Aissen, J. and Perlmutter, D.. 1983. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar I, 360–403. The University of Chicago Press.

Alsina, A. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, Ca.: CSLI Publications.

Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1997. Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Anderson, S. 1982. Where's morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.Google Scholar

Apresjan, Ju. D. 1967. Eksperimental'noe Issledovanie Semantiki Russkogo Glagola. Moscow: Nauka.

Apresjan, Ju. D. 1974. Leksičeskaja Semantika: Sinonimičeskie Sredstva Jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

Arad, Maya. 1995. On the projection of ditransitive verbs. University College of London Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 215–233.Google Scholar

Aranovich, Raúl and Runner, Jeffrey. 2001. Diathesis alternations and rule interactions in the lexicon. In Megerdoomiam, K. and Bar-el, L. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 20, 15–28. Stanford: The Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

Babby, L. H. 1974. Towards a formal theory of ‘part of speech’. In Brecht, R. and Chvany, C. (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax, 151–181. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Materials.

Babby, L. H. 1975a. A Transformational Grammar of Russian Adjectives. The Hague: Mouton.

Babby, L. H. 1975b. A transformational analysis of transitive -sja verbs in Russian. Lingua 35, 297–332.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1976. Review of Xolodovič, A. A. (ed.), Tipologija Passivnyx Konstrukcij: Diatezy i Zalogi. Language 52, 698–701.

Babby, L. H. 1978. Participles in Russian: attribution, predication, and voice. International Review of Slavic linguistics 3, 5–25.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1979. The syntax of gerunds in Russian. In Waugh, Linda and Coetsem, Frans (eds.), Contributions to Grammatical Studies, 1–41. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Babby, L. H. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Babby, L. H. 1983. The relation between causative and voice: Russian vs. Turkish. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 2, 61–88.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1986a. Departicipial adverbs in Russian. In Crone, A. L. and Chvany, C. V. (eds.), New Studies in Russian Language and Literature, 9–26. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Babby, L. H. 1986b. The locus of case assignment and the direction of percolation: case theory and Russian. In Brecht, R. and Levine, J. (eds.), Case in Slavic, 170–219. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Babby, L. H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 91–138.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1989. Subjectlessness, external subcategorization, and the projection principle. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 32(2), Novi Sad, 7–40 (reprinted in Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2002).Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1993a. A theta-theoretic analysis of -en- suffixation in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1, 3–44.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1993b. Hybrid causative constructions: benefactive causative and adversity passive. In Comrie and Polinsky 1993, 343–367.

Babby, L. H. 1994a. Case theory. In Otero, C. P. (ed.), Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments, Vol. I: Linguistics (tome II), 630–652. London: Routledge.

Babby, L. H. 1994b. Nestandartnye strategii vybora padeža, zadavaemogo sintaksičeskim kontekstom. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2, 43–75.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1994c. A theta-theoretic analysis of adversity impersonal sentences in Russian. In Avrutin, S., Franks, S., and Progovac, L. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The MIT Meeting, 25–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 1996. Inflectional morphology and theta role suppression. In Toman, J. (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The College Park Meeting, 1–34. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 1997a. Nominalization, passivization, and causativization. Die Welt der Slaven 42, 201–251.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 1997b. Nominalization in Russian. In Browne, W. (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 4: The Cornell Meeting (1995), 54–83. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 1998a. Subject control as direct predication: evidence from Russian. In Bošković, Ž, Franks, S., and Snyder, S. (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Appoaches to Slavic Linguistics (the Connecticut Meeting 1997), 17–37. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 1998b. Adjectives in Russian: primary vs. secondary predication. In Dziverek, K., Coats, H. and Vakareliyska, C. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting, 1–16. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 1999. Adjectives in Russian: primary vs. secondary predication. In Dziwerek, K., Coats, H., and Vakareliyska, C. (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting (1998), 1–16. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 2001. The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In Franks, S.et al. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 9 (The Bloomington Meeting), 39–55. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 2002. Author's preface to reprint of Subjectlessness, external subcategorization, and the projection principle (= Babby 1989). Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10 (1–2), 341–388.Google Scholar

Babby, L. H. 2005. Argument structure, case, double object syntax. In Franks, S.et al. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The South Carolina Meeting, 27–41. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Babby, L. H. 2006. Transitivity and antitransitivity. In Rothstein, Robert A., Scatton, Ernest, and Townsend, Charles E. (eds.), Studia Caroliensia, 13–26. Bloomington, Ind.: Slavica Publishers.

