Aarts, F. 1993. Who, whom, that and ø in two corpora of spoken English. English Today 35: 19–22.Google Scholar

Abels, 2003. Successive cyclicity, antilocality and adposition stranding. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Abels, 2010. Factivity in exclamatives is a presupposition. Studia Linguistica 64: 141–57.Google Scholar

Abels, 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 229–54.Google Scholar

Abney, S.P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Aboh, E. 2004 The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aboh, E. 2005. Deriving relative and factive constructions in Kwa. In Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Brugé, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G. (eds) 265–85. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar

Aboh, E. 2006. Complementation in Saramaccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type modal particles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aboh, E. 2010. Information structuring begins with numeration. Iberia 2: 12–42.Google Scholar

Ackema, P. 2010. Restrictions on subject extraction: A PF interface account. In Interfaces in Linguistics: New Research Perspectives, Folli, R. & Ulbrich, C. (eds) 225–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M. & Yoshida, M. 2014. Resumptive pronouns salvage island violations in forced-choice tasks. Poster presented to CUNY Sentence Processing Conference 2014.Google Scholar

Adger, D. & Smith, J. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 1109–34.Google Scholar

Aelbrecht, L. & den Dikken, M. 2011. Doubling PPs in Flemish dialects. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011, Nouwen, R. & Elenbaas, M. (eds) 1–13. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aelbrecht, L. & den Dikken, M. 2013. Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 33–68.Google Scholar

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

Aissen, J. 1996. Pied piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 447–91.Google Scholar

Akiyama, T. 2002. The infinitival relative clause in English: An analysis based on the British National Corpus. PhD diss. Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Al-Banyan, A. & Preston, D. 1998. What is Standard American English? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 33: 29–46.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Staurou-Sëphakë, M. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Alexopoulou, T. 2010. Truly intrusive: Resumptive pronominals in questions and relative clauses. Lingua 120: 485–505.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. 2002. Resumption and locality: a crosslinguistic experimental study. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 38: 1–14.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. 2007. Locality, cyclicity and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83: 110–60.Google Scholar

Allen, C. 1980. Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 261–323.Google Scholar

Almeida, D. & Yoshida, M. 2007. A problem for the Preposition Stranding Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–62.Google Scholar

Angermeyer, P.S. & Singler, J.V. 2003. The case for politeness: Pronoun variation in coordinate NPs in object position in English. Language Variation and Change 15: 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aoun, J. 1996. Resumption and last resort. Ms. University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. 2000. Resumption and last resort. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 16: 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Ariel, M. 1999. Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23: 217–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armstrong, N. & Mackenzie, I.E. 2013. Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Asudeh, A. 2004. Resumption as resource management. PhD diss. Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Asudeh, A. 2011a. Local grammaticality in syntactic production. In Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing, Bender, E.M. & Arnold, J.E. (eds) 51–79. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Asudeh, A. 2011b. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 301–49.Google Scholar

Asudeh, A. 2011c. Towards a unified theory of resumption. In Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, Rouveret, A. (ed.) 121–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Badan, L. 2007. High and low periphery: A comparison between Italian and Chinese. PhD diss. University of Padua.Google Scholar

Badan, L. & del Gobbo, F. 2010. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. In Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (eds) 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. 2010. The non-reality of doubly filled Comps. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 331–5.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. 2008. Microvariation in syntactic doubling: An introduction. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 403–17. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. 2013. Geography and cartography of the left periphery: The case of Dutch and German imperatives. In Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Carrilho, E., Magro, C. & Álvarez, X. (eds) 267–92. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 2008. Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Baron, D. 1984. Grammar and Good Taste: Reforming the American Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Barton, E. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures: Sentential and nonsentential derivation. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 37–67.Google Scholar

Battye, A. 1989. Free relatives, pseudo-free relatives and the syntax of CP in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 1: 219–50.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. 2014. Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh-movement in Bavarian. In Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the Theory of Syntax, Grewendorf, G. & Weiss, H. (eds) 23–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. 2015. Doubly-filled comp, wh-head movement, and derivational economy. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, van Oostendorp, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 7–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. 2016. Doubly-filled comp, wh-head-movement, and the doubly-filled-comp-filter. Ms. Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. & Brandner, E. 2008. On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp-filter. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 26: 87–95.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2004a. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2004b (ed). Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2006. Extending doubling to non-lexical domains: Complete vs. partial copying + deletion and related reconstruction issues. In Form, Structure and Grammar. A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Studia Grammatica 63, Brandt, P. and Fuss, E. (eds) 129–36. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2009. Structures and Strategies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Beltrama, A. 2013. Intrusive but not intruders. The processing of resumptive pronouns in Italian and English. Ms. University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. 2016. Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1: 1–24.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds) 39–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benincà, P. 2003. La frase relativa in fiorentino antico. Paper presented to the V° Incontro di Dialettologia, University of Bristol, 26–7 September.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics, Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E. & Portner, P. (eds) 53–86. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2010. La periferia sinistra. In Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico, Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) 27–59. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 2012a. Lexical complementizers and headless relatives. In Functional Heads, Brugé, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. & Poletto, C. (eds) 29–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2010. La frase relativa. In Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico, Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) 469–507. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

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

Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. 2010 (eds). Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Benincà, P. & Poletto, C. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bennet, W. 1994. A case of syntactic change in English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29: 31–8.Google Scholar

Bennis, H. 2000. On the interpretation of functional categories. In Interface Strategies, Bennis, H., Everaert, M. & Reuland, E. (eds) 37–53. Amsterdam: KNAW publications.Google Scholar

Bergh, G. 1998. Double prepositions in English. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, Fisiak, J. & Krygier, M. (eds) 1–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bergh, G. & Seppänen, A. 2000. Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4: 295–316.Google Scholar

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

Berizzi, M. 2010. Interrogatives and relatives in some varieties of English. PhD diss. University of Padova.Google Scholar

Berizzi, M. & Rossi, S. 2010. ‘Something here what made me think’: Some new views on relative what in the dialects of English. LangUE Proceedings 2009: 14–26, University of Essex.Google Scholar

Bernstein, J.B., McDaniel, D. & McKee, C. 1998. Resumptive pronoun strategies in English-speaking children. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 22: 58–68.Google Scholar

Bertollo, S. & Cavall, G. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. Generative Grammar in Geneva 8: 59–76.Google Scholar

Bever, T.G., Carroll, J.M. & Hartig, R. 1976. Analogy or ungrammatical sequences that are utterable and comprehensible are the origins of new grammars in language acquisition and linguistic evolution. In An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Disability, Bever, T.G., Katz, J.J. & Langendoen, D.T. (eds) 149–82. New York: T.Y. Crowell Press.Google Scholar

Bever, T.G. & Langendoen, D.T. 1972. The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Stockwell, R.P. & Macaulay, R.K.S. (eds) 32–95. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

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

Bhatt, R. 2015. Relative clauses and correlatives. In Syntax: Theory and Analysis Volume I, Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A. (eds) 708–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. & Yoon, J. 1992. On the composition of Comp and parameters of V-2. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 10: 41–53.Google Scholar

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

Bianchi, V. 2008. Resumptives and LF chains. Ms. University of Siena.Google Scholar

Bianchi, V. & Frascarelli, M. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2: 43–88.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, C. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar

Biloa, E. 2013. The Syntax of Tuki: A Cartographic Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Birner, B.J. & Ward, G. 1998a. Information Status and Non-canonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Birner, B.J. & Ward, G. 1998b. Discourse and information structure. Ms. Northwestern University, IL.Google Scholar

Block, G.H. 1975. What’s new with English. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 32: 7–16.Google Scholar

Blythe, H. 2016. Resumption in English: An investigation of usage and acceptability. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 9: 156–83.Google Scholar

Bocci, G. 2004. Contrastive focalisation on topics and preverbal subjects in Italian. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 29: 3–60.Google Scholar

Bocci, G. 2007. Criterial positions and left periphery in Italian. Nanzan Linguistics 3: 35–70.Google Scholar

Bocci, G. 2009. On syntax and prosody in Italian. PhD diss. Siena.Google Scholar

Bocci, G. 2013. The Syntax-Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Boeckx, C. 2007. Understanding Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Lasnik, H. 2006. Intervention and repair. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 150–5.Google Scholar

Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37: 366–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bondaruk, A. 1995. Resumptive pronouns in English and Polish. In Licensing in Syntax and Phonology, Gussmann, E. (ed.) 27–55. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Bošković, Ž. 1997. The Syntax of Non-finite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37: 101–14.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 1–44.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33: 17–66Google Scholar

Boyland, J.T. 2001. Hypercorrect pronoun case in English? Cognitive processes that account for pronoun usage. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds) 383–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Brame., M. K. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: Elsevier/ North-Holland.Google Scholar

Brandner, E. 2008. Patterns of doubling in Alemmanic. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 353–80. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

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

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

Breul, C. 2000. Non-stranded preposition + relative who(m): Syntactic discussion and corpus-related problems. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 35: 137–51Google Scholar

Britain, D. 2008. Grammatical variation in England. In Language in the British Isles, Britain, D. (ed.) 75–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, H. 2006. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s ‘On Phases’. In Organising Grammar, Broekhuis, H., Corver, N. & Hybreghts, R. (eds) 59–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Browning, M.A. 1996. CP recursion and that-t effects. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 237–55.Google Scholar

Brugé, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G. (eds) 2005. Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar

Büring, D. 1997. The meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Büring, D. 1999. Topic. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Bosch, P. & van der Sandt, R. (eds) 142–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Büring, D. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–45.Google Scholar

Burke, I. 2017. Wicked which: The linking relative in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37: 356–86.Google Scholar

Bylinina, L. 2013. Degree infinitival clauses. Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 23: 394–411.Google Scholar

Cable, S. 2010. Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 367–86.Google Scholar

Camacho, J. 2002. Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cann, R., Kaplan, T. & Kempson, R. 2005. Data at the grammar–pragmatics interface: The case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua 115: 1551–78.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. 2002. Free relatives as DPs with a silent D and a CP complement. In Proceedings of WECOL 2000, Samiian, V. (ed.) 140–50. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2008. Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In The Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R. (eds) 365–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2009. The nominal nature of where, when and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 155–64.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I., Torrence, H. & Cisneros, C. 2013. Free relative clauses in two Mixtec languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 79: 61–96.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of syntactic positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 115–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2009 On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. Linguistics Today 141: 3–40.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, C., Cinque, G. & Endo, Y. (eds) 2014. On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar

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

Casielles-Suárez, E. 2004. The Syntax-Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Castillo, C. 2009. English to-infinitive relative clauses. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 135–53.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. 1976. Constraints on movement rules. Language 52: 18–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cecchetto, C. 2005. Reconstruction in relative clauses and the copy theory of traces. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 73–103.Google Scholar

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

Chao, W. & Sells, P. 1983. On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 13: 47–61.Google Scholar

Chaves, R. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and co-ordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 465–512.Google Scholar

Chaves, R. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49: 285–327.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. 2007. Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese. In The Copy Theory of Movement, Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (eds) 151–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. & Corver, N. (eds) 2006. Wh-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J. 1993. Non-standard English and dialect levelling. In Real English, Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) 53–96. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J., Adger, D. & Fox, S. 2013. Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua 2013: 51–77.Google Scholar

Chiba, S. 1972. Another case for ‘Relative clause formation is a copying rule’. Studies in English Linguistics 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of Linguistic Theory, Peters, P.S. (ed.) 63–130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15; also published in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds) (2000), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (eds) 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Freidin, R., Otero, C. & Zubizarreta, M.L. (eds) 133–65. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., & Metteini, S. (eds) 1–16. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Chung, S., Ladusaw, W.A. & McCloskey, J. 2011. Sluicing: Between structure and inference. In Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen, Gutiérrez- Bravo, R., Mikkelsen, L. & Potsdam, E. (eds) 31–50. California Digital Library eScholarship Repository, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1978. Towards a unified treatment of island constraints. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Linguists, Dressler, W.U. & Meid, W. (eds) 344–8. Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2002. The Structure of DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2008. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: 99–137.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2013. Typological Studies. Word Order and Relative Clauses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2017. On the double-headed analysis of ‘headless’ relative clauses. Ms. University of Venice.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. Studies in Linguistics 2: 42–58.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2010a. The cartography of syntactic structures. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis, Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds) 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2010b (eds). Mapping Spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 6, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Citko, B. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31: 131–45.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Citko, B. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clemens, L.E., Morgan, A.M., Polinsky, M. & Xiang, M. 2012. Listening to resumptives: An auditory experiment. Poster presented to the 25th Annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, City University of New York.Google Scholar

Cohen, G.L. 1987. Syntactic Blends in English Parole. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Collins, C. 2007. Home sweet home. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–34.Google Scholar

Collins, C. 2017. The distribution of negated quantifier phrases in English. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar

Collins, C. & Postal, P.M. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Comrie, B. 1999. Relative clauses: Structure and typology on the periphery of standard English. In The Clause in English, Collins, P. & Lee, D. (eds) 81–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 2002. Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Typology and Second Language Acquisition, Ramat, A.G. (ed.) 19–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Contreras, H. 1991. On resumptive pronouns. In Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, Campos, H. & Martinez-Gil, F. (eds) 143–63. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Coppock, E. 2006. Alignment in syntactic blending. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 53: 239–55.Google Scholar

Coppock, E. 2010. Parallel encoding of alternatives in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 38–49.Google Scholar

Cornilescu, A. 1981. Non-restrictive relative clauses: An essay in semantic description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 26: 41–67.Google Scholar

Corver, N. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. PhD diss. Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Corver, N. 1992. On deriving certain left branch extraction asymmetries: A case study in parametric syntax. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 22: 67–84.Google Scholar

Cowart, W. 1997 Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Cowper, E. 1987. Pied piping, feature percolation, and the structure of the noun phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32: 321–38.Google Scholar

van Craenenbroeck, J. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. PhD diss. Leiden University.Google Scholar

van Craenenbroeck, J. 2010. The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van Craenenbroeck, J. & den Dikken, M. 2006. Ellipsis and EPP repair. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 653–64.Google Scholar

Creswell, C. 2002. Resumptive pronouns, wh-island violations, and sentence production. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+6), 101–9. Venice: Università di Venezia.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2006. Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Phases of Interpretation, Frascarelli, M. (ed.) 363–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2008. Discourse-related features and the syntax of peripheral positions: A comparative study of Sicilian and other Romance languages. PhD diss. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2010a. Fronting as focalization in Sicilian. In Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I. (eds) 247–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2010b. Aspetti morfologici e sintattici degli avverbi in siciliano. In Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt n.11: Studi sui Dialetti della Sicilia, Garzonio, J. (ed.) 21–42. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2011a. On the syntactic status of sentential adverbs and modal particles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 63: 345–57.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2011b. Grammaticalization and the expression of evidentiality and epistemicity in Italian and in Sicilian. Unpublished handout, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S. & Remberger, E.-M. 2008. Hearsay and reported speech: Evidentiality in Romance. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 99–120.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. 1992. The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23: 97–111.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. 1993. Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 557–61.Google Scholar

Culy, C. 1996. Null objects in English recipes. Language Variation and Change 8: 91–124.Google Scholar

Cutting, J.C. & Bock, K. 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition 25: 57–71.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. 2010. Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27: 1–23.Google Scholar

Dadan, M. 2015. Preposition omission in sluicing: Teasing apart LF-copying and PF- deletion in a hybrid system. Poster presented to 46th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Danckaert, L. 2011. On the left periphery of Latin embedded clauses. PhD diss. University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Danckaert, L. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Decamp, D. 1972. Hypercorrection and rule generalization. Language in Society 1: 87–90.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds) 313–48. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2007. Skill acquisition theory. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds) 97–113. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2010. Interview in Michigan State University Working Papers in Second Language Studies 2: 14–17.Google Scholar

Dekkers, J., Leeuw, F. & van der Weijer, J. (eds) 2000. Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Anderson, B. 1998. Interlanguage A-bar dependencies: Binding construals, null prepositions and Universal Grammar. Second Language Research 14: 341–58.Google Scholar

Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives, and dislocation structures. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2009. Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21: 23–49.Google Scholar

Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2013. El que citativo en español y otros elementos de la periferia oracional: Variación inter e intralingüística. In Autour de ‘que’, Jakob, D. & Plooj, K. (eds) 47–69. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2014. Evidentiality and illocutionary force: Spanish matrix que at the syntax-semantics interface. Linguistics Today 214: 217–51.Google Scholar

Denison, D. 1985. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 3: 189–204.Google Scholar

Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. Longman: London.Google Scholar

Dickey, M.W. 1996. Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19: 157–192.Google Scholar

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

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

Doherty, C. 1994. The syntax of subject contact relatives. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 29: 55–65.Google Scholar

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

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

Douglas, J. 2016. The syntactic structures of relativization. PhD diss. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Douglas, J. 2017. Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Glossa 2: 1–28.Google Scholar

Doyle, G. 2009 Whoever vs. Whomever! Cases Collide! Match of the Century! Motivated Grammar: Prescriptivism Must Die! Weblog posting. WordPress.com. 13 Oct. 2009. http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/whoever-v-whomever-cases-collide-match-of-the-centuryGoogle Scholar

Drummond, A., Hornstein, N. & Lasnik, H. 2010. A puzzle about P-stranding and a possible solution. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 689–92.Google Scholar

