On the Semantic Markedness of Phi-Features

Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces

Volumn , Issue , 2023, Pages 57-82

  Sauerland, Uli ^a  

^a Center for General Linguistics (ZAS)   (Germany)

Author keywords

contrasted; default; markedness; regarded; systems

Indexed keywords

EID: 85188376268     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0003     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Abusch, D. (1997). ‘Sequence of tense and temporal de re’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1-50.
2. Aoun, J., E. Benmamoun, and D. Sportiche (1994). ‘Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic’, Linguistic Inquiry, 25(2): 195-220.
3. Aoun, J., E. Benmamoun, and D. Sportiche (1995). ‘Further remarks on first conjunct agreement’, Linguistic Inquiry 30(4):669-81.
4. Benveniste, E. (1956). ‘La nature des pronoms’, in M. Halle, H. G. Lunt, H.MacLean, and C. H. van Schoonveld (eds.), For Roman Jakobsen: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. TheHague:Mouton, 34-7.
5. Bittner, D. (2006). ‘The pronominal inflection of German in acquisition’, in A. Bittner, F. Plank, and P. Steinkrüger (eds.), On Inflection: In Memory of Wolfgang U. Wurzel. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Cooper, R. (1979). ‘The interpretation of pronouns’, in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.), Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, Syntax, and Semantics, Volume 10. New York: Academic Press, 61-92.
8. Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cysouw, M. (2000). ‘The paradigmatic structure of person marking.' Ph.D. thesis, Catholic University of Nijmegen.
11. Dvořák, B., and U. Sauerland (in press). ‘The semantics of the Slovenian dual’, in H. Filip, S. Franks, J. E. Lavine, and M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI:Michigan Slavic Publishers.
12. Givón, T. (1970). ‘The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction’, in M. A. Campbell (ed.), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 6. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 250-61.
13. Greenberg, J. (1966). Language Universals. TheHague:Mouton.
14. Harbour, D. (2003). ‘Elements of Number Theory.' Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
15. Harley, H., and E. Ritter (2002). ‘A feature-geometric analysis of person and number’, Language 78: 482-526.
16. Hawkinson, A. K., and L. M. Hyman (1974). ‘Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona’, Studies in African Linguistics 5: 147-70.
17. Head, B. (1978). ‘Respect degrees in pronominal reference’, in J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson, and E. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 3. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 151-221.
18. Heim, I. (1991). ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 487-535.
19. Heim, I. (1994). ‘Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports’, Unpublished Handout (Presented at Bielefeld), MIT.
20. Huddleston, R., and J. K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Johnson, S. (2004). ‘Exploring the use of “they” pronouns singularly in English’, in A. S. Kaye (ed.), California Linguistic Notes. Fresno: California State University. (Google: linguistics cln)
22. Kratzer, A. (1998). ‘More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses’, in D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 8. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 92-110.
23. Ludwig, R. (2001). ‘Markiertheit’, in M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 20 of Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science. Berlin: de Gruyter, 400-19.
24. McGinnis, M. (2005). ‘On markedness asymmetries in person and number’, Language, 81: 699-718.
25. Noyer, R. (1992). ‘Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
26. Percus, O. (2006). ‘Antipresuppositions and related issues.' Ms, University of Nantes.
27. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
28. Sagey, E. (1986). ‘The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology.' Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
29. Sauerland, U. (2002). ‘The present tense is vacuous’, Snippets 6 (online publication).
30. Sauerland, U. (2003). ‘A new semantics for number’, in R. Young and Y. Zhou (eds.), The Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. Ithaca, NY: CLC-Publications, 258-75.
31. Sauerland, U., J. Andersen, and K. Yatsushiro (2005). ‘The plural is semantically unmarked’, in S. Kepser and M. Reis (eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 413-34.
32. Saussure, F. de (1993). Third Course of Lectures on General Lingustics (1910-11). New York: Pergamon Press.
33. Schlenker, P. (2003). ‘A plea for monsters’, Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29-120.
34. Schlenker, P. (2005). ‘Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory’, Natural Language Semantics 13: 1-92.
35. Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Stechow, A. von (2003). ‘Binding by verbs’, in M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistics Society 33. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 133-57.
37. Vanek, A. L. (1977). Aspects of Subject-Verb Agreement. Edmonton, Canada: Linguistic Research.