Babby, L. H. 2008. Prolegomenon to any future typology of impersonal sentences in Russian. In Gerdts, D., Moore, J., and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B: Papers in Honor of David M. Perlmutter. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Babby, L. H. and Franks, S.. 1998. The syntax of adverbial participles in Russian revisited. Slavic and East European Journal 42, 483–515.Google Scholar

Babyonyshev, M. 1996. Structural Connections in Syntax and Processing: Studies in Russian and Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Bach, E. and Partee, B. H.. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman, Jody and Ojeda, Almerindo E. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, 1–28. Chicago Linguistics Society.

Bailyn, J. 1995a. A Configurational Approach to Russian “Free” Word Order. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Bailyn, J. 1995b. Underlying phrase structure and “short” verb movement in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3, 13–58.Google Scholar

Bailyn, J. 2001. The syntax of Slavic predicate case. In Jager, G.et al. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 22, 1–23.

Bailyn, J. 2006. Against the scrambling anti-movement movement. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kutktchieva, M., and Filip, H. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Princeton Meeting, 35–49. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–415.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1988a. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353–389.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1988b. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. The University of Chicago Press.

Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman 1997a, 73–137.

Baker, M. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.

Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge University Press.

Baltin, M. and Collins, C.. 2001. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Birjulin, A. B. 1994. Semantika i Sintaksis Russkogo Impersonala: Verba Meterologica i ix Diatezy (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae, Band 102). Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.

Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge University Press.

Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational Grammar. London: Routledge.

Bobaljik, J. D. 2001. The implications of rich agreement: why morphology doesn't drive syntax. In Megerdoomiam, K. and Bar-el, L. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 20, 82–95. Stanford: The Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

Borer, Hagit. 2001. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer and Zwicky 2001, 151–190.

Bošković, Z. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bowers, J. 1981. The Theory of Grammatical Relations. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.

Bowers, J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar

Bowers, J. 2001. Predication. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bowers, J. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 183–224.Google Scholar

Bowers, J. 2006. Arguments as relations. Cornell University manuscript.

Bowers, J. 2007. Argument categories. Handout from the Workshop on Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations, University of the Basque Country Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, May 23, 2007.

Bowers, J. and Reichenbach, U.. 1979. Montague grammar and transformational grammar: a review of Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Linguistic Analysis 2, 195–245.Google Scholar

Brecht, R. and Chvany, C. (eds.). 1974. Slavic Transformational Syntax. Michigan Slavic Materials 10. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Bresnan, J. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J., and Miller, G. (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Relaity, 1–59. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bresnan, J. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 3–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Brody, M. and Manzini, M. R.. 1990. On implicit arguments. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representations, 105–130. Cambridge University Press.

Bulaxovskij, L. A. 1954. Russkij Literaturnyj Jazyk Pervoj Poloviny XIX Veka. Moscow: Učpedgiz.

Butt, M. and King, T. H.. 2000. Argument Realization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bylinskij, K. I. and Rozental', D. E.. 1961. Literaturnoe Redaktirovanie. Moscow: “Isskustvo.”

Channon, R. 1979. The status of 3–2 advancement in Russian. In Clyne, P., Hanks, W., and Hofbaur, C. (eds.), Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 53–59. Chicago Linguistics Society.

Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Co.

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

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Laka, Itziar and Mahajan, Anoop (eds.), Functional Heads and Clause Structure, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, B. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chvany, C. 1975. On the Syntax of BE-sentences in Russian. Cambridge, Mass.: Slavica.

Cinque, G. 1980. On the extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 1, 47–99.Google Scholar

Clark, R. 1990. Thematic Theory in Syntax and Interpretation. London: Routledge.

Comrie, B. 1974. The second dative: a transformational approach. In Brecht, R. and Chvany, C. (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax, 123–150. Ann Arbor: Michigan University.

Comrie, B. 1980. Nominalization in Russian: lexical noun phrases or transformed sentences. In Chvany, C. and Brecht, R. (eds.), Morphosyntax in Slavic, 212–220. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Comrie, B. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 309–48. Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. The University of Chicago Press.

Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (eds.). 1993. Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cook, W. A. 1989. Case Grammar Theory. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

Corbett, G., Fraser, N., and McGlashan, S. (eds.). Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Cowper, Elizabeth. 1992. A Concise Introduction to Syntactic Theory. The University of Chicago Press.

Culicover, Peter. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford University Press.

Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R.. 2003. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 493–512.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. and Wilkins, W.. 1986. Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle. Language 62, 120–153.Google Scholar

Zalogi, Diatezy i. 1975. Tezisy konferencii “Strukturno-tipologičeskie metody v sintaksise raznosistemnyx jazykov” (21–23 oktjabrja 1975 goda). Akademija Nauk (Leningradskoe Otdelenie), Institut Jazykoznanija: Leningrad.