Dubinsky, S. 1997. Infinitival relative clauses in English: An antisymmetric approach to discontinuous constituency. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 96: 82–93. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Durrleman, S. 2008. The Syntax of Jamaican Creole: A Cartographic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Emonds, J.E. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Emonds, J.E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Emonds, J.E. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In A Festschrift for Sol Saporta, Brame, M., Contreras, H. & Newmeyer, F. (eds) 92–129. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar

Emonds, J.E. 1987. The Invisible Category Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 613–32.Google Scholar

Emonds, J.E. & Faarlund, J.T. 2014. English: The Language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University. http://anglistika.upol.cz/vikings2014Google Scholar

Endo, Y. 2007. Locality and Information Structure: A Cartographic Approach to Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Endo, Y. 2014. Variations of why, how come and new topic in C. Handout for talk presented to Variation in C Workshop, October 21, 2014, Venice.Google Scholar

Endo, Y. 2015a Two ReasonPs: What are*(n’t) you coming to the US for? In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 10, Shlonsky, Ur. (ed.) 220–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Endo, Y. 2015b. Why, what … for, how come and why the hell. In Papers from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 7: 10–16.Google Scholar

Endo, Y. 2017. Inter-speaker variation and subject drop in how come questions in English. Ms. Kanda University of International Studies (to appear in Linguistic Variation).Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. 1980. The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E. (eds) 151–74. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Erdmann, P. 1980. On the history of subject contact relatives in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–70.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M.Y. 2014. Why the null complementizer is special in the English that-trace effect. Ms. MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002029.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M.Y. 2017. Why the null complementizer is special in complementiser-trace effects. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80: 371–80.Google Scholar

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

Erteshik-Shir, N. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing, Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (eds) 89–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Fabb, N. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 55–77.Google Scholar

Fábregas, A. & Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2012. Extraction from fake adjuncts and first phase syntax. Poster presented at Going Romance, KU Leuven, 1–8 December.Google Scholar

Fay, D. 1981. Substitutions and splices: A study of sentence blends. Linguistics 19: 717–49.Google Scholar

Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–74.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, Cutler, A. (ed.) 263–78. Mahway NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V.S. 2003. The persistence of optional complementiser production: Why saying ‘that’ is not saying ‘that’ at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 379–98.Google Scholar

Ferreiro, E., Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, H. & Sinclair, H. 1976. How do children handle relative clauses? A study in comparative developmental psycholinguistics. Archives de Psychologie 45: 229–66.Google Scholar

Filppula, M. 2005. Irish English: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 73–101. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. 1999. Amount relatives and the meaning of chains. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar

Fiorentino, G. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica 19: 263–91.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. (1992). Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II, Blake, N. (ed.) 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fleischer, J. 2002. Preposition stranding in German dialects. In Syntactic Microvariation, Barbiers, S., Cornips, L. & van der Kleij, S. (eds) 116–51. Amsterdam: Meertens Institut.Google Scholar

Forby, R. 1830. The Vocabulary of East Anglia. London: J.B. Nichols & Son.Google Scholar

Fortin, C. 2007. Indonesian Sluicing and Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Description and explanation in a Minimalist framework. PhD diss. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Fox, D. & Lasnik, H. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–54.Google Scholar

Franco, I. 2009. Verbs, subjects and stylistic fronting: A comparative analysis of the interaction of CP properties with verb movement and subject positions in Icelandic and Old Italian. PhD diss. University of Siena.Google Scholar

Franks, S. 2005. What is that? Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 33–62.Google Scholar

Frascarelli, M. (ed.) 2006. Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Winkler, S. & Schwabe, K. (eds) 86–116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Frascarelli, M. & Puglielli, A. 2010. Focus in the Force-Fin system: Information structure in Cushitic Languages. In Focus strategies: Evidence from African languages, Aboh, E., Hartmann, K. & Zimmermann, M. (eds) 161–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Free, M. 1982. ‘In which’: More common than curious. American Speech 57: 309–10.Google Scholar

Freidin, R. & Vergnaud, J.R. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111: 639–66.Google Scholar

Frey, W. 2004. Notes on the syntax and pragmatics of German left dislocation. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Lohnstein, H. & Trissler, S. (eds) 163–209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Frey, W. 2005. Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43: 89–129.Google Scholar

Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., Szterman, R. & Preminger, O. 2008. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort when movement is impaired: Relative clauses in hearing impairment. In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics 7: 267–90.Google Scholar

Garzonio, J. 2005. Struttura informazionale e soggetti nulli in Russo: Un approccio cartografico. PhD diss., University of Padua.Google Scholar

Geisler, C. 1998. Infinitival relative clauses in spoken discourse. Language Variation and Change 10: 23–41.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107: 131–95.Google Scholar

Geluykens, R. (1992) From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, Language, Brain, Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W. (eds) 95–126. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Giorgi, A. 2014. Prosodic signals as syntactic formatives in the left periphery. In On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Cardinaletti, C., Cinque, G. & Endo, Y. (eds) 161–88. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar

Girard, G. & Malan, N. 1999. Postmodification by infinitive clauses: Something about which to have a bit of a discussion. English Linguistics 10: 31–42.Google Scholar

Glaser, E. & Frey, N. 2007. Doubling phenomena in Swiss German dialects. European Dialect Syntax Project: Papers presented at the Workshop on Syntactic Doubling, Amsterdam, March 2006, Barbiers, S., van der Ham, M. & Lekakou, M. (eds) 1–14. www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/edisynGoogle Scholar

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

Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W.H. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13: 425–30.Google Scholar

Gordon, T.W. & Patterson, G.W. 1979 Prepositional loss in English. Journal of English Linguistics 13: 1–23.Google Scholar

Grano, T. 2006. ‘Me and her’ meets ‘he and I’: Case, person and linear ordering in English coordinated pronouns. Honors thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Grant, V. (ed.) 1934–76. The Scottish National Dictionary. Edinburgh: Scottish National Dictionary Foundation.Google Scholar

Gregory, M. & Michaelis, L. 2001. Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706.Google Scholar

Grewendorf, G. 2002. Left dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 31–81.Google Scholar

Grewendorf, G. & Poletto, C. 2009. The hybrid complementizer system of Cimbrian. Studies in Linguistics 3: 181–94.Google Scholar

Grice, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts, Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds) 41–68. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gries, S. 2002. Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers’ behaviour. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics: Vol. 12, Samiian, V. (ed.) 230–41. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar

Gries, S., Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635–76.Google Scholar

Griffiths, J. & de Vries, M. 2013. The syntactic integration of appositives: Evidence from fragments and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 332–44.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1975. Evidence for relativization by deletion in Chaucerian English. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 5: 216–24.Google Scholar

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

Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion, Coopmans, P., Everaert, M. & Grimshaw, J. (eds) 115–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29: 261–90.Google Scholar

Grolla, E. 2005. Resumptive pronouns as last resort: Implications for language acquisition. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 71–84.Google Scholar

Groos, A. & van Riemsdijk, H. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. 1989. Pied-piping and the Matching Parameter. Linguistic Review 6: 41–58.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. 1994. Three Studies in Locality and Case. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. 1996. The proper analysis of missing-P free relative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 257–93.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. 2003. A unified theory of standard and transparent free relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. & Landman, F. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–70.Google Scholar

Guasti, M.T., Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. 1995. Negation in children’s questions: The case of English. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 19: 228–39.Google Scholar

Gundel, J.K. 1975. Left dislocation and the role of topic-comment structure in linguistic theory. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 72–131.Google Scholar

Gundel, J.K. 1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107.Google Scholar

Gundel, J.K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E.A. & Werth, J. (eds) 209–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Günzberg-Kerbel, N., Shvimer, L. & Friedmann, N. 2008. ‘Take the hen that the cow kissed the hen’: The acquisition of comprehension and production of various relative clauses in Hebrew. Language and Brain 7: 23–43.Google Scholar

Guy, G.R. & Bayley, R. 1995. On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148–62.Google Scholar

van Gysel, J. 2015. Preposition doubling in English. The structure of English prepositional phrases. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Ha, S. 2010. A prosody analysis of the comp-trace effect. English Language and Linguistics 16: 109–33.Google Scholar

Hackl, M. & Nissenbaum, J. 2012. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 20: 59–81.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1987. Complement ellipsis in English: Or, how to cook without objects. In Studies in Honour of René Derolez, Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. (ed.) 248–61. Ghent: University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1990a. Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Grammar in Progress, Mascarò, J. & Nespor, M. (eds) 167–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1990b. Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua 9: 157–99.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Grammar: A Case Study of West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 4: 133–75. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001059Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1997. Register variation, truncation and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 1: 233–70.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2000a. Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. In Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 121–60.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2000b. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In The Acquisition of Syntax, Friedemann, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 129–69. London: Addison, Wesley and Longman.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2003. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 640–9.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, Shaer, B., Frey, W. & Maienborn, C. (eds) 157–92. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2006a. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left periphery. In Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E., & Portner, P. (eds) 27–52. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

