Kim, Shin-Sook, and Sells, Peter. 2017. Noun-modifying constructions in Korean. In Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter, eds., Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins, pp. 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84(2): 258–99.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1988. Nonevent -er nominals: A probe into argument structure. Linguistics 26: 1067–83.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Martin, Samuel. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.Google Scholar

Nishiyama, Yuji. 2016. Complement-taking nouns. In Kageyama, Taro and Kishimoto, Hideki, eds., Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 631–64.Google Scholar

Ono, Naoyuki. 2013. Two modes of argument selection in nominals. In Frellesvig, Bjarke and Sells, Peter, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 413–28.Google Scholar

Ono, Naoyuki. 2016. Agent nominals. In Kageyama, Taro and Kishimoto, Hideki, eds., Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 599–629.Google Scholar

Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna, eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 111–30.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

de Swart, Henriette, Winter, Yoad, and Zwarts, Joost. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 195–222.Google Scholar

Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Linguistik Actuell 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M., eds., Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–80.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., and Grimshaw, J.. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. In Schäfer, Florian, ed., Working Papers of the SFB 732. Incremental Specification in Context 1: 1–16.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Moore, J. C. and Polinsky, M., eds., The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 31–67.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense Vol II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. 2018. Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations. Glossa 3(1): 102.1–25.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar

Fabregas, A., and Marin, R.. 2012. The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages. Journal of Linguistics 48: 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fu, J., Roeper, T., and Borer, H.. 2001. The VP within process nominal: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–82.Google Scholar

Göksel, A. 2015. Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 68: 359–94.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar

Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Jay Keyser, S., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar

Harley, H. 2009a. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M., eds., Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 320–42.Google Scholar

Harley, H. 2009b. Compounding in distributed morphology. In Lieber, R. and Stekauer, P., eds., Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–44.Google Scholar

Harley, H., and Noyer, R.. 1998. Mixed nominalizations: Short verb movement and object shift in English. Northeast Linguistic Society 28: 143–58.Google Scholar

Hong, K-S. 1999. Nonhang phankyel-uy kicwun: hankwuke-uy tongsaseng pokhap.e [A test for argumenthood: Verbal compounds in Korean]. Inmwun Nonchong 42: 85–103.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. 2003. The etiology of adjunct islands. Nordlyd 31(1): 187–215.Google Scholar

Kaiser, L. 1998. The morphosyntax of clausal nominalization constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar

Kim, C-S. 1996. Kwuke-uy Tane Hyengseng-kwa Tane Kwuco Yenkwu [Word Formation and Word Structure in Korean]. Monograph 21. Seoul: Thayhaksa.Google Scholar

Kim, M-K. 2004. Kwuke cepsa -um, -ki-ey uyhan tan.e hyengseng yenkwu [A study of word formation by the Korean suffixes -um, -ki]. Ph.D. dissertation, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar

Kim, S-S., and Sells, P.. The morphosyntax of person-denoting nominals. In Cho, S. and Whitman, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ko, Y-K. 1989. Kwuke Hyengthaylon Yenkwu. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar

Lawrenz, B. 2006. Moderne deutsche Wortbildung: Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen: Linguistichse Untersuchung und sprachdidaktiche Behandlung (Philologia 91). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar

Lees, R. B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–25.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, S-H., ed., Phases in the Theory of Grammar. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co, pp. 191–222.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. 2008. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Lewis, W. D., Karimi, S., Harley, H., and Farrar, S. O., eds., Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives in Formal Linguistics in Honor of D. Terence Langendoen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar

Pafel, J. 2015. Phrasal compounds and the morphology-syntax relation. In Trips, C. and Kornfilt, J., eds., Further Investigations into the Nature of Phrasal Compounding. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 233–59.Google Scholar

Park, C-W. 2013. Nominal and clausal grounding of Korean verbal nouns. Linguistics 51: 1361–95.Google Scholar

Park, C-W., and Park, B.. 2017. Cognitive grammar and English nominalizations: Event/result nominal and gerundives. Cognitive Linguistics 28: 711–56.Google Scholar

Ramchand, G. 2009. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roy, I., and Soare, E.. 2012. Naming participants in the eventuality. Manuscript, University of Paris 8.Google Scholar

Sato, Y. 2010. Complex phrase structures within morphological words: Evidence from English and Indonesian. Lingua 120: 379–407.Google Scholar

Shi, C-K. 1998. Kwuke-uy Tane Hyengseng Wenli [Principles of Word Formation in Korean]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa.Google Scholar

Shi, C-K. 2015. Word formation. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J., eds., Handbook of Korean Linguistics. London: Wiley, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar

Trips, C., and Kornfilt, J.. 2015. Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish, and Turkic. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 68: 281–322.Google Scholar

Yoon, J. 1996a. Nominal gerund phrases in English as phrasal zero derivations. Linguistics 43: 329–56.Google Scholar

Yoon, J. 1996b. A syntactic account of category-changing phrasal morphology: Nominalizations in Korean and English. In Ahn, H. et al., eds., Morphosyntax in Generative Grammar. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 63–86.Google Scholar

Yoon, J. 2017. Lexical integrity and suspended affixation in two types of Korean denominal predicates. Glossa 2(1): 45.1–45.Google Scholar

Yoon, J., and Park, C.. 2003. Process nominals and morphological complexity. In Hudson, M. Endo et al., eds., Japanese-Korean Linguistics 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 231–42.Google Scholar

Barkley, C., Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 2015. Referential processing in the human brain: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) study. Brain Research 1629: 143–59.Google Scholar

Berwick, R., and Weinberg, A.. 1982. Parsing efficiency, computational complexity, and the evaluation of grammatical theories. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 165–91.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. M., and Kaplan, R. M.. 1982. Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. In Bresnan, J., ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cai, Z., Sturt, P., and Pickering, M.. 2013. The effect of non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 1286–311.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Waters, G.. 1998. Effects of syntactic structure and prepositional number on patterns of regional blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 541–52.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Waters, G.. 1999. PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9: 343–51.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., Waters, G., and Olivieri, A.. 2000. Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping 9: 65–71.Google Scholar

Carminati, M. N. 2002. The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Carminati, M. N. 2005. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115: 259–85.Google Scholar

Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., and Dunlap, S.. 2008. Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object relative clauses. Acta Psychologia 129: 61–5.Google Scholar

Chen, E., West, C., Waters, G., and Caplan, D.. 2006. Determinants of bold signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 42: 591–604.Google Scholar

Choi, K. 2010. Subject honorification in Korean: In defense of Agr and head-spec agreement. Language Research 46: 59–82.Google Scholar

Choo, M. 1994. A unified account of null pronouns in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar

Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., and Phillips, C.. 2014. Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 27.Google Scholar

Cohen, L., and Mehler, J.. 1996. Click monitoring revisited: An online study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24: 94–102.Google Scholar

Constable, R. T., Pugh, K. R., Berroya, E., Mencl, W. E., Westerveld, M., Ni, W., and Shankweiler, D.. 2004. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 22: 11–21.Google Scholar

Cooke, A., Zurif, E. B., DeVita, C., Alsop, D., Koenig, P., Detre, J., Gee, J., Pinãngo, M., Balogh, J., and Grossman, M.. 2002. Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammatical and short-term memory components. Human Brain Mapping 15: 80–94.Google Scholar

Coulson, S., King, J. W., and Kutas, M.. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W., and Jakendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493–512.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R.. 2006. Turn over control to the semantics. Syntax 9: 131–52.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.Google Scholar

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D.. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–72.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 427–73.Google Scholar

Fraunfelder, U., Segui, J., and Mehler, J.. 1980. Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 328–37.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 519–59.Google Scholar

Frazier, L., and Clifton, C.. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 93–126.Google Scholar

Frazier, L., and Rayner, K.. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210.Google Scholar

Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C.. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 161–87.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A. P., Miyashita, Y., and O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., and Wu, I.. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 125–55.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., and Ko, K.. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 313–54.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M.. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 1411–23.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 58–90.Google Scholar

Hale, J. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 159–66.Google Scholar

Hale, J. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30: 609–42.Google Scholar

Han, C. H. 2013. On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58: 319–47.Google Scholar

Han, C. H., and Kim, J. B.. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–37.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammar. Language 75: 244–85.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heider, P., Dery, J., and Roland, D.. 2014. The processing of object relative clauses: Evidence against a fine-grained frequency account. The Journal of Memory and Language 75: 58–76.Google Scholar

Holmes, V. M., and O’Regan, J. K.. 1981. Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 417–30.Google Scholar

Hong, S. 1985. A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government-binding parameters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

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

Hsiao, F., and Gibson, E.. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90: 3–27.Google Scholar

Huang, C-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Theory 15: 531–73.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W. F., and Thulborn, K. R.. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274: 114–16.Google Scholar

Kang, Y. S. 1986. Korean syntax and universal grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Kaplan, T. I., and Whitman, J.. 1995. The category of relative clauses in Japanese, with reference to Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 29–58.Google Scholar

Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C.. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar

Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kennison, S. M., Fernandez, E. C., and Bowers, J. M.. 2009. Processing differences for anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns: Implications for theories of discourse processing. Discourse Processes 46: 25–45.Google Scholar

Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., and Tomasello, M.. 2007. Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 860–97.Google Scholar

Kim, J. B. 2015. Grammatical interfaces in Korean honorification: A constraint-based perspective. Language and Information 19: 19–36.Google Scholar

Kim, J. B., and Sells, P.. 2008. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 303–36.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. J. 2000. Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 325–51.Google Scholar

King, J., and Just, M. A.. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 580–602.Google Scholar

King, J., and Kutas, M.. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 376–95.Google Scholar

Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 1993a. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbound dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 196–214.Google Scholar

Kluender, R., and Kutas, M.. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633.Google Scholar

Kuno, S. 1972. Sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar

Kutas, M., and Hillyard, S. A.. 1983. Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition 11: 539–50.Google Scholar

Kwon, N. 2008. Processing of syntactic and anaphoric gap-filler dependencies in Korean: Evidence from self-paced reading time, ERP and eye-tracking experiments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2013. Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 377–87.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2014. The use of control information in dependency formation: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 73: 59–80.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2016. Attraction effects in honorific agreement in Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01302 [last accessed September 24, 2020].Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Monahan, P., and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Object control in Korean: A backward control impostor. In Hornstein, Norbert and Polinsky, Maria, eds., Movement Theory of Control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 299–328.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language 89: 537–85.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Polinsky, M., and Kutas, M.. (In preparation). The processing of syntactic vs. anaphoric referential dependencies in Korean: Evidence from reading times and ERPs.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P. C., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86: 546–82.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1968. Pronouns and Reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–77.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S.. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29: 1–45.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L. Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. A.. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 447–54.Google Scholar

Lin, C. J. (In press). Subject prominence and processing filler-gap dependencies in prenominal relative clauses: The comprehension of possessive relative clauses and adjunct relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Language.Google Scholar

Lin, C. J., and Bever, T. G.. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 254–60.Google Scholar

Lin, Y. 2010. Comprehending Mandarin relative clauses: Ambiguity, locality, and expectation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, IL.Google Scholar

Lin, Y., and Garnsey, S.. 2007. Plausibility and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In Proceedings of The Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Liversedge, S. P., and Van Gompel, R. P. G.. Manuscript. Resolving anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns.Google Scholar

MacDonald, M. C., and Christiansen, M. H.. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109: 35–54.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B., and Pleh, C.. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29: 95–141.Google Scholar

Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H.. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 50–68.Google Scholar

Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., and Friederici, A. D.. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23: 477–94.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, A. 1983. Backward anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 129–39.Google Scholar

Miyamoto, E. T., and Nakamura, M.. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In Garding, G. and Tsujimura, M., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd WCCFL. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 342–55.Google Scholar

Müller, H. M., King, J. W., and Kutas, M.. 1997. Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research 5: 193–203.Google Scholar

Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., and Mangun, G. R.. 1993. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 335–44.Google Scholar

Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., and Kutas, M.. 1998. When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature 395: 71–3.Google Scholar

Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Foster, K. I., and Garnett, M. F.. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence form event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 151–65.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. 2011. Relative clauses: Processing and Acquisition. In Kidd, Evan, ed., The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Functional and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., and Mobley, L. A.. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–73.Google Scholar

Pablos, L., Doetjes, J., Ruijgrok, B., and Cheng, L. L. S.. 2015. Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1638.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. 1996. Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82: 795–823.Google Scholar

Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., and Abada, S. H.. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–28.Google Scholar

Reali, F., and Christiansen, M. H.. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 1–23.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Roder, B., and Hennighausen, E.. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 150–76.Google Scholar

Qiao, X., Shen, L., and Forster, K.. 2012. Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 611–30.Google Scholar

Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kuhn, K.. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 499–520.Google Scholar

Sohn, H. M. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics 2: 2–19.Google Scholar

Sohn, H. M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stowe, L. A. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1: 227–45.Google Scholar

Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Rauch, S.. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52: 452–73.Google Scholar

Sturt, P., and Kwon, N.. 2015. The processing of raising and nominal control: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6 [online].Google Scholar

Traxler, M., Morris, R., and Seely, R.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from the eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 69–90.Google Scholar

Ueno, M., and Garnsey, S. M.. 2006. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 646–88.Google Scholar

Van Gompel, R. P. G. and Liversedge, S. P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 128–39.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., and Guo, G.. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006 [last accessed September 4, 2020]..Google Scholar

Wanner, E., and Maratsos, M.. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J., and Miller, G., eds., Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 119–61.Google Scholar

Yang, D. W. 1987. Theory of barriers and relativization. Language Research 23: 1–37.Google Scholar

Yang, H. K. 1990. Categories and barriers in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar