Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:49:07.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of Southern American English personal datives: An anti-locality account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Youssef A. Haddad
Youssef A. Haddad*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Squibs/Notules
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 403 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Al-Zahre, Nisrine and Boneh, Nora. 2010. Coreferential dative constructions in Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 2:248–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boneh, Nora and Nash, Léa. 2010. A higher applicative: Evidence from French. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 25, ed. Falk, Yehuda N.. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit and Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1986. Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, syntax and semantics 19, ed. Borer, Hagit, 175–215. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michal. 1996. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, ed. Thrainsson, Hoskuldur, 21–65. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michal, 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Riemskijk, Henk van, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conroy, Anastasia. 2007. The personal dative in Appalachian English as a reflexive pronoun. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 16, ed. Omaki, Akira, Ortega-Santos, Ivan, Sprouse, Jon and Wagers, Matthew, 63–88. College Park: University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria. Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina. 2005. On wh-head movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 21–46. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and Catherine, Mary O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64:501–38.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the anti-Locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2008. “I love me some him”: The landscape of non-argument datives. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7:169–192.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory ofconstrual: Generative syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie and Rezac, Milan. 2007. The French ethical dative: 13 syntactic tests. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 9:97–108.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Epstein, S.D. and Seely, T.D., 133–166. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1998. Bare X-Bar Theory and structures formed by movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29:160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan A.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23:261–303 Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002/2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya and Reuland, Eric, 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32:439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves and Troberge, Michelle. 2009. The high applicative syntax of the datives commodi/incommodi in Romance. Probus 21:249–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert and Dannenberg, Clare J.. 2006. Southern American English personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation. American Speech 81:31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar