Abbeduto, L. and Rosenberg, S. (1985). Children’s knowledge of the presuppositions of know and other cognitive verbs. Journal of Child Language, 12(3), 621–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aboh, E. (2004). The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: towards a grammaticality based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141–165.Google Scholar

Aguado, G. (2000). El desarrollo del lenguaje de 0 a 3 años. Madrid: CEPE.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–31.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aissen, J. and Perlmutter, D. (1983). Clause reduction in Spanish. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in relational grammar 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 360–403.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary acts and sentence meanings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Amaral, L. and Leandro, W. (2013). The acquisition of the relativizer ‘–uraz’ in Wapichana (and other recursive structures). Paper presented at Recursion in Brazilian Languages and Beyond 2013, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar

Ambridge, B., Pine, J., and Lieven, E. (2013). Child language acquisition: why universal grammar does not help. Perspectives: Online Section of Language, 90(3), e53–e90.Google Scholar

Anchieta, J. (1990). Arte da gramática da língua mais usada na costa do Brasil (fac-simile, 1595). São Paulo: Loyola.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 273–312.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A. and Lancelot, C. (1660). Grammaire générale et raisonnée contenant les fondemens de l’art de parler, expliqués d’une manière claire et naturelle. (J. Rieux and B. Rollin, trans., 1975). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. and Fuhrhop, N. (2002). Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20(3), 451–490.Google Scholar

Arsenijević, B. (2009). Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua, 119(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arsenijević, B. and Hinzen, W. (2012). On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(3), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Augusto, M. R. A., Corrêa, L. M. S., and Forster, R. (2012). An argument for DPs as phases in an integrated model of on-line computation: the immediate mapping of complex DPs with relative clauses. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem – ReVEL. Special issue, n. 6.Google Scholar

Backscheider, A. and Shatz, M. (1993). Children’s acquisition of the lexical domain of color. In Beals, K. et al. (eds.), What we think, what we mean, and how we say it: papers from the parasession on the correspondence of conceptual, semantic, and grammatical representations, CLS 29 (vol. 2). Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society, 11–21.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: theory and practice (revised edition). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language. Charlotte: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. (1953). On recursive definitions in empirical science. Proceedings of 11th International Congress of Philosophy, 5, 160–165.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1984). Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics, 50(3), 255–271.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (2006). Tucanoan languages. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edition). Oxford: Elsevier, 130–142.Google Scholar

Basilico, D. (1996). Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language, 72(3), 498–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayer, J. (1999). Final complementizer in hybrid languages. Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berwick, R. C. and Chomsky, N. (2015). Why only us: language and evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., and Bolhuis, J. J. (2013) Evolution brain and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(2), 89–98.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I. (2014). A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(2), 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, B. (2007). Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bisetto, A. (2010). Recursiveness and Italian compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 7(1), 14–35Google Scholar

Bjorkman, B. M. (2011). A syntactic correlate of semantic asymmetries in clausal coordination. Presented at: 41st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. October 22–24.Google Scholar

Bloom, L. M., Lightbown, P., and Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(2), 1–97.Google Scholar

Bloom, L., Rispoli, M., Gartner, B., and Hafitz, J. (1989). Acquisition of complementation. Journal of Child Language, 16(1),101–120Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 491–504.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. and Thráinsson, H. (1998). Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1), 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In Booij, G. et al. (eds.), Morphology: an international handbook on inflection and word formation (vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boole, G. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities. London: Macmillan. Reprinted with corrections, New York: Dover Publications, 1958.Google Scholar

Bopp, F. (1816). Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt: Andreae, K. J. Windischmann. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1975.Google Scholar

Brown, C. and Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brown, R. W. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. W. and Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley, 11–21.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: state of the art. In Gleitman, L. and Wanner, E. (eds.), Language acquisition: state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 347–389.Google Scholar

Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Pyatt, E. (2000). VSO order as raising out of IP? Some evidence from Old Irish. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–60.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1993). Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua, 90(1), 27–48.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: Ablex, 35–53.Google Scholar

Chen-Main, J. (2005). Characteristics of Mandarin imperatives. In Brandstetter, C. and Rus, D. (eds.), Georgetown Working Papers in Linguistics 4. Washington, DC: Georgetown Dept of Linguistics, 1–15.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Manuscript, Harvard University. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 2(2), 137–167.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1–54.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors of language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H. (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–30.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge: MIT Press, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2012). The science of language: interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J. et al. (eds.), Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research (vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 506–569.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. (1958). Finite state languages. Information and Control, 1(2), 91–112.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (vol. 2). New York: Wiley, 269–321.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (2005). What fronts? On the VP-raising account of verb-initial order. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley-Colburg, S. (eds.), Verb first: studies in predicate initial languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–30.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (2006). Properties of VOS languages. In Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H., Goedemans, R., and Hollebrandse, B. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 685–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. (2006a). Restructuring and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2006b). Two types of appositives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 7–56.Google Scholar

Clements, W. A. and Perner, J. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development, 9(4), 377–395.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Speer, S., and Abney, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: phrase structure and argument structure determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 251–271.Google Scholar

Cole, P. (1987) The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(2) 277–302.Google Scholar

Collins, C. and Branigan, P. (1997). Quotative inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, B. (1983). Switch-reference in Huichol: a typological study. In Haiman, J. and Munro, P. (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–37.Google Scholar

Condoravdi, C. and Lauer, S. (2010). Imperatives and public commitments. Handout of talk presented at the 11th Annual Semantics Fest. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Condoravdi, C. and Lauer, S. (2011). Performative verbs and performative acts. In Reich, I., Horch, E., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 15, Saarbrücken: Saarland Unversity Press, 149–164.Google Scholar

Condry, K. and Spelke, E. (2008). The development of language and abstract concepts: the case of natural number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(1), 22–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Coon, J. (2010). VOS as predicate-fronting in Chol. Lingua, 120, 345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corballis, M. (2007). The uniqueness of human recursive thinking. American Scientist, 95(3), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corballis, M. (2011). The recursive mind: the origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Corrêa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative account of children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(3), 183–203.Google Scholar

Corrêa, L. M. S. and Augusto, M. R. A. (2007). Computação linguística no processamento on-line: soluções formais para a incorporação de uma derivação minimalista em modelos de processamento. Cadernos de Estudos Linguistics (UNICAMP), 49(2), 167–183.Google Scholar

Corrêa, L. M. S. and Augusto, M. R. A. (2011). Possible loci of SLI from a both linguistic and psycholinguistic perspective. Lingua, 121(3), 476–486.Google Scholar

Corrêa, L. M. S., Augusto, M. R. S. and Marcilese, M. (2009). Resumptive pronouns and passives in the production of object relative clauses: circumventing computational cost. Presentation. 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Davis, CA: March 26–28.Google Scholar

Cowart, W. and McDaniel, D. (2012). What kind of a thing is a coordinate? Qualitative comparison of agreement relations in coordinate and subordinate sentences. In Myers, J. (ed.), Grammar and evidence. Taipei: Language and Linguistics Monograph Series 48.Google Scholar

Cram, D. and Maat, J. (eds.) (2001). George Dalgarno on universal language: the art of signs (1661), the deaf and dumb man’s tutor (1680), and the unpublished papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. (1990). Entities and indices, No. 41 in studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Crnič, L. and Trinh, T. (2009). Embedding imperatives in English. In Riester, A. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 13. Stuttgart: OPUS, 113–127.Google Scholar

Crocker, M. W. (2009). Computational psycholinguistics. In Clark, A., Fox, C., and Lappin, L. (eds.), The handbook of computational linguistics and natural language processing. London: Blackwell, 482–513.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 195–217.Google Scholar

Culy, C. (1990). The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19(1–2), 130–146.Google Scholar

Davis, H., Gillon, G., and Matthewson, L. (2014). How to investigate linguistic diversity: lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Language, 90(4), 180–226Google Scholar

DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33–52.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. (1996). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, A. M. (2015). On the domain specificity of the human language faculty and the effects of principles of computational efficiency. Revista LinguíStica, 11(1), 57–70.Google Scholar

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

Diesing, M. (1996). Semantic variables and object shift. In Epstein, S. D. and Thráinsson, H. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax (vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 66–84.Google Scholar

Diesing, M. (1997). Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(2), 369–427.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a usage based approach to the development of grammatical constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97–141.Google Scholar

Dobson, R. (1980). Clause patterns in Kayabi. Brasília: Sociedade Internacional de Linguística (SIL).Google Scholar

Dobson, R. (1988). Aspectos da língua Kayabi. Brasília: SIL.Google Scholar

Dobson, R. (1990). Textos Kayabi. Brasília: Sociedade Internacional de Linguística (SIL).Google Scholar

Dobson, R. (1997). Gramática prática com exercícios da língua Kawaiwete. Brasília: Sociedade Internacional de Linguística (SIL).Google Scholar

Dobson, R. (2005). Aspectos da língua Kayabi. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística (SIL).Google Scholar

Dollaghan, C. and Campbell, T. (1998) Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 41(5), 1136–1146.Google Scholar

Dooley, R. (2006). Léxico Guarani, dialeto Mbyá com informações úteis para o ensino médio, a aprendizagem e a pesquisa linguística. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística.Google Scholar

Dooley, R. A. (2016). Léxico Guarani, Dialeto Mbyá – com informações úteis para o ensino médio, a aprendizagem e a pesquisa linguística. Brasília: Associação Internacional de Linguística/SIL Brasil.Google Scholar

Doron, E. (2000). VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. modern Hebrew. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The syntax of verb-initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duarte, F. B. (2005). Realização de traços de tempo nos D/NPs em Tenetehára. 53rd Seminar of Grupo de Estudos Linguísticos. UFSCAR, São Carlos.Google Scholar

Duarte, F. B. (2007). Studies in Tenetehára morphosyntax. Belo Horizonte, MG: Fale-UFMG Press.Google Scholar

Duarte, F. B. (2012). Tenetehára: a predicate fronting language. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 57(3) 359–386.Google Scholar

Eisenbeiss, S. (2000). The acquisition of the DP in German. In Rizzi, L. and Friedemann, M. A. (eds.), The acquisition of syntax: studies in comparative developmental linguistics. London: Longman, 27–62.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, S., Ukrainetz, T., Hsu, J., Kaderavek, J., Justice, L., and Gillam, R. (2008) Noun phrase elaboration in children’s spoken stories. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Epps, P. (2005). Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: evidence from Hup. Studies in Language, 29(3), 617–649.Google Scholar

Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (1986). Pirahã. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (vol. 1). Berlin: de Gruyter, 200–325.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (1991). A língua Pirahã e a teoria da sintaxe: descrição, perspectivas e teoria. Campinas, São Paulo: Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (2008). Don’t sleep, there are snakes: life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (2009). Pirahã culture and grammar: a response to some criticisms. Language, 85(2), 405–442.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (2012). Language: the cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Everett, K. (1990). Pirahã-English dictionary. Manuscript. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Faller, M. (2007). Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Faller, M. (2011). A possible worlds semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials. In Li, N. and Lutz, D. (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. Cornell University: CLC Publications, 660–683.Google Scholar

Faria, A. (2004). Ordem oracional e movimento de clítico de segunda posição em Kayabi. Master’s Thesis. Unicamp.Google Scholar

Fedden, S. (2011). A grammar of Mian. (vol. 55). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Fernandez-Duque, D. (2009). Cognitive and neural underpinnings of syntactic complexity. In Givon, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.), Syntactic complexity: diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 433–460.Google Scholar

Ferreiro, E., Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, H. and Sinclair, H. (1976). How do children handle relative clauses? Archives de Psychologie, 44, 229–266.Google Scholar

Finer, D. L. (1984). The formal grammar of switch-reference. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Fitch, T. (2010). Three meanings of “recursion”: key distinctions for biolinguistics. In Larson, R., Déprez, V., and Yamakido, H. (eds.), The evolution of human language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 73–90.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. and Garrett, M. F. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 2(7), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, M. (1983). A method of obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22(2), 203–218.Google Scholar

França, A. I., Lemle, M., Cagy, M., Constant, P., and Infantosi, A. F. C. I. (2004). Discriminating among different types of verb-complement merge in Brazilian Portuguese: an ERP study of morphosyntactic subprocesses. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(6), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franchetto, B. (2010). The ergativity effect in Kuikuro (Southern Carib, Brazil). In Gildea, S. and Queixalós, F.. (eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 121–158.Google Scholar

Frank, R. (2006). Phase theory and tree adjoining grammar. Lingua, 116, 145–202.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., and Zwicky, A. (eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–189.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D. and Brauer, J. (2009). Syntactic complexity in the brain. In Givón, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.), Syntactic complexity: diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 491–506.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D., Bahlmann, J., Friedrich, R., and Makuuchi, M. (2011). The neural basis of recursion and complex syntactic hierarchy. Biolinguistics, 5(1–2), 87–104.Google Scholar

Friedmann, N. and Costa, J. (2010). The child heard a coordinated sentence and wondered: on children’s difficulty in understanding coordination and relative clauses with crossing dependencies, Lingua, 120(6), 1502–1515.Google Scholar

Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67–88.Google Scholar

Fujimori, C. (2010). Acquisition of recursive possessives in Japanese. Master’s Thesis. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Gayraud, F. and Martinie, B. (2008). Does structural complexity necessarily imply processing difficulty? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(1), 21–31Google Scholar

Gentile, S. (2003). On the acquisition of left-branching recursive possessives. Bachelor’s Honors Thesis. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

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

Gibson, E. and Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: the perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. (1982). Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(2), 81–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. and Laks, B. (2016). Battle in the mind fields. Available at http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/battle/Google Scholar

Gomes, N. (2002). Observações sobre o Kayabi: a variação da ordem e os clíticos de 2a posição. Master’s Thesis. UFRJ.Google Scholar

Gomes, N. (2007). Clíticos, redobro e variação da ordem oracional em Kaiabi (Tupi-Guarani). Ph.D. Dissertation. UFRJ.Google Scholar

Gomez-Imbert, E. (2007). La vue ou l’ouïe: la modalité cognitive des langues Tukano orientales. In Guentchéva, Z. and Landaburu, J. (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Leuven: Peeters, 65–86.Google Scholar

Gomez-Imbert, E. (2011). La famille tukano. In Bonvini, E., Busuttil, J., and Peyraube, A. (eds.), Dictionnaire des langues du monde. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1454–1460.Google Scholar

González de Pérez, M. S. and Rodríguez de Montes, M. L. (eds.). (2000). Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: una visión descriptiva. Santa Fe, Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar

Gorbet, L. (1976). Diegueño relative clauses. In Gorbet, L. P. (ed.) A grammar of diegueño nominals. New York: Garland Pub.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(6), 1411–1423.Google Scholar

Graffi, G. (2015). Some reflections on the notion of recursion. In Busà, M. G. and Gesuato, S. (eds.), Lingue e contesti: studi in onore di Alberto M. Mioni. Padova: Coop. Libraria Editrice Università di Padova, 447–456.Google Scholar

Grano, T. (2012). Control and restructuring at the syntax-semantics interface. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago.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. London: MIT Press, 73–113.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Grillo, N. (2009). Generalized minimality: feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119(10), 1426–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimm, J. and Grimm, W. (1812–1815). Kinder- und Hausmärchen. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Y. (1989). Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses. Brain and Language, 37(3), 480–499.Google Scholar

Gu, C. (2008). Structural ambiguity and AP/PP recursion in language acquisition. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Haan, F. de (2001a). The place of inference within the evidential system. International Journal of American Linguistics, 67(2), 193–219.Google Scholar

Haan, F. de (2001b). The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. In Cienki, A., Luka, B. J., and Smith, M. B. (eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 91–106, 222.Google Scholar

Hale, K. (1975). Gaps in grammar and culture. In Kinkade, M. D., Hale, K. L., and Werner, O. (eds.), Linguistics and anthropology: in honor of C.F. Voegelin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–315.Google Scholar

Hale, K. (1976). The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In Dixon, R. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 78–105.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. Cambridge: MIT Press, 53–109.Google Scholar

Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from building 20. Cambridge: MIT Press, 111–176.Google Scholar

Hamburger, H. and Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 245–273.Google Scholar

Han, C. (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Harder, P. (2010). Over the top – recursion as a functional option. In van der Hulst, H., Koster, J., and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Recursion and human language. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 233–244.Google Scholar

Harley, H. (2008). On the causative construction. In Miyagawa, S. and Saito, M. (eds.), Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–53.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. (2006). Moral minds: how nature designed a universal sense of right and wrong. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Healey, P. M (1966). Levels and chaining in Telefol sentences. In Wurm, S. A. (ed.), Pacific linguistics, series B, no. 5. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hernández Pina, F. (1984) Teorías psicolingüísticas y su aplicación a la adquisición del español como lengua materna. Madrid: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar

Hintz, D. J. and Hintz, D. M. (2014). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua, 88–109, 186–187.Google Scholar