DiSciullo, A. M. and Williams, E.. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Dolinina, I. B. 1990. Zalog i diateza: kriterii razgraničenija. In Klimov, V. V. (ed.), Soprjažennost' glagol'nyx kategorij. 56–67. Leningrad: Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Jazykoznanija AN SSSR.

Dubinsky, S.et al. 2000. Functional projections and predicates: experimental evidence from coordinate structure processing. Syntax 3, 182–214.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Groat, E. M., Kawashima, R., and Kitahara, H.. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford University Press.

Ferrell, P. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford University Press.

Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–89. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Franks, S. 1985. Matrices and Indices: Some Problems in the Syntax of Case. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.

Franks, S. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.

Franks, S. and Hornstein, N.. 1992. Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO. In Larson, R., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U., and Higginbotham, J. (eds.), Control and Grammar, 1–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Franks, S. and Lavine, J.. 2006. Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42, 239–288.Google Scholar

Freidin, R. 1975. The analysis of passives. Language 51, 384–405.Google Scholar

Giorgi, A. and Longobardi, G.. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge University Press.

Glovinskaja, M. Ja. 1996. Aktivnye processy v grammatike. In Zemskaja, E. A. (ed.), Russkij Jazyk Konca XX Stoletija (1985–1995), 237–302. Moscow: “Jazyki Russkoj Kul'tury.”

Graudina, L. K., Ickovič, V. A., and Katlinskaja, L. P.. 1976. Grammatičeskaja Pravil'nost' Russkoj Reči. Moscow: Nauka.

Greenberg, G. 1983. Another look at the second dative and dative subjects. Linguistic Analysis 11, 167–218.Google Scholar

Greenberg, G. 1996. Developments in linguistic theory: the analysis of gerunds and infinitives in Russian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics39–40, 66–102.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279–326.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. 2005. Words and Structure. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.

Guasti, M. T. 1997. Romance causatives. In Haegeman 1997b, 124–144.

Haegeman, L. 1995. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Haegeman, L. (ed.). 1997a. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Haegeman, L. 1997b. The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman.

Hale, Ken and Keyser, Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Harves, S. 2002. Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. PhD Dissertation, Princeton University.

Hinterhölzl, L. 2001. Semantic constraints on case assignment in secondary adjectival predicates in Russian. In Jager, G.et al. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22, 99–112.

Hoffman, M. C. 1991. The Syntax of Argument-structure-changing Morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

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

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., and Grohmann, K.. 2006. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.

Ickovič, , 1982. Očerki Sintaksičeskoj Normy. Moscow: Nauka.

Isačenko, A. V. 1963. Transformacionnyj analiz kratkix i polnyx prilagatel'nyx. In Mološnaja, T. N. (ed.), Issledovanija po Strukturnoj Tipologii, 61–93. Moscow: Izd. Akademii Nauk USSR.

Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–671.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 369–411.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587–622.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1957 = 1984. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Waugh, L. and Halle, M. (eds.), Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies, 41–58. Berlin: Mouton.

Junghanns, U. and Zubatow, G.. 1997. Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In Browne, W., Dornisch, E., Kondrashova, N., and Zec, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting, 289–319. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Kamynina, A. A. 1980. O sintaksičeskoj svjazi deepričastij v sovremennom ruskom jazyke. In Krasnyx, V. E. (ed.), Problemy Učebnika Russkogo Jazyka kak Inostrannogo: Sintaksis, 296–305. Moscow: “Russkij Jazyk.”

Keenan, E. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject.” In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.

Keenan, E. 1985. Passive in the world's languages. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure, 243–281. Cambridge University Press.

Keyser, S. and Roeper, T.. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381–416.Google Scholar

Klaiman, M. H. 2005. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge University Press.

Klein, E. H. and Sag, I. A.. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 163–201.Google Scholar

Kozinskij, I. Š. 1983. O Kategorii “Podležaščee” v Russkom Jazyke. Moscow: Institut Russkogo Jazyka AN SSSR.

Kozinskij, I. Š. 1985. Koreferentnye svjazi infinitivnyx oborotov v russkom jazyke. In Xrakovskij, V. S (ed.), Tipologija Konstrukcij s Predikatnymi Aktantami, 112–116. Leningrad: Nauka.

Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.). Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–136. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kubík, M. 1982. Russkij Sintaksis v Sopostavlenii s Češskim. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladelství.

Kustova, G. I., Mišina, K. I., and Fedoseev, V. A.. 2005. Sintaksis Sovremennogo Russkogo Jazyka. Moscow: Academa.

