Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T10:37:12.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ahmad Alqassas, A unified theory of polarity sensitivity: Comparative syntax of Arabic (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. x + 246.

Review products

Ahmad Alqassas, A unified theory of polarity sensitivity: Comparative syntax of Arabic (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. x + 246.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2022

EMAN AL KHALAF
EMAN AL KHALAF*
Affiliation:
University of Jordan, Queen Rania Street, Amman11942, Jordane.alkhalaf@ju.edu.jo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 677 - 681
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. Dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2017. NPI licensing in Jordanian Arabic: An argument for downward entailment and syntax-semantics interface. Topics in Linguistics 18, 24–35. doi:10.1515/topling-2017-0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2018. Remarks on the syntax and the semantics of so-called comitative coordination. Linguistic Research 35, 253–273. doi:10.17250/khisli.35.2.201806.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2019. Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4, art. 89. doi:10.5334/gjgl.848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2022a. Furthest conjunct agreement in Jordanian Arabic: Evidence for multiple (non)simultaneous Agree. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40, 345–391. doi:10.1007/s11049-021-09515-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2022b. Constituency and left-sharing in coordination. English Language and Linguistics 26.1, 161–183. doi:10.1017/S1360674321000162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2006. Licensing configurations: The puzzle of head negative polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin & Al Khalaf, Eman. 2018. No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for binding condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55, 247–276. doi:10.1017/S0022226718000324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin & Al Khalaf, Eman. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 51, 1–36. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1660–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland Pub.Google Scholar
Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000181 (accessed 1 June 2022).Google Scholar