Hiraga, M. (2010). Acquisition of recursive verbal compound nouns. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B. (2000). The acquisition of sequence of tense. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B. (2007). A special case of wh-extraction in child language. Lingua, 117(11), 1897–1906.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B. (2010). Van enkelvoudige inbedding naar meervoudige inbedding: een tegelzetters-probleem? In Honor of Jan Koster. TABU 38ste jaargang 2009/2010. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B. and Roeper, T. (2007). Recursion and propositional exclusivity. Presentation at Recursion in Human Languages conference, April 27–29. Normal: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B. and Roeper, T. (2014). Empirical results and formal approaches to recursion in acquisition. In Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (eds.), Recursion: complexity in cognition. Dordrecht: Springer, 179–219.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B., Hobbs, K., de Villiers, J., and Roeper, T. (2008). Second order embedding and second order false belief. In Gavarró, A. and Freitas, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of generative approaches to language acquisition. GALA 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 270–280.Google Scholar

Hollebrandse, B., van Hout, A., and Hendriks, P. (2014). Children’s first and second-order false-belief reasoning in a verbal and a low-verbal task. Synthese, 191(3), 321–333.Google Scholar

Holmer, A. (2005). Seediq: Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley-Colburg, S. (eds.), Verb first: studies in predicate initial languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 175–202.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2009). A theory of syntax: minimal operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hualde, J. I. and Ortiz de Urbina, J. (2003). A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y., Spelke, E., and Snedeker, J. (2010). When is four far more than three? Children’s generalization of newly acquired number words. Psychological Science, 21(4), 600–606.Google Scholar

Huang, Y., Spelke, E., and Snedeker, J. (2013). What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development, 9(2),105–129.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der (2010). Re recursion. In van der Hulst, H., Koster, J., and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Recursion and human language. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, i–liii.Google Scholar

Hunsicker, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: building nominal constituents in homesign. Language, 88(4), 732–763.Google Scholar

Hunyadi, L. (2010) Cognitive grouping and recursion in prosody. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Recursion and human language. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 343–370.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1913). Logical investigations (published as Logische Untersuchungen, 2nd edition). Halle: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Jacobsen, W. (1967). Switch-reference in Hokan-Coahuiltec. In Hymes, D. H. and Bittle, W. E. (eds.), Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 238–263.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Jakubowicz, C. (2003). Computational complexity and the acquisition of functional categories by French-speaking children with SLI. Linguistics, 41(2), 175–211.Google Scholar

Jakubowicz, C. (2011). Measuring derivational complexity: new evidence from typically developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua, 121(3), 339–351.Google Scholar

Joshi, A. (2014). Recursion in language: is it indirectly constrained? In Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (eds.), Recursion: complexity in cognition. New York: Springer, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katz, J. and Postal, P. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, A. and Kaufman, S. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children (2nd edition). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. (2011). Interpreting imperatives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. (2014). Embedded imperatives across languages: Too rare to expect, too frequent to ban. Colloquium, Department of Linguistics, SUNY Stony Brook.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. (1976). Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 246–301.Google Scholar

Kendall, M. B. (1974). Relative clause formation and topicalization in Yavapai. International Journal of American Linguistics, 40(2), 89–101.Google Scholar

Kidd, E., Stewart, T., and Serratrice, L. (2009). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: the role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, A. and Gilley, P. (2013). Neural mechanisms of rapid sensitivity to syntactic anomaly. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 45.Google Scholar

Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2(1), 15–47.Google Scholar

Klem, M., Melby-Lervag, M., Hagtvet, B., Lyster, S., Gustafsson, J., and Hulme, C. (2015). Sentence repetition is a measure of children’s language skills rather than working memory limitations. Developmental Sciences, 18(1), 146–154.Google Scholar

Koster, J. (2000). Recursion and the lexicon. In Van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Recursion and human language. New York: De Gruyter, 285–298.Google Scholar

Krapova, I. (2009). Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lingua, 120(5),1240–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2013). Modality and the semantics of embedding. Slides from presentation at the Amsterdam Colloquium, December 2013.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (2014). Embedding illocutionary acts. In Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (eds.), Recursion: complexity in cognition (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 43). Berlin: Springer, 125–155.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205.Google Scholar

Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163.Google Scholar

Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, wh-movement and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 99–119.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (1988). Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(2), 530–544.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1986). Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Paper from the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Available at: https://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/frame-semantic-control-of-the-coordinate-structure-constraint-lakoff-1986.pdfGoogle Scholar

Landau, B. and Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Landau, I. (2000). Elements of control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar

Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(4): 811–877.Google Scholar

Lander, Y. A. and Letuchiy, A. B. (2010). Kinds of recursion in Adyghe morphology. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Recursion and human language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 263–284.Google Scholar

Landin, D. (1984). An outline of the syntactic structure of Karitiana sentences. In Dooley, R. (ed.), Estudos sobre línguas Tupi do Brasil. Brasilia: SIL, 219–254.Google Scholar

Langdon, M. and Munro, P. (1979). Subject and (switch-)reference in Yuman. Folia Linguistica, 13, 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langendoen, T., McDaniel, D., and Langsam, Y. (1989). Preposition-phrase attachment in noun phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(6), 533–548.Google Scholar

Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2011). What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In Di Scullo, A. M. and Boecks, C. (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–365.Google Scholar

Lau, E., Holcomb, P., and Kupperberg, G. (2012). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(3), 484–502.Google Scholar

Lau, E., Phillips, C., and Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933.Google Scholar

Lauer, S. (2013). Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Le Corre, M. and Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: an investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition, 105(2), 395–438.Google Scholar

Leandro, W. and Amaral, L. (2014). The interpretation of multiple embedded genitive constructions by Wapichana and English speakers. Linguistica, 10(2), 149–162.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (2000). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Legate, J. A., Pesetsky, D., and Yang, C. (2014). Recursive misrepresentations: a reply to Levinson (2013). Language, 90(2), 515–528.Google Scholar

Lehrdahl, F. and Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Leibniz, G. (1666). De arte combinatoria (On the art of combination).Google Scholar

Leite, Y. F. (1990). Para uma tipologia ativa do Tapirapé. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 18, 37–56.Google Scholar

Leivada, E. (2015). X-within-X structures and the nature of categories. Biolinguistics, 9, 50–73.Google Scholar

Lemos Barbosa, P. (1956). Curso de Tupi Antigo. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José.Google Scholar

Levin, N. S. and Prince, E. F. (1986). Gapping and causal implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 19(3), 351–364.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. (2013). Recursion in pragmatics. Language, 89(1), 149–162.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lima, S. and Santos, G. (2008). Levantamento Sociolinguístico no Baixo Xingu. Manuscript. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA).Google Scholar

Lima, S., Kayabi, P., Kaiabi, M., and Kaiabi, M. (in press). Gramática pedagógica da língua Kawaiwete. Rio de Janeiro: Museu do Índio/ UNESCO.Google Scholar

Limbach, M. and Adone, D. (2010). Language acquisition of recursive possessives in English. Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 34, 281–290.Google Scholar

Lobina, D. and García-Albea, J. (2009). Recursion and cognitive science: data structures and mechanisms. In Taatgen, N. A. and van Rijn, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 1347–1352.Google Scholar

Lobina, D. J. (2014). Probing recursion. Cognitive Processing, 15(4), 435–450.Google Scholar

Lynch, J. D. (1978). A grammar of Lenakel. In Pacific linguistics, series B, no. 55. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar

Lynch, J. D. (1983). Switch-reference in Lenakel. In Haiman, J. and Munro, P. (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209–221.Google Scholar

MacDonald, L. (1990). A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd edition). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Maia, M. (2007). Evidentiality processes in Karajá. In Guentchéva, Z. and Landaburu, J. (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Leuven: Peeters, 293–308.Google Scholar

Maia, M. (2012). Recursividade e coordenação de PPs. Manuscript. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar

Maia, M. (2015). Sintaxe experimental. In Othero, G. and Kenedy, E. (eds.), Sintaxe, sintaxes. São Paulo: Editora Contexto, 51–72.Google Scholar

Malone, T. (1988). The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials. International Journal of American Linguistics, 54(2), 119–140.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 201–225.Google Scholar

Marcilese, M. (2011). Sobre o papel da língua no desenvolvimento de habilidades cognitivas superiores: representação, recursividade e cognição numérica. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontíficia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar

Marcilese, M., Corrêa, L. M. S., and Augusto, M. R. A. (2013). Recursive pre-nominal modifiers interpretation in language acquisition. In Stavrakaki, S., Lalioti, M., and Konstantinopoulou, P. (eds.), Advances in language acquisition (1st edition). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 138–146.Google Scholar

Marcilese, M., Villarinho, C., Augusto, M. R. A., and Corrêa, L. M. S. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic demands in first and second order false belief tasks. Poster presentation at Recursion: structural complexity in language and cognition. Amherst.Google Scholar

Massam, D. (2000). VSO and VOS: aspects of Niuean word order. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The syntax of verb initial language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massam, D. (2005). Predicate fronting and lexical category in Niuean. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley-Colburg, S. (eds.), Verb first: studies in predicate initial languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 227–242.Google Scholar

Matthei, E. (1982). The acquisition of prenominal modifier sequences. Cognition, 11(3), 301–332.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthewson, L. (2004). On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70(4), 369–415.Google Scholar

Matthewson, L. (2012). Evidence about evidentials: where fieldwork meets theory. In Stolterfoht, B. and Featherston, S. (eds.), Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: studies in meaning and structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 85–114.Google Scholar

Matthewson, L., Davis, H., and Rullman, H. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from St’át’imcets. In J. van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–254.Google Scholar

Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., Kiritani, S., Niwa, S., Ikejiri, K., and Naitoh, K. (1989). Processing of Japanese garden path, center-embedded, and multiply left-embedded sentences. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, 23, 187–212.Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. (1996). On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 47–104.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D., McKee, C., and Garrett, M. F. (2010). Children’s sentence planning: syntactic correlates of fluency variations. Journal of Child Language, 37(1), 59–94.Google Scholar

McKenzie, A. (2015). A survey of switch-reference in North America. International Journal of American Linguistics, 81(3), 409–448.Google Scholar

Meira, S. and Franchetto, B. (2005). The Southern Cariban languages and the Cariban family. International Journal of American Linguistics, 71(2), 127–190.Google Scholar

Meroni, L. and Crain, S. (2011). How children avoid kindergarten paths. Proceedings of the Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company, 159–184Google Scholar

Merx, M. (2016). The production and comprehension of recursive prepositional phrases and possessives in Dutch children and adults. BA Thesis. University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Meyer, M. (2013). Ignorance and grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Miller, A. (2001). A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity to process information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. (2009). Re(e)volving complexity: adding intonation. In Givón, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.), Syntactic complexity: diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–80.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. (2010). The fluidity of recursion and its implications. In van der Hulst, H., Koster, J., and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Recursion and human language. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 15–41.Google Scholar

Mix, K. S., Sandhofer, C., and Baroody, A. (2005). Number words and number concepts: the interplay of verbal and nonverbal quantification in early childhood. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 33, 305–346.Google Scholar

Moore, D. (2006). Cláusulas relativas de Gavião de Rondônia. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, 1, 135–143.Google Scholar

Moore, D. (2011). As línguas indigenas no Brasil hoje. In Mello, H., Altenhofen, C. and Raso, T. (eds.), Os Contatos linguísticos no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 217–240.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E. (1942). A reply to my critics. In Schlipp, P. A. (ed.), The philosophy of G. E. Moore. Evanston: Northwestern University, 535–677.Google Scholar

Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Munn, A. (1995). The possessor that stayed close to home. In Samian, V. and Schaeffer, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 24. Fresno: California State University, Fresno, 181–195.Google Scholar

Munro, P. (ed.) (1980). Studies of switch-reference. UCLA Papers in Syntax 8. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Munro, R., Rainer, L., Sauerland, S., and Fleck, D. W. (2012). Reported speech in Matses: perspective persistence and evidential narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics, 78(1), 41–75.Google Scholar

Murray, S. (2010). Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University.Google Scholar

Nadig, A. S. and Sedivy, J. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13(4) 329–336.Google Scholar

Nascimento, M. and Maia, M. (2014). O processamento de sintagmas posposicionais e preposicionais encaixados e coordenados em Kaingang e em Português. Poster presented during the XXIX ENANPOLL, UFSC.Google Scholar

Nelson, J. S. (2016). First and second language acquisition of recursive operations: two studies. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., and Rodrigues, C. (2009a). Evidence and argumentation: a reply to Everett (2009a). Language, 85(3), 671–681.Google Scholar

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., and Rodrigues, C. (2009b). Pirahã exceptionality: a reassessment. Language, 85(2), 355–404.Google Scholar

Nichols, L. (2000). Rethinking switch reference. In Carnie, A., Jelinek, E., and Willie, M.. (eds.), Papers in honor of Ken Hale: working papers on endangered and less familiar languages. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 5–18.Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, I. and Tolskaya, M. (2001). A grammar of Udihe. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Nimuendajú, C. (1948). The Mura and Pirahã. In Steward, J. (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians (vol. 3). Washington: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, 255–269.Google Scholar

Ninio, A. (2011). Syntactic development, its input and output. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nishiguchi, S. (2006). Categorical and semantic ambiguity of possessives and adjectives. In Oba, Y. and Okada, S. (eds.), Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 11. Osaka: Osaka University, English Linguistics Section, 73–83.Google Scholar

Nishiguchi, S. (2009). Possessive disambiguation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Osaka University.Google Scholar

Nonato, R. (2014). Clause chaining, switch reference and coordination. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, R. (2006). Spearing the Emu drinking: subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 5–29.Google Scholar

Novogrodsky, R. and Friedmann, N. (2006). The production of relative clauses in SLI: a window to the nature of the impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 8(4), 364–375.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 303–344.Google Scholar

Nuwer, M. R., Comi, G., Emerson, R., Fuglsang-Frederiksen, A., Guérit, J-M., Hinrichs, H., Ikeda, A., Lucas, F. J., and Rappelsburger, P. (1998). IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 106(3), 259–261.Google Scholar

Osthoff, H. and Brugmann, K. (1878). Vorwort. Morphologische Untersuchungen 1, iii–xx.Google Scholar

Oswalt, R. L. (1961). A Kashaya grammar (Southwestern Pomo). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy-psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Castilla-Earles, A. P., Béjar, S., and Massam, D. (2012). Elmo’s sister’s ball: the problem of acquiring nominal recursion. Language Acquisition, 19(4), 301–311.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Peterson, T. (2010). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Peterson, T., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Castilla-Earls, A. P., Béjar, S., and Massam, D. (2015) Structural complexity and the acquisition of recursive locative PPs. Proceedings of NELS 45. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.Google Scholar

Platzack, C. and Rosengren, I. (1997). On the subject of imperatives: a minimalist account of the imperative clause. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1(3), 177–224.Google Scholar

Plungian, V. A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 349–357.Google Scholar

Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Posner, R. (1980). Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connectives in natural language. In Searle, J. R., Kierfer, F., and Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Springer, 169–203.Google Scholar

Post, E. (1943). Formal reductions of the general combinatory decision problem. American Journal of Mathematics, 65(2), 197–215Google Scholar

Postal, P. M. (1998). Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Power, J. (2002). Notes on formal language theory and parsing. Manuscript. Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland.Google Scholar

Pyers, J. E. and Senghas, A. (2009). Language promotes false-belief understanding. Psychological Science, 20(7), 805–812.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Rackowski, A. and Travis, L. (2000). V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The syntax of verb-initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–142.Google Scholar

Ramirez, H. (1997). A Fala Tukano dos Ye’pâ-Masa, Tomo I Gramática. Manaus: CEDEM.Google Scholar

Reesnik, G. P. (1983). Switch reference and topicality hierarchies. Studies in Language, 7(2), 215–246.Google Scholar

Reich, I. (2008). From discourse to “odd coordination”: on asymmetric coordination and subject gaps in German. In Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Ramm, W. (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 281–303.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: guess patterns in acquisition. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 99(1). Utrecht: Utrecht University. Available at: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/17183.Google Scholar

Rivero, M. L. and Terzi, A. (1995). Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 301–322.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2013). Introduction: core computational principles in natural language syntax. Lingua, 130, 1–13.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (2007). Introduction. In Roberts, I. (ed.), Comparative grammar. Volume one: early work pre-1980. London: Routledge, 1–40.Google Scholar

Rocha, I. (2011). A estrutura argumental da língua Karitiana: desafios descritivos e teóricos. Master’s Thesis. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar

Rocha, I. (2013). Estrutura argumental dos verbos em orações subordinadas em karitiana: valência verbal e sua interação com núcleos funcionais de aspecto (Ph.D. Grant Report – FAPESP). Manuscript. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar

Rodgers, P. and Black, P.E. (2004). Recursive data structure. In Pieterse, V. and Black, P. E. (eds.), Dictionary of algorithms and data structures. Online at: www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/recursivstrc.htmlGoogle Scholar