Lapteva, O. A. 2003. Živaja Russkaja Reč' s Teleèkrana. Moscow: URSS.

Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–392.Google Scholar

Larson, R. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 103–139.Google Scholar

Larson, R., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U., and Higginbotham, J. (eds.). 1992. Control and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J.. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

Laurencot, E. 1997. On secondary predication and null case. In Lindseth, M. and Franks, S. (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (the Indiana meeting), 191–206. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Lavine, J. 1997. A lexicalist perspective of valency changing operations in Russian and Czech. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 68, 5–34.Google Scholar

Lavine, J. A. 2000. Topics in the Syntax of Nonagreeing Predicates in Slavic. Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University.

Lavine, J. and Freidin, R.. 2002. The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10 (1–2), 251–287.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. 1986. The interpretation of derived nominals. In Farley, A. M., Farley, P. T., and McCullogh, K. E. (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society 22, 231–247.Google Scholar

Lees, R. B. 1966. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.

Levin, B. and Rappaport-Hovav, M.. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua 92, 35–77.Google Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport-Hovav, M.. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Levin, B. and Rappaport-Hovav, M.. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press.

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. The University of Chicago Press.

Livšic, V. A. 1964. Praktičeskaja Stilistika Russkogo Jazyka. Moscow: Vysshaja Shkola.

Lomtev, T. P. 1954. Iz Istorii Sintaksia Russkogo Jazyka. Moscow: Uchpedgiz.

Mairal, R. and Gil, J.. 2006. Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.

Marantz, A. P. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Marantz, A. P. 1995. The minimalist program. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 349–381. Oxford: Blackwell,.

Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and subject position. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Mel'čuk, I. A. 1980. Animacy in Russian cardinal numerals and adjectives as an inflectional category. Language 56, 797–811.Google Scholar

Mel'čuk, I. A. and Xolodovič, A. A.. 1970. K teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga. Narody Azii i Afriki 4: 111–24.Google Scholar

Mixajlov, M. S. 1961. K voprosu ob aberracii zaloga v tureckom glagole. In Baxudarov, S. G., Baskakov, N. A., and Reformackij, A. A. (eds.), Voprosy Sostavlenija Opisatel'nyx Grammatik, 211–232. Moscow: Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press.

Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Moro, A. 2008. The Boundaries of Babel: The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Munn, Alan 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.

Neidle, C. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Nichols, J. 1981. Predicate Nominals: A Partial Surface Syntax of Russian. University of California Publications in Linguistics, 97. University of California Press.

Nunes, M. L. 1993. Argument linking in English derived nominals. In Valin, R. D. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 375–432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Odijk, J. 1997. C-selection and s-selection. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 365–371.Google Scholar

Padučeva, E. V. 1974. O Semantike Sintaksisa: Materialy k Transformacionnoj Grammatike Russkogo Jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Papangeli, Dimitra. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Argument Realization: Greek Argument Structure and the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. Utrecht: LOT Publishers.

Payne, T. E. 2006. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge University Press.

Perlmutter, D. (ed.) 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. The University of Chicago Press.

Perlmutter, D. and Moore, J.. 2002. Language-internal explanation: the distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78: 619–650.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.) 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. The University of Chicago Press.

Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Petter, M. 1998. Getting PRO under Control. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Pinker, S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Pylkkanen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Rappaport, G. 1980. Deixis and detachment in the adverbial participles in Russian. In Chvany, C. V. and Brecht, R. D. (eds.), Morphosyntax in Slavic, 273–300. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Rappaport, G. 1984. Grammatical Function and Syntactic Structure: The Adverbial Participle in Russian. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, Beth. 1992. -er nominals: implications for the theory of argument structure. In Stowell, T. and Wehrli, E. (eds.), Syntax and the Lexicon, 127–153. Syntax and Semantics, 26. New York: Academic Press.

Roberts, I. G. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.

Roberts, I. G. 1988. Predicate APs. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 703–710.Google Scholar

Rosen, C. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. II, 38–77. University of Chicago Press.

Rothstein, S. 1985. The Syntactic Form of Predication. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Rothstein, S. 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rozental', D. E. 1967. Spravočnik po Pravopisaniju i Literaturnoj Pravke. Moscow: “Kniga.”

Rozwadowska, B. 1988. Thematic restrictions of derived nominals. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic Relations, 147–165. Syntax and Semantics, 21. New York: Academic Press.

Ruwet, N. 1991. Syntax and Human Experience. Edited and translated by Goldsmith, J.. The University of Chicago Press.

Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.). 2001. Morphology and argument structure. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 206–236. Oxford: Blackwell.

