The grammar of identity: Intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages

The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1-273

  Gast, Volker ^a  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917126132     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203966181     Document Type: Book

References (274)

1. Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement. A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M. (1999). Toward a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30:97-119.
3. Archangeli, D. (ed.) (1997). Optimality Theory: An Overview. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
4. Askedal, J.O. (1994). Norwegian. In König and van der Auwera (1994), 219-70.
5. Bach, E. (1962). The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language 38:363-69.
6. Bach, E. (1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10:515-31.
7. Baker, C. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71(1):63-101.
8. Barnes, M.P. (1994). Faroese. In König and van der Auwera (1994), 190-218.
9. Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Benedicto, E. (1991). Latin long-distance anaphora. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 171-84.
11. Bergeton, U. (2004). The Independence of Binding and Intensification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.
12. Bierwisch, M. (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
13. Bornemann, E. and Risch, E. (1978). Griechische Grammatik, 2nd edn. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.
14. Browning, M.A. (1993). Adverbial reflexives. Proceedings of NELS 23(I): 83-94.
15. Büring, D. (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus. The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London:Routledge.
16. Büring, D. (2001). Let's phrase it!-focus, word order, and prosodic phrasing in German double object constructions. In G.Müller and W.Sternefeld (eds.), Competition in Syntax, no. 49 in Studies in Generative Grammar, 101-37. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
17. Büring, D. (2004). Focus suppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 30:65-76.
18. Büring, D. (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Burzio, L. (1989). On the non-existence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 14:3-27.
20. Burzio, L. (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27:81-105.
21. Burzio, L. (1996). The role of the antecedent in anaphoric relations. In R.Freidin (ed.), Current Issues in Comparative Grammar, 1-45. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
22. Burzio, L. (1998). Anaphora and soft constraints. In P.Barbosa, D.Fox, P.Hagstrom, M.McGinnis and D.Pesetsky (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 93-113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Cantrall, W. (1973). Why I would relate own, emphatic reflexives, and intensive pronouns, my own self. CLS 9:57-67.
24. Cantrall, W. (1974). Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases. The Hague: Mouton.
25. Carlson, G.N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
26. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S.Anderson and P.Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Moris Halle, 232-86. New York: Holt.
28. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
29. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
32. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Clements, G.N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10:141-77.
35. Comrie, B. (1999). Reference-tracking: description and explanation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52:335-46.
36. Comrie, B., Gil, D. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) (2005). World Atlas of Language Structures. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.
37. Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) (1994). Studies on Scrambling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Cresswell, M. (1973). Logics and Languages. London: Methuen & Co.
39. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change. London: Longman.
40. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Croft, W. (forthcoming). Evolutionary models and functional-typological theories of language change. In A.van Kemenade and L.Bettelou (eds.), Handbook of the History of English. Oxford:Blackwell.
42. Danlos, L. (1992). Support verb constructions: linguistic properties, representation, translation. Journal of French Language Studies 2(1):1-32.
43. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N.Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81-95. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
44. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon.
45. de Hoop, H. (1992). Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.
46. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Dirven, R. (1973). Emphatic and reflexive in English and Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen 63:288-99.
48. Does, J. and de Hoop, H. (1998). Type-shifting and scrambled definites. Journal of Semantics 15:393-416.
49. Donaldson, B. (1993). A Grammar of Afrikaans. London: Routledge.
50. Donaldson, B. (1997). Dutch. London: Routledge.
51. Donellan, K.S. (1966). Reference and definite description. Philosophical Review LXXV:281-304.
52. Dowty, D. (1979). Dative 'movement' and Thomason's extensions of Montague Grammar. In S.Davis and M.Mithun (eds.), Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, 153-222. Austin: University of Texas Press.
53. Dowty, D.R. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion 'thematic role'. In B.Partee, G.Chierchia and R.Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings, vol. II, 69-130. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
54. Dowty, D.R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547-619.
55. Eckardt, R. (2001). Reanalysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9(4): 371-412.
56. Edmondson, J. and Plank, F. (1978). Great expectations: an intensive self analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2:373-413.
57. Egli, U. (1995). Definiteness, binding, salience, and choice functions. Tech. Rep. 71-1, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.
58. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1):1-25.
59. Ernst, T. (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Everaert, M. (1986). The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.
61. Everaert, M. (1991). Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 77-118.
62. Faarlund, J.-T. (2004). The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Faltz, L. (1985). Reflexivity: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.
64. Fanselow, G. (2002). "Quirky" subjects and other specifiers. In I.Kaufmann and B.Stiebels (eds.), More than Words-A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, Studia grammatica 53, 227-50. Berlin:Akademie Verlag.
65. Farmer, A. and Harnish, M. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In M.Papi and J.Verschueren (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, 547-65. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
66. Farr, J.M. (1905). Intensives and Reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and Early Middle-English. Baltimore:Furst.
67. Ferro, L. (1993). On 'self' as a focus marker. In Proceedings of the Ninth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL '92), 68-79. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
68. Fischer, S. (2004). Optimal binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:481-526.
69. Fox, D. and Pesetsky, D. (2003). Cyclic linearization and the typology of movement. Ms., 44pp., MIT.
70. Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.) (2000). Reflexives-Forms and Functions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
71. Frey, W. (2001). About the whereabouts of indefinites. Theoretical Linguistics 27(2/3):137-61.
72. Frey, W. (2004a). The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache und Pragmatik 52:1-39.
73. Frey, W. (2004b). A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198:153-90.
74. Frey, W. and Pittner, K. (1998). Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte 176:489-534.
75. Gast, V. (2004). The interpretation of logophoric self-forms, and some consequences for a model of reference and denotation. In M.T.Branco, A. and R.Mitkov (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (DAARC), 75-80. Lisbon: Colibri.
76. Gast, V. and Haas, F. (forthcoming). On reciprocal and reflexive uses of anaphors in German and other European languages. In E.König and V.Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives-Typological and Theoretical Explorations. Berlin: de Gruyter.
77. Gast, V. and Siemund, P. (2006). Rethinking the relation between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2):243-82.
78. Genuišiene˙, E. (1987). The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: de Gruyter.
79. Grein, C. and Köhler, J. (1912). Sprachschatz der angelsächsischen Dichter. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
80. Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.) (1990). Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
81. Gross, G. (1984). Compléments adverbiaux et verbes supports. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 13(2):123-56.
82. Gross, G. and Valli, A. (1991). Verbes support et determinant zéro. Langages 102:36-51.
83. Haegeman, L. (1998a). V-positions and the middle field in West Flemish. Syntax 1:259-99.
84. Haegeman, L. (1998b). Verb movement in embedded clauses in West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 29:631-56.
85. Haegeman, L. and van Riemsdijk, H. (1986). Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rule affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17:417-66.
86. Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophorics. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 69:287-310.
87. Haider, H. (2003). Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO. Lingua 114:779-807.
88. Haider, H. and Rosengren, I. (2003). Scrambling-non-triggered chain-formation in OV-languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15(3):203-67.
89. Hajičova, E., Partee, B.H. and Sgall, P. (1998). Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
90. Hall, B. (1965). Subject and Object in Modern English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
91. Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3:199-244.
92. Haspelmath, M. (1990). The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1):25-72.
93. Haspelmath, M. (1999). Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2):180-205.
94. Haspelmath, M. (2004). Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint. Constructions 2/2004. Free online journal, University of Düsseldorf; http://www.constructions-online.de/.
95. Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.) (2001). Language Typology and Language Universals-An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin & New York: Mouton.
96. Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Also published by Garland, New York & London, 1988).
98. Heim, I. (1991). Definitheit und Artikel. In von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991), 487-535.
99. Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
100. Hellan, L. (1981). On semantic scope. In F.Heny (ed.), Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts, 47-82. Dordrecht: Reidel.
101. Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
102. Hellan, L. (1991). Containment and connectedness anaphors. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 27-48.
103. Hendriks, P. and Spendauer, J. (forthcoming). A bidirectional explanation of the pronoun interpretation problem. In Proceedings of ESSLLI 04-Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding.
104. Heusler, A. (1950). Altisländisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
105. Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14:395-420.
106. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4):547-93.
107. Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P. (1939). Grundlagen der Mathematik, 2nd edn, vol. II. Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer.
108. Hole, D. (2002a). Agentive selbst in German. In G.Katz, S.Reinhard and P.Reuter (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung VI-Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, 133-50. Osnabrück: Institute of Cognitive Science.
109. Hole, D. (2002b). Spell-bound? Accounting for unpredictable self-forms in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories. In König and Gast (2002b), 285-300.
110. Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. (1995). The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
111. Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. (2005). The Scandinavian languages. In G.Cinque and R.Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 420-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
112. Holmes, P. and Hinchliffe, I. (1994). Swedish-A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
113. Hróarsdóttir, T. (2000). Parameter change in Icelandic. In Svenonius (2000), 153-80.
114. Huang, Y. (1989). Anaphora in Chinese: Toward a Pragmatic Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.
115. Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27:301-35.
116. Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora-A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
117. Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
118. Ioup, G. (1977). Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:233-45.
119. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
120. Jackendoff, R. (1990). On Larson's treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21:427-56.
121. Jacobs, J. (1983). Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
122. Jayaseelan, K. (1988). Emphatic reflexive x-self. In CIEFL Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 5, 1-20. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages.
123. Jayaseelan, K. (1997). Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 51(2):186-234.
124. Johnson, K. (1991). Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:577-636.
125. Josefsson, G. and Platzack, C. (1998). Short raising of V and N in Mainland Scandinavian. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 61, 23-52. University of Lund, Department of Scandinavian Languages.
126. Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
127. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J.Groenendijk, T.Janssen and M.Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, 277-322. Amsterdam:Mathematical Centre. (Reprinted in Groenendijk, J. & Janssen, T, eds, 1984, Truth, Interpretation and Information, 1-41. Dordrecht: Foris.).
128. Kayne, R. (1998). Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1:128-91.
129. Keenan, E. (1974). The functional principle: generalizing the notion 'subject of'. CLS 10:278-309.
130. Keenan, E. (1987). On semantics and binding theory. In J.Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 105-44. Oxford: Blackwell.
131. Keenan, E. (1996). Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns. Ms., UCLA.
132. Keenan, E. (2002). Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In D.Minkova and R.Stockwell (eds.), Studies in the History of English: A Millenial Perspective, 325-55. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
133. Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
134. Kemmer, S. (1995). Emphatic and reflexive-self. Expectations, viewpoint and subjectivity. In D.Stein and S.Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivization in Language, 55-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
135. Kibrik, A. and Bogdanova, E. (1995). Sam kak operator korrektcii ožidanii adresata. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3:28-47.
136. Kiparsky, P. (2002). Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In I.Kaufmann and B.Stiebels (eds.), More than Words-A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, Studia grammatica 53, 179-226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
137. Kirby, S. (1999). Function, Selection, and Innateness-The Emergence of Language Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
138. Kiss, K.E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2):245-73.
139. Koizumi, M. (1993). Object agreement phrases and the split-VO hypothesis. In C.Phillips and J.Bobaljik (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I, no. 18 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 99-148.
140. König, E. (1991a). Gradpartikeln. In von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991), 786-803.
141. König, E. (1991b). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
142. König, E. (2001). Intensifiers and reflexives. In Haspelmath et al. (2001), 747-60.
143. König, E. (2005). Intensifiers. In K.Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 718-20. Oxford: Elsevier.
144. König, E. and Gast, V. (2002a). Reflexive pronouns and other uses of self-forms in English. In König and Gast (2002b), 225-38.
145. König, E. and Gast, V. (eds.) (2002b). Reflexives and Intensifies-the Use of Self-forms in English. Special Issue of the Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
146. König, E. and Gast, V. (forthcoming). Focused expressions of identity-a typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10.
147. König, E. and Siemund, P. (1996a). Emphatische Reflexiva und Fokusstruktur. In I.Rosengren (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik, 1-42. Lund: Lunds Universitet.
148. König, E. and Siemund, P. (1996b). Selbst-Reflektionen. In G.Harras (ed.), Wenn die Semantik arbeitet-Festschrift für Klaus Baumgärtner, 277-302. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
149. König, E. and Siemund, P. (1997). On the development of reflexive pronouns in English: a case study in grammaticalization. In U.Böker and H.Sauer (eds.), Anglistentag 1996 Dresden, Proceedings, 95-108. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
150. König, E. and Siemund, P. (1999). Reflexivity, logophoricity and intensification in English. In U.Carls and P.Lucko (eds.), Form, Function, and Variation in English, 283-304. Frankfurt: Lang.
151. König, E. and Siemund, P. (2000a). The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica XVII(1):39-84.
152. König, E. and Siemund, P. (2000b). Intensifiers and reflexives-a typological perspective. In Frajzyngier and Curl (2000), 41-74.
153. König, E. and Siemund, P. (2000c). Locally free self-forms, logophoricity and intensification. English Language and Linguistics 4(2):183-204.
154. König, E. and Siemund, P. (2005). Intensifiers and reflexives. In Comrie et al. (2005), 194-97.
155. König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.) (1994). The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.
156. König, E. and Vezzosi, L. (2003). Strategies of reflexivization and the meaning of predicates. In W.Bisang and B.Wiemer (eds.), Grammaticalization and its Background. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
157. Koopman, H. (2003). Inside the "noun" in Maasai. In A.Mahajan (ed.), Syntax at Sunset: Head Movement and Syntactic Theory, no. 10 in UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 77-115. UCLA.
158. Koopman, H. and Szabolcsi, A. (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
159. Koster, J. (1999). The word orders of English and Dutch: Collective vs. individual checking. In W.Abraham (ed.), Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 1-42. University of Groningen.
160. Koster, J. (2000). Pied piping and the word orders of English and Dutch. In N.H.M.Hirotani, A.Coetzee and J.-Y.Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 415-26. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts.
161. Koster, J. and Reuland, E. (eds.) (1991). Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
162. Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12:607-53.
163. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J.Rooryck and L.Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
164. Krifka, M. (1998). Focus particles under stress. In D.Strolovitch and A.Lawson (eds.), SALT, vol. 8, 111-28. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
165. Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G. and Link, G. (1995). Genericity:an introduction. In G.Carlson and F.Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, 1-24. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
166. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
167. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
168. Lange, C. (2003). Reflexivity and Intensification in English-A Study of Texts and Contexts. Ph.D. thesis, Free University of Berlin.
169. LaPolla, R.J. (2003). Qiang. In G.Thurgood and R.LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 573-87. London: Routledge.
170. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335-91.
171. Lees, R.B. and Klima, E. (1963). Rules of English pronominalization. Language 39:17-28.
172. Legendre, J.G., G. and Vikner, S. (eds.) (2001). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
173. Lenerz, J. (2001). Word order variation: competition or co-operation. In G.Müller and W.Sternefeld (eds.), Competition in Syntax, 249-81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
174. Leslau, W. (1995). Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
175. Levinson, S. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 23:379-434.
176. Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27:107-61.
177. Lidz, J.L. (1996). Dimensions of Reflexivity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware.
178. Lyutikova, E.A. (2000). Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur. In Frajzyngier and Curl (2000), 227-55.
179. Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:211-41.
180. Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
181. McCarthy, J.J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
182. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and logical form. Language 58:144-84.
183. Milsark, G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
184. Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
185. Moravcsik, E. (1972). Some crosslinguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. CLS 8:272-77.
186. Moyne, J.A. (1971). Reflexive and emphatic. Language 47(1):141-63.
187. Mustanoja, T. (1960). A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
188. Næss, A. (1991). Untitled. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo.
189. Ohlander, U. (1943). Omission of the object in English. Studia Neophilologica 16:105-27.
190. Parker, F., Riley, K. and Meyer, C. (1990). Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65(1):50-69.
191. Parsons, T. (1985). Underlying events in the logical analysis of English. In E.LePore and B.McLaughlin (eds.), Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, 235-67. Oxford: Blackwell.
192. Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In J.McDonough and B.Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 17, 483-99. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
193. Pica, P. (1991). On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: the case of longdistance reflexivization. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 119-35.
194. Plank, F. (1979). Zur Affinität von selbst und auch. In H.Weydt (ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, 269-84. Berlin: de Gruyter.
195. Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1983). Reflexives and reciprocals in English: an alternative to the binding theory. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2:189-203.
196. Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23:261-303.
197. Primus, B. (1992). Selbst-variants of a scalar adverb in German. In J.Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 54-88. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
198. Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory. Tech. Rep. 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
199. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
200. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
201. Radford, A. (1997). Syntax-A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
202. Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax-Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
203. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.
204. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
205. Reinhart, T. (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In B.Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, 123-50. Dordrecht: Reidel.
206. Reinhart, T. (2000). Strategies of anaphora resolution. In M.E.Hans Bennis and E.Reuland (eds.), Interface Strategies, 295-325. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Sciences.
207. Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. (1989). Anaphoric territories. Ms., Tel Aviv University and Groningen University. (Later published in Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 34, ed. Werner Abraham, 1991. Groningen University).
208. Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: an argument structure perspective. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 283-321.
209. Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
210. Reuland, E. (2000). The fine structure of grammar: anaphoric relations. In Frajzyngier and Curl (2000), 1-40.
211. Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3):439-92.
212. Reuland, E. (forthcoming). Anaphoric dependencies: How are they encoded? Towards a derivation-based typology. In E.König and V.Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives-Typological and Theoretical Explorations. Berlin: de Gruyter.
213. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L.Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
214. Rochemont, M.S. and Culicover, P.W. (1997). Deriving dependent right adjuncts in English. In D.Beerman, D.LeBlanc and H.van Riemsdijk (eds.), Rightward Movement, 279-300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
215. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
216. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75-116.
217. Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In S.Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 271-97. London: Blackwell.
218. Rothstein, S. (ed.) (1998a). Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
219. Rothstein, S. (1998b). Introduction. In S.Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, 1-12. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
220. Runner, J. (1998). Noun Phrase Licensing. New York: Garland.
221. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14:479-93.
222. Sabel, J. and Saito, M. (eds.) (2005). Scrambling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
223. Safir, K. (1996). Semantic atoms of anaphora. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.
224. Safir, K. (2004). The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
225. Schladt, M. (2000). The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Frajzyngier and Curl (2000), 103-24.
226. Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2):141-77.
227. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18:445-79.
228. Siemund, P. (2000). Intensifiers-A Comparison of English and German. London: Routledge.
229. Siemund, P. (2002a). Selber essen macht fett: Zur Syntax und Semantik von adverbialen Intensifikatoren. In M.Yoshida (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien aus sprachhistorischer und typologischer Perspektive: Akten des 29. Linguisten-Seminars (Kyoto 2001), 187-204. Hamburg: Iudicium.
230. Siemund, P. (2002b). Reflexives and intensifiers in varieties of English. In König and Gast (2002b), 250-68.
231. Sigur{eth}sson, H. (1986). Moods and (long-distance) reflexives in Icelandic. Trondheim. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 25.
232. Siméon, R. (1996). Diccionario de la Lengua Náhuatl o Mexicana. Mexico & Madrid: Siglo XXI. (Translation of: Diccionaire de la Langue Nahuatl ou Mexicaine, originally published in 1885).
233. Smith, M. (2004). Light and heavy reflexives. Language 42(3):573-615.
234. Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425-49.
235. Stirling, L. (1993). Switch-Reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
236. Stockwell, R., Schachter, P. and Partee, B. (1968). Integration of Transformational Theories on English Syntax. Los Angeles: UCLA.
237. Streitberg, W. (1900). Gothisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
238. Sullivan, T. (1992). Compendio de la Gramática Náhuatl. Mexico D.F.: UNAM.
239. Svenonius, P. (ed.) (2000). The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
240. Tanigutchi, J. (1972). A Grammatical Analysis of Artistic Representation of Irish English. Tokyo:Shinozaki Shorin.
241. Taraldsen, K.T. (1996). Reflexives, pronouns and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese. In J.R.Black and V.Montapanyane (eds.), Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, 189-211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
242. Taraldsen, K.T. (2000). V-movement and VP-movement in derivations leading to VOorder. In Svenonius (2000), 97-122.
243. Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. and Andersson, E. (eds.) (1999a). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, Vol. 2: Ord. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
244. Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. and Andersson, E. (eds.) (1999b). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, Vol. 3: Fraser. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
245. Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. and Andersson, E. (eds.) (1999c). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, Vol. 4: Satser och Meningar. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
246. ter Meulen, A. (2000). Optimal reflexivity in Dutch. Journal of Semantics 17:263-80.
247. Thorell, O. (1973). Svensk Grammatik. Stockholm: Esselte.
248. Thráinsson, H. (1976). Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS, 6, 225-39. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
249. Thráinsson, H. (1991). Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster and Reuland (1991), 49-76.
250. Thráinsson, H. (1994a). Comments on the paper by Vikner. In D.Lightfoot and N.Hornstein (eds.), Verb Movement, 149-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
251. Thráinsson, H. (1994b). Icelandic. In König and van der Auwera (1994), 142-89.
252. Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79-123.
253. van Gelderen, E. (2000). A History of English Reflexive Pronouns-Person, Self, and Interpretability. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
254. Verbeek, H. (1917). Flämisch für alle Deutschen. Gladbach: VolksvereinVerlag.
255. Verheijen, R. (1986). A phrase-structure syntax for emphatic self-forms. Linguistics 24:681-95.
256. Vikner, S. (1991). Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-Positions in the Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva.
257. Vikner, S. (1995). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
258. Vikner, S. (1997). V0-to-I0 movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In L.Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 189-213. London: Longman.
259. Vikner, S. (2001). Verb Movement Variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Post-doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen.
260. Visser, F. (1963). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vol.1: Syntactical Units with one Verb. Leiden: Brill.
261. von der Gabelentz, G. (1901). Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Tübingen: Narr.
262. von Heusinger, K. (1997). Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
263. von Heusinger, K. (2000). The reference of indefinites. In K.von Heusinger and U.Egli (eds.), Reference and Anaphoric Relations, 247-65. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
264. von Stechow, A. (1982). Structured propositions. Tech. Rep. 59, SFB 99, Universität Konstanz.
265. von Stechow, A. (1991). Current issues in the theory of focus. In von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991), 804-25.
266. von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.) (1991). Semantics-An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin & New York: Mouton.
267. Webelhuth, G. (1989). Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
268. Wexler, K. and Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18:413-44.
269. Wilson, C. (2001). Bidirectional optimization and the theory of anaphora. In Legendre and Vikner (2001), 465-507.
270. Wurmbrand, S. (2000). The structure(s) of particle verbs. Talk given at the Annual Meting of the DGfS. Ms., McGill University, 36pp.
271. Zeller, J. (2003). Moved preverbs in German: displaced or misplaced? In G.Booij and A.van Kemenade (eds.), The Yearbook of Morphology, 179-212. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
272. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 56:695-727.
273. Zribi-Hertz, A. (2003). Réflexivité et disjonction référentielle en français et en anglais. In P.Miller and A.Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Essais sur la grammaire comparée du français et de l'anglais. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
274. Zwart, J.-W. (2003). Agreement and remnant movement in the domain of West-Germanic verb movement. In J.Koster and H.van Riemsdijk (eds.), Germania et alia: A linguistic Webschrift for Hans den Besten. University of Groningen, Department of Linguistics.