Rodrigues, A. D. (1986). Línguas brasileiras: para o conhecimento das linguas indígenas. São Paulo: Loyola.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, C. (2004). Impoverished morphology and movement out of Case domains. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, E. and Marcilese, M. (2014) Executive control in children’s comprehension of ordinal modifier phrases. In Costa, J., Fiéis, A., Freitas, M. J., Lobo, M., and Santos, A. L.. (eds.), New directions in the acquisition of romance languages: selected proceedings of the romance turn V (1st edition). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 241–260.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. (1972). Approaches to a theory of language acquisition with examples from German children. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar: how child language illuminates humanism. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roeper, T. (2010). Recursion: what is innate, why it needs a trigger, where it belongs in cross-linguistic work and how it fits into the mind. In França, A. and Maia, M. (eds.), Papers in psycholinguistics. Rio de Janeiro: Imprinta, 38–60.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. (2011). The acquisition of recursion: how formalism articulates the child’s path. Biolinguistics, 5(1–2), 57–86.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. (2013). Recursion typology and the acquisition path. Paper presented at Recursion in Brazilian Languages and Beyond 2013, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, August 7, 2013.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. (2014). Strict interface principles and the acquisition engine: from unlabelled to labelled and minimal modular contact. Language Sciences, 46(B), 115–132.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and de Villiers, J. (2011). The acquisition path of wh-Movement. In de Villiers, J. and Roeper, T. (eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer, 189–246.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and Pérez-Leroux, A. T. (2011). Simplicity and complexity in child language and its explanation. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(3), 363–380.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and Snyder, W. (2004). Recursion as an analytic device in acquisition. In Proceedings of GALA 2003 – Generative Approach to Language Acquisition. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and Snyder, W. (2005). Language learnability and the forms of recursion. In Di Sciullo, A. M. and Delmonte, R. (eds.), UG and external systems: language, brain and computation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–169.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (2014). Recursion: complexity in cognition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Rummer, R., Engelkamp, J., and Konieczny, L. (2003). The subordination effect: evidence from self-paced reading and recall. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 539–566.Google Scholar

Rus, D. (2005). Slovenian embedded imperatives. In Brandstetter, C. and Rus, D. (eds.), Georgetown Working Papers in Linguistics 4. Washington, DC: Georgetown Department of Linguistics, 153–183.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1905) On denoting. Mind. Available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Denoting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. and Whitehead, A. N. (1910–1912). Principia mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–196.Google Scholar

Sag, I., Wasow, T., and Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic theory: a formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Salles, R. (2015). Understanding recursion and looking for self-embedding in Pirahã: the case of the possessive constructions. MA Thesis. Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar

Sanchez-Mendes, L. (2013). Degree modification on the adjectival and on the verbal domain in Karitiana. Presentation at CILLA VI. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar

Sanchez-Mendes, L. (2014). A modificação de grau em Karitiana. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar

Sandhofer, C. and Smith, L. (1999). Learning color words involves learning a system of mappings. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 668–679.Google Scholar

Sarnecka, B., Kamenskaya, V., Yamana, Y., Ogura, T., and Yudovina, Y. (2007). From grammatical number to exact numbers: early meanings of ‘one’, ‘two’, and ‘three’ in English, Russian, and Japanese. Cognitive Psychology, 55(2), 136–168.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2010a). Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: a reply to Geurts and Pouscoulous and Chemla. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3(2), 1–13.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2010b). Experimental evidence for complex syntax in Pirahã. Unpublished. Available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001095Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2015). Against complexity parameters. In Trotzke, A. and Bayer, J. (eds.), Syntactic complexity across interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 9–24.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. and Schenner, M. (2006). Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. In Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 525–539.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. and Trotzke, A. (2011). Biolinguistic perspectives on recursion: introduction to the special issue. Biolinguistics, 5(1–2), 1–9.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U., Kratochvil, F., and Hollebrandse, B. (in prep). Complexity before evolution: complement clauses in Teiwa.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Published by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye with de A. Riedlinger. Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar

Schick, B., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., and Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and Theory of Mind: a study of deaf children. Child Development, 78(2), 376–396.Google Scholar

Schlegel, F. (1808). Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr and Winter.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. (1975). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 211–231.Google Scholar

Schmidt, M. (1942). Los Kayabi en Mato-Grosso (Brasil). Sociedad Cientfica del Paraguay.Google Scholar

Sevcenco, A. and Avram, L. (2012). Romanian-speaking children’s comprehension of relatives. RRL, LVII 2, 219–239.Google Scholar

Sevcenco, A., Roeper, T., and Pearson, B. (2016). The acquisition of recursive locative PPs and relative clauses in Child English. 12 Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA 12). Nantes, September 10–12.Google Scholar

Silva, G. R. (2014). Promising evidence for syntactic asymmetries from Topic, Focus and word order inside the CPs in Pirahã (Mura family). Manuscript. Campinas: University of Campinas.Google Scholar

Silva, G. Romling da and Franchetto, B. (2011). Prosodic distinctions between the varieties of the Upper-Xingu Carib language: results of an acoustic analysis. Amerindia, 35, 41–52.Google Scholar

Silva, W. de Lima (2012). A descriptive grammar of Desano. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Utah.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 112–171.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. (2007). Context and comments on Dan Everett’s claims (Letter to the editor). Human Development (online supplement), 50(6). Online: www.karger.com/ProdukteDB/Katalogteile/issn/_0018_716X/HDE-Letters-to-Editor-12-13-2007.pdfGoogle Scholar

Snedeker, J. and Trueswell, J. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: the role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49(3), 238–299.Google Scholar

Snyder, W. and Roeper, T. (2004). Learnability and recursion across categories. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L. and Smith, C. E. (eds.), BUCLD 28: Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 543–552.Google Scholar