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

Haegeman, L. 2007. Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 18: 485–502.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2009. The movement analysis of temporal adverbial clauses. English Language and Linguistics 13: 385–408.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628–48.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130: 88–110.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Danckaert, L. 2017. Variation in English subject extraction: The case of hyperactive subjects. Ms. University of GhentGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Greco, C. 2016. ‘V > 2’. Handout for paper presented to the conference on ‘Rethinking Verb Second’, University of Cambridge, 22–4 March.+2’.+Handout+for+paper+presented+to+the+conference+on+‘Rethinking+Verb+Second’,+University+of+Cambridge,+22–4+March.>Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Greco, C. 2017. Initial adverbial clauses and West Flemish V3. Ms. University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Ihsane, T. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. & Ihsane, T. 2001. Adult null subjects in the non-pro drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9: 329–46.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L., Weir, A, Danckaert, L., D’Hulster, T. & Buelens, L. 2015. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua 163: 61–74.Google Scholar

Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers, MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations. In The View from Building 20, Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. (eds) 53–109. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1994. Constraints on argument structure. In Heads, Projections and Learnability, vol. 1, Lust, B., Suñer, M. & Whitman, J. (eds) 53–71. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. 2001. Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review 18: 289–325.Google Scholar

Han, C., Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K. & Kirby, S. 2012. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30: 153–61.Google Scholar

Harbert, W. 1983. On the nature of the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 2: 237–84.Google Scholar

Harris, J. 1993. The grammar of Irish English. In Real English, Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) 139–86. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Harris, M. & Vincent, N. 1980. On zero relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 805–7.Google Scholar

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

Hawkins, J. 2001. Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics 37: 1–34.Google Scholar

Heck, F. 2009. On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 75–111.Google Scholar

Heestand, D., Xiang, M. & Polinsky, M. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 138–52.Google Scholar

Heim, I. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A. (eds) 21–42. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hellmantel, M. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. PhD diss. University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Herdan, S. 2008. Degrees and Amounts in Relative Clauses. Proquest: Google Books.Google Scholar

Herrmann, T. 2003. Relative clauses in dialects of English: A typological approach. PhD diss. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.Google Scholar

Herrmann, T. 2005. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 21–124. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hicks, C. 2010. Morphosyntactic doubling in code switching. MA thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, L., Smzrecsanyl, B. & Bohmann, A. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91: 806–36.Google Scholar

Hirschbühler, P. 1976. Two analyses of free relatives in French. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 6: 137–52.Google Scholar

Hirschbühler, P. 1978. The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M.L. 1983. Remarks on free relatives and matching phenomena. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 505–19.Google Scholar

Hladnik, M. 2015. Mind the gap: Resumption in Slavic relative clauses. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. 2005. Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 257–97.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. 2011. Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. 2013. Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In The Core and the Periphery: Data-driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag, Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (eds) 225–46. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Hokari, T. & Wakabayashi, S. 2009. Null prepositions in wh-questions and passives. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), Bowles, M.. Ionin, T., Montrul, S. & Tremblay, A. (eds) 35–45. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Hoomchamlong, Y. 1991. Some issues in Thai anaphora: A Government and Binding approach. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar

Hopper, R. 1992. Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. 2007. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. In The Copy Theory of Movement, Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (eds) 351–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. 2003. The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis 33: 149–75.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. & Weinberg, A. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91.Google Scholar

Horsey, R. 1998. Null arguments in English registers: A Minimalist account. BA thesis, La Trobe University.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. 2003. Trouble on the left periphery. Lingua 113: 607–42.Google Scholar

Hulsey, S. & Sauerland., U. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111−37.Google Scholar

Ihalainen, O. 1980. Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 187–96.Google Scholar

Inada, S. 2007. Towards a syntax of two types of relative clauses. Linguistic Research 23: 1–41.Google Scholar

Izvorski, R. 2001. Free adjunct free relatives. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 232–45.Google Scholar

Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in Natural Languages, Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B.H. (eds) 451–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, B. 1994. Nonrestrictive relative that-clauses revisited. Studia Neophilologica 66: 181–95.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T.F. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61: 23–62.Google Scholar

Janda, R.J. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8: 437–54.Google Scholar

Jaworska, E. 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 22: 355–74.Google Scholar