Safir, K. 1987. The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 561–601.Google Scholar

Schein, B. 1982. Non-finite complements in Russian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 217–244.Google Scholar

Seuren, P. (ed.) 1974. Semantic Syntax. Oxford University Press.

Siegel, M. 1976. Capturing the Russian adjective. In Partee, B. (ed.), Montague Grammar, 293–309. New York: Academic Press.

Siewierska, A. 1988. The passive in Slavic. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Passive and Voice, 243–289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sigurdsson, H. A, 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 327–363.Google Scholar

Slioussar, N. 2005. Some properties of Russian scrambling. In Asbury, A., Brasileiro, I., and Mahanta, S. (eds.), Yearbook 2005: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, 81–95. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.

Sobin, N. J. 1985. Case assignment in Ukrainian morphological passive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 649–662.Google Scholar

Speas, M. J. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold. 2001. Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Spenser, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Spinčak, Ja. A. 1960. Očerk Russkogo Istoričeskogo Sintaksisa. Kiev: Radjanska Shkola.

Stepanov, Ju. S. 1981. Imena, Predikaty, Predloženija. Moscow: Izd. “Nauka.”

Stowell, T. 1981. The Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Stowell, T. 1992. The role of the lexicon in syntactic theory. In Stowell, T. and Wehrli, E. (eds.), Syntax and the Lexicon, 9–20. Syntax and Semantics, 26. New York: Academic Press.

Švedova, N. Ju. 1948. Vozniknovenie i rasprostranenie predikativnogo upotreblenija člennyx prilagatel'nyx v russkom literaturnom jazyke XV–XVII vv. Doklady i Soobščenija Instituta Russkogo Jazyka 1, 102–126. Izd. Akademii Nauk USSR.Google Scholar

Švedova, N. Ju. 1952. Polnye i kratkie formy imen prilagatel'nyx v sostave skazuemogo v sovremennon russkom literaturnom jazyke. Učenye zapiski MGU 150, 73–132.Google Scholar

Švedova, N. Ju and Lopatin, V. V.. 1989. Kratkaja Russkaja Grammatika. Moscow: “Russkij Jazyk.”

Taraldsen, T. 1986. On the distribution of nominative objects in Finnish. In Muysken, P. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Features and Projections, 139–161. Dordrecht: Foris.

Thomason, S. G. 1976. Some extensions of Montague Grammar. In Partee, Barbara H. (ed.), Montague Grammar, 75–117. New York: Academic Press.

Timberlake, A. 1974. The nominative object in north Russian. In Brecht, R. D. and Chvany, C. V. (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax, 219–243. Michigan Slavic Materials, 10. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

Timberlake, A. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge University Press.

Tolstoj, E. V. 1966. Leksiko-grammatičeskie i stilističeskie osobennosti polnyx i kratkix prilagatel'nyx v funkcii imennogo sostavnogo skauemogo. In Abramovic, A. V.et al. (eds.), Voprosy Stilistiki, 166–181. Moscow: Izd. MGU.

Ura, H. 2001. Case theory. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 547–570. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wechsler, K. 1995. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications.

Williams, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.Google Scholar

Williams, E. 1985. PRO and the subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 297–315.Google Scholar

Williams, E. 1987. English as an ergative language: the theta structure of derived nouns. In Need, B., Schiller, E., and Bosch, A. (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society 23, 366–375.

Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Williams, E. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 111–130.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Xolodovič, A. A. 1974. Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij: diatezy i zalogi. Leningrad: Nauka.

Xrakovskij, V. S. 1978. Problemy Teorii Grammatičeskogo Zaloga. Leningrad: Nauka.

Xrakovskij, V. S. 1979. Diathesis. Acta linguistica academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 29, 289–307.Google Scholar

Xrakovskij, V. S. 1981. Zalogovye konstrukcii v raznostrukturnyx jazykax. Leningrad: Nauka.

Xrakovskij, V. S. 1990. Rol' zaloga i padeža pri markirovke izmenenija diatez. In Klimov, V. V. (ed.), Soprjažennost' glagol'nyx kategorij, 112–124. Kalinin University.

Xrakovsky, V. S., Mal'čukov, A. L., and Dmitrenko, S. Ju. (eds.). 2004. 40 Let Sankt-Peterburgskoj Tipologičeskoj Škole. Moscow: Znak.

Yip, M., Maling, J., and Jackendoff, R.. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63, 217–250.Google Scholar

Zubizarreta, M. L. 1985. The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. Linguisic Inquiry 16, 247–289.Google Scholar

Zubizarreta, M. L. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.