Sorensen, R. (2013). Epistemic paradoxes. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/Google Scholar

Southgate, V., Senju, A., and Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587–592.Google Scholar

Souza, P. (2004). Estudos de aspectos da língua Kayabi (Tupi). MA Thesis. UNICAMP.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. and Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. S. and Tsivkin, S. (2001). Initial knowledge and conceptual change: space and number. In Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70–98.Google Scholar

Stabler, E. (2014). Recursion in grammar and performance. In Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (eds.), Recursion: complexity and cognition. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 159–177.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 315–332.Google Scholar

Stapert, E. (2007). Linguistic theory and fieldwork in interaction: the case of Pirahã. In Austin, P. K., Bond, O., and Nathan, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory. London: SOAS, 235–242.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. (2007). The semantics of serial verb constructions in two Eastern Tukanoan languages: Kotiria (Wanano) and Waikhana (Piratapuyo). In Deal, A. R. (ed.), Proceedings of 4th conference on the semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 35. Amherst: GLSA, 275–290.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. (2008). Evidentials and clause modality in Wanano. Studies in Language, 32(2), 404–444.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. (2013). A reference grammar of Kotiria (Wanano). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. (2016). More on switch-reference in Kotiria (Wanano, East Tukano). In van Gijn, R. and Hammond, J. (eds.), Switch-Reference 2.0. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 425–452.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. (in prep). From noise-making to nonvisual evidence: Genesis of an evidential category.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K. and Gomez-Imbert, E. (2018). Evidentiality in Tukanoan languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 357–387.Google Scholar

Stenzel, K., Marques, T., Galvez Trinidade, J., and Wacho Cabral, M. (2017). Kotiria. In K. Stenzel and B. Franchetto (eds.), On this and other worlds: voices from Amazonia. Berlin: Language Science Press, 289–275.Google Scholar

Storto, L. (1999). Aspects of a Karitiana grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Storto, L. (2010). Copular constructions in Karitiana: a case against case movement. 5th Conference of the Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas. Cambridge: Harvard/MIT. May 15–17.Google Scholar

Storto, L. (2012). Subordination in Karitiana. Amerindia, 35, 219–237.Google Scholar

Storto, L. (2013). Temporal and aspectual interpretations in non-finite clauses. In Molsing, K. V. and Tramunt Ibaños, A. M. (eds.), Time and TAME in language. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 71–89.Google Scholar

Storto, L. (2014). Constituent order and information structure in Karitiana. In van Gijn, R., Matić, D., van Putten, S., and Galucio, A. V. (eds.), Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 163–192.Google Scholar

Storto, L. and Rocha, I. (2014). Strategies of valence change in Karitiana. In Queixalos, F., Telles, S., and Bruno, A. C. (eds.), Incremento de valencia en las lenguas amazónicas. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo, 51–69.Google Scholar

Strom, C. (1992). Retuarã syntax. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics/University of Texas.Google Scholar

Tavakolian, S. (1981). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 167–187.Google Scholar

Tomalin, M. (2003). Linguistics and the formal sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomalin, M. (2006). Linguistics and the formal sciences: the origins of generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomalin, M. (2011). Syntactic structures and recursive devices: a legacy of imprecision. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 20(3), 297–315.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209–253.Google Scholar

Trotzke, A., Bader, M., and Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.Google Scholar

Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., and Logrip, M. L. (1999) The kindergarten-path effect. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working minimalism. Cambridge: MIT Press, 251–282Google Scholar

Valian, V. (2009). Abstract linguistic representations and innateness: the development of determiners. In Lewis, W. D., Karimi, S., Harley, H., and Farrar, S. (eds.), Time and again: theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics in honor of D. Terence Langendoen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–206.Google Scholar

van Hout, A., Kamiya, M., and Roeper, T. (2013). Passivization, reconstruction and edge phenomena: connecting English and Japanese nominalizations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(1), 137–159.Google Scholar

Vieira, M. (1995). The expression of quantificational notions in Asurini do Trocará: against the universality of determiner quantification. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., and Partee, B. (eds.), Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 701–720.Google Scholar

Villarinho, C. N. G. (2012). Um papel para a língua no desenvolvimento de habilidades cognitivas superiores: o traço de ponto-de-vista em estruturas completivas e o domínio de crenças falsas. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. PUC-Rio.Google Scholar

Villas Boas, O. and Villas Boas, C.. (1989). Xingu: Os Kayabi do rio São Manuel. Porto Alegre: Kuarup.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de (1999). Language and Theory of Mind: what are the developmental relationships? In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., and Cohen, D. (eds.), Understanding other minds: perspectives from autism and developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–123.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Astington, J. and Baird, J. (eds.), Why language matters for Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 186–219.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de (2007). The interface of language and Theory of Mind. Lingua, 117(11), 1858–1878.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de and de Villiers, P. (2009). Complements enable representation of the contents of false belief: evolution of a theory. In Foster-Cohen, S.. (ed.), Language acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 169–195.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de and Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: a longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development, 17(1), 1037–1060.Google Scholar

Villiers, J. de, Roeper, T., Harrington, E., and Gadilauskas, E. (2012). Tense and truth in children’s question answering. In BUCLD 36 Proceedings. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 152–163.Google Scholar

Vivanco, K. (2014). Orações relativas em Karitiana: um estudo experimental. MA Thesis. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar

Vries, M. de (2002). The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Vries, M. de (2006). The syntax of appositive relativization: on specifying coordination, false free relatives and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(2), 229–270.Google Scholar

Wasow, T. and Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–154.Google Scholar

Watumull, J. and Roberts, I. (2014). Leibnizian linguistics. Manuscript. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Watumull, J., Hauser, M., Roberts, I., and Horstein, N. (2014). On recursion. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 4, 1–7.Google Scholar