Jayaseelan, K.A. 2008. Topic, focus and adverb positions in clause structure. Nanzan Linguistics 4: 43–68.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. III. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III (Syntax. 2nd Volume). London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2011. On the order of multiple topics and discourse-feature inheritance. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1: 5–32.Google Scholar

Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand 2: 49–60.Google Scholar

Johannessen, J.B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johansson, C. & Geisler, C. 1998. Pied piping in spoken English. In Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, Renouf, A. (ed.) 67–82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds) 439–79. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Jónsson, J.G. 2008. Preposition reduplication in Icelandic. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 403–17. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Jourdain, S. 1996. The case of null-prep in the interlanguage of adult learners of French. PhD diss. Indiana University.Google Scholar

Jurka, J. 2010. The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. PhD diss. University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Jurka, J., Nakao, C. & Omaki, A. 2011. It’s not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28: 124–32.Google Scholar

Kandybowicz, J. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 25: 220–8.Google Scholar

Kathol, A. 2001. Positional effects in a monostratal grammar of German. Journal of Linguistics 37: 35–66.Google Scholar

Kayne, R.S. 1981. ECP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93–133.Google Scholar

Kayne, R.S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

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

Kayne, R.S. 2014. Once and twice. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar

Kayne, R.S. 2016. What is suppletive allomorphy? On went and on *goed in English. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II: Complex Constructions, Shopen, T. (ed.) 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55: 333–51.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B. 1976a. Foregrounding referents: A reconsideration of left dislocation in discourse. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 2: 240–57.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B. 1976b. Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Subject and Topic, Li, C.N. (ed.) 335–84. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. 2011. Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of saving. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 37: 140–54.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. & Goodall, C. 2011. Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps? Poster presented at 24th annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford CA.Google Scholar

Kekalainen, K. 1985. Relative clauses in the dialect of Suffolk. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86: 353–7.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. & Merchant, J. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.Google Scholar

Khalifa, J.-C. 1999. A propos des relatives appositives: Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique. Anglophonia 6: 7–29.Google Scholar

King, R.D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Kjellmer, G. 1988. Conjunctional/adverbial which in substandard English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21: 125–37.Google Scholar

Kjellmer, G. 2010. And which: A note on (more or less) coordinated relatives. English Studies 91: 457–66.Google Scholar

Klein, E.C. 1993a. A problem for UG in L2 acquisition. Issues in Applied Linguistics 4: 33–56.Google Scholar

Klein, E.C. 1993b. Toward Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Null-Prep. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Klein, E.C. 1995. Evidence for a ‘wild’ L2 grammar: When PPs rear their empty heads. Applied Linguistics 16: 87–117.Google Scholar

Klein, E.C. 2001. (Mis)construing null prepositions in L2 intergrammars: A commentary and proposal. Second Language Research 17: 37–70.Google Scholar

Klein, E.C. & Casco, M. 1999. Optionality in English non-native grammars: Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 23: 349–60.Google Scholar

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

Koopman, H. 1999. The internal and external distribution of pronominal DPs. In Beyond Principles and Parameters, Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (eds) 91–132. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 2000. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles. In Mapping Spatial PPs, Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. & Szabolsci, A. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 2005. A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K. 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ewave-atlas.orgGoogle Scholar

Kotek, H. 2016. Degree relatives, definiteness, and shifted reference. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar

Krapova, I. 2002. On the left periphery of the Bulgarian sentence. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 107–28.Google Scholar

Krapova, I. & Cinque, G. 2008. On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh- fronting. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Zybatow, G., Szucsich, L., Junghanns, U. & Meyer, R. (eds) 318–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 1993. On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 103–30.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds) 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 17: 125–35.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, E. (1924). On the origin of the anaphoric relative that. English Studies 6: 141–4.Google Scholar

Kuha, M. 1994. Attitudes towards users of coordinate which. Ms. Indiana University, Bloomington. Paper presented to the Indiana University Socio Circle, Bloomington, Sept. 26.Google Scholar

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

Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme and speaker’s empathy: A reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Subject and Topic, Li, C.N. (ed.) 417–44. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Labelle, M. 1990. Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1: 95–119.Google Scholar

Laenzlinger, C. 1999. Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation: Adverbs, Pronouns, and Clause Structure in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, K. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 14: 319–39.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, K. 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1986. The case filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 51–75.Google Scholar

Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1987. The syntax of adjacency. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 6: 173–86.Google Scholar