Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint

Syntax

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 2-37

  Adger, David ^a   Harbour, Daniel ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248395125     PISSN: 13680005     EISSN: 14679612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. L. HEGGIE & F. OrdóñEZ, 199-235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Baker, M. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Béjar, S. & M. Řezáč. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics, ed. A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge, 49-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
6. BOECKX, C. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354-380.
7. BONET, E. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
8. BONET, E. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In MIT working papers in linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection, ed. H. HARLEY & C. PHILLIPS, 33-52. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
9. BONET, E. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13: 607-647.
10. BORER, H. 2004. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. CHOMSKY, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. MARTIN, D. MICHAELS & J. URIAGEREKA, 89-115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. CHOMSKY, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. KENSTOWICZ, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. CINQUE, G. 1999. The syntax of adverbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. CUERVO, M. C. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
15. FILLMORE, C. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. C. BACH & R. HARMS, 1-81. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
16. FOLEY, W. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
17. GREENBERG, J. H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
18. HALE, K. & S. J. KEYSER. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20, ed. K. HALE & S. J. KEYSER. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. HARBOUR, D. 2003. The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 543-578.
20. HARBOUR, D. 2006. Person hierarchies and geometries without hierarchies or geometries. Presentation at Leipzig Morphology Colloquium. Queen Mary OPALs 6. Queen Mary, University of London.
21. HARBOUR, D. 2007. Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
22. HARRINGTON, J. P. 1928. Vocabulary of the Kiowa language. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
23. HARRINGTON, J. P. 1946. Three Kiowa texts. International Journal of American Linguistics 12: 237-242.
24. HASPELMATH, M. 2002. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions (http://www.constructions-online.de).
25. HEWITT, G. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. JELINEK, E. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2: 39-76.
27. JELINEK, E. 1993. Ergative splits and argument type. In MIT working papers in linguistics 18: Papers on Case and agreement I, ed. J. D. BOBALJIK & C. PHILLIPS, 15-42. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
28. KAYNE, R. 1989. Notes on English agreement. CIEFL Bulletin 1:41-67. [Reprinted in Richard Kayne, ed., 2000, Parameters and universals, 187-205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]
29. KRATZER, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. J. ROORYCK & L. ZARING, 109-138. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
30. 0 syntax. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. J.-I. HUALDE & J. O. DE URBINA, 21-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. MARANTZ, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. S. MCHOMBO, 113-150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
32. MCGINNIS, M. J. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
33. MERRIFIELD, W. R. 1959a. Classification of Kiowa nouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 269-271.
34. MERRIFIELD, W. R. 1959b. The Kiowa verb prefix. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 168-176.
35. MILLER, P. & I. SAG. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 573-639.
36. NEVINS, A. 2006. Dual is still more marked than plural. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Available at ling.auf.net.
37. NOYER, R. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
38. ORMAZABAL, J. & J. ROMERO. 2002. Agreement restrictions. Ms., University of the Basque Country and University of Alcalá.
39. PERLMUTTER, D. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
40. PESETSKY, D. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. PYLKKÄNEN, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
42. RAMCHAND, G. 2003. First phase syntax. Ms., Oxford University.
43. REINHART, T. 2000. The theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. Utrecht: UiL OTS Working Papers.
44. ŘezáČ, M. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156-182.
45. RITTER, E. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13: 405-443.
46. SILVERSTEIN, M. 1986. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Features and projections, ed. P. MUYSKEN & H. VAN RIEMSDIJK, 163-232. Dordrecht: Foris. [Originally published in R.M.W. DIXON, ed., 1976, Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institutes of Aboriginal Studies.]
47. TARALDSEN, T. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. H. HAIDER, S. OLSEN & S. VIKNER, 307-327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
48. WATKINS, L. 1984. A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.