Erratum to: The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects (Nat Lang Linguist Theory, (2007), 25, (273-313), 10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2);The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 273-313

  Nevins, Andrew ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clitic clusters; Contrastive specification; Me lui; Multiple agree; Person case constraint; Person features; Spurious se; Third person

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249077929     PISSN: 0167806X     EISSN: 15730859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11049-016-9345-9     Document Type: Erratum

References (72)

1. Adger, D., & Harbour, D. (2006). The syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. To appear in Syntax.
2. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In L. Heggie & F. Ordoñez (Eds.), Clitics and Affixation (pp. 199-235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Anttila, A. (2003). Finnish assibilation. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), The Proceedings of NELS 33, (pp. 13-24). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
5. Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
6. Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2006). Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. In T Scheffier (Eds.), Penn linguistics colloquium special session on distributed morphology, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1. (Also available as at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000280).
7. Avery, P., & Rice, K. (1989). Segment structure and coronal Underspecification. Phonology, 6, 179-200.
8. Bejar, S. (2003). Phi-Syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.
9. Bejar, S., & Rezac, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Y. Roberge & A. T. Pérez-Leroux (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (pp. 49-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10. Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
11. Bianchi, V. (2005). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116(12), 2023-2067.
12. Bleam, T. (1999). Lefsta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic doubling. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware.
13. Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in romance. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
14. Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 607-647.
15. Borer, H. (1984). Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
16. Bresnan, J. (2001). Explaning morphosyntactic competition. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 11-14). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17. Bruening, B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: ACD and frozen scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 233-273.
18. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax, Studies in natural language and linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
19. Cagliari, L. C. (1997). Fonologia do Português: Análise pela geometria de. traças. Campinas: Edição do Autor.
20. Calabrese, A. (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 373-463.
21. Chomsky, N. (2001). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
22. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
23. Ciucivara, O. (2004). Syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic combinations in Romanian. Ms., NYU.
24. D'Alessandro, R. (2004). Impersonal si constructions: Agreement and interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.
25. de Yrizar, P. (1992). Morfología del verbo auxiliar vizcaino: estudio dialectológico. Bilbao Bizkaia Kutxa: Euskaltzaindia.
26. Farkas, D, & Kazazis, K. (1980). Clitic pronouns and topicality in Rumanian. Chicago Linguistic Society, 16, 75-82.
27. Fassi-Fehri, A. (1988). Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language (pp. 107-158). Stanford: CSLI.
28. Fernández-Soriano, O. (1999). El Pronombre Personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres Átonos y Tónicos. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (pp. 1209-1273). Chapter 19. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
29. Foley, W. (1991). The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
30. Forchheimer, P. (1953). The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
31. Francis, N. (1985). Amn't I, or the hole in the pattern. In W. Viereck (Ed.), Focus on England and Wales (pp. 141-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32. Franco, J., & Huidobro, S. (2004). Experiencer Datives and Belleti's and Rizzi's second class of Psych verbs. In S. Bračič et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th linguistic colloquium, Ljubljana, 2001 (pp. 219-229).
33. Orimshaw, J. (1997). The best clitic: Constraint interaction in morphosyntax. In L. Hargeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 169-196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34. Hale, K. (1973). Person marking in Warlbiri. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, (pp. 308-344). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
35. Hall, T., & Hamann, S. (2006). Towards a typology of stop assibilation. To appear in Linguistics.
36. Halle, M. (1997). Impoverishment and Fission. In B. Bruening et al. (Eds.), PF: Papers at the interface, (Vol. 30, pp. 425-450). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
37. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hall & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building (Vol. 20, pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
38. Harbour, D. (2003a). Elements of number theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
39. Harbour, D. (2003b). The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21 (3), 543-578.
40. Harbour, D. (2006). Person hierarchies and geometry without hierarchies or geometries. Queen Mary's OPAL #6.
41. Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78(3), 482-526.
42. Hiraiwa, K. (2001). Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In O. Matushansky (Ed.), The Proceedings of the. MIT-Harvard joint conference (HUMIT 2000), MITWPL 40 (pp. 67-80). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
43. Hiraiwa, K. (2004). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
44. Holmberg, A., & Hróarsdóttir, T. (2004). Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua, 114, New York: 651-673.
45. Kayne, R. S. (2000). Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Kiparsky, P. (1973). Phonological representations. In O. Fujimura (Ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory (pp. 3-136). Tokyo: TEC.
47. Kratzer, A. (1997). German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung II, Berlin.
48. Laenzlinger, C. (1998). Comparative studies in word order variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49. Landa, A. (1995). Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to Leismo and clitic doubling. Doctoral Dissertation, USC, Los Angeles.
50. Leavitt, R. (1996). Passamaquoddy-Maliseet. Munich: Lincom Europa.
51. Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
52. Manzini, R. (1986). On Italian si. In H. Borer (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The syntax of pronominal clitics (pp. 241-262). New York: Academic Press.
53. Manzini, R. (1998). Syntactic approaches to cliticization. GLOT International, 3(3), 3-7.
54. McCarthy, J., & Taub, A. (1992). Review of Paradis & Prunet (Eds.), The special status of coronals. Phonology, 9, 363-370.
55. McGinnis, M. (2005). On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language, 81(3), 699-718.
56. Miyagawa, S. (2001). EPP, scrambling, and Wh-in-situ. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (293-338). Cambridge, MIT Press.
57. Mohanan, K. P. (1991). On the bases of radical underspecification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 285-325.
58. Nevins, A. (2003). Do person/number syncretisms refer to negative values? Paper presented at the 77th LSA Meeting, Atlanta.
59. Nevins, A. (2004). Conditions on (Dis)Harmony. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
60. Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
61. Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J. (2006). The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory this volume.
62. Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
63. Pescarini, D. (2005). Types of syncretism in the clitic systems of Romance. To appear International Journal of Basque Linguistics.
64. Rackowski, A., & Richards, N. (2005). Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study, Linguistic Inquiry, 56(4), 565-599.
65. Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45(2), 45-94.
66. Ringen, C. (1975). Vowel harmony: theoretical implications. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University.
67. Rivero, M. (2004). Quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the person case constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 494-502.
68. Ross, J. R. (1972). Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 61-86.
69. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
70. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112-171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
71. Steriade, D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 114-174). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
72. Trommer, J. (2006). Third person marking in Menominee. In Phi theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.