Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:38:57.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nominal licensing in caseless languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2018

MICHELLE SHEEHAN  and
JENNEKE VAN DER WAL
MICHELLE SHEEHAN*
Affiliation:
Anglia Ruskin University
JENNEKE VAN DER WAL*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
*
Author’s address:Department of English and Media (Linguistics Section), Anglia Ruskin University, 323 Helmore Building, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UKMichelle.sheehan@anglia.ac.uk
Author’s address: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlandsjennekevanderwal@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides evidence for a kind of nominal licensing (Vergnaud licensing) in a number of morphologically caseless languages. Recent work on Bantu languages has suggested that abstract Case or nominal licensing should be parameterised (Diercks 2012, Van der Wal 2015a). With this is mind, we critically discuss the status of Vergnaud licensing in six languages lacking morphological case. While Luganda appears to systematically lack a Vergnaud licensing requirement, Makhuwa more consistently displays evidence in favour of it, as do all of the analytic languages that we survey (Mandarin, Yoruba, Jamaican Creole and Thai). We conclude that, while it seems increasingly problematic to characterise nominal licensing in terms of uninterpretable/abstract Case features, we nonetheless need to retain a (possibly universal) notion of nominal licensing, the explanation for which remains opaque.

Keywords

abstract CaseCase Filtercomparative syntaxJamaican CreoleLugandaMakhuwaMandarinnominal licensingparameterssyntactic diagnosticsThaiYoruba
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2018 , pp. 527 - 589
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This research was partly funded by the European Research Council Advanced Grant No. 269752 ‘Rethinking Comparative Syntax’ on which both authors were employed. We would like to thank Freddy Hu and Cherry Lam (Mandarin), Minah Nabirye (Lusoga), Saudah Namyalo and Judith Nakayiza (Luganda), James Naruadol Chancharu and On-usa Phimswat (Thai), Calbert Graham (Jamaican Creole) and Dominic Oyeniran and Oluseye Adesola (Yoruba) for discussion and for sharing their linguistic intuitions with us. We also thank the audiences at the meetings of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting 2014, the Societas Linguistica Europaea 2014 the workshop ‘State of the Art in Comparative Syntax’ at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 2014 and the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2015 for questions and suggestions, and the ReCoS team (Theresa Biberauer, Tim Bazalgette, András Bárány, Georg Höhn and in particular Alison Biggs and Ian Roberts), three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, Volker Struckmeier and Sten Vikner for suggestions and discussion. Finally, thanks to Victor Manfredi for help with the Yoruba questionnaires, and Peter Jenks for sharing his insights on Thai. The points of view expressed here and any misrepresentations are ours alone.

The paper was written while the second author was at the University of Cambridge, and revised and accepted for publication while she was at Harvard University.

Glossing used in this paper follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules and the following additional abbreviations: a$=$ augment, af$=$ agent focus, ap$=$ antipassive, cj$=$ conjoint form, conn$=$ connective, cont$=$ continuous, dj$=$ disjoint form), fs$=$ final suffix, ger$=$ gerund, itv$=$ intransitive verb, lnk$=$ link, om$=$ object marker, opt$=$ optative, pro$=$ independent pronoun, px$=$ prefix, rn$=$ relational noun, sm$=$ subject marker, tv$=$ transitive verb. Numbers in glosses refer to Bantu noun classes unless followed by sg/pl.

References

Abney, Steven P.1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Adesola, Oluseye. 2005. Pronouns and null operators – A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Adger, David & Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10, 2–37.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajíbóyè, O̩ládiípò, Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Gick, Bryan & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2011. Disambiguating Yorùbá tones: At the interface between syntax, morphology, phonology and phonetics. Lingua 121, 1631–1648.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Languages and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5, 966–995.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2002. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Dimensions of movement, 17–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 1–24. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. Types of dependency in anaphors: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP-complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. In Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 6), 1–21. Amherst, MA: GLSA. [Reprinted in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 165–185. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.]Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Toivonen, Ida. 2006. Expletives and the syntax and semantics of copy raising. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, 13–29. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Toivonen, Ida. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.2, 321–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & McCloskey, Jim. 2007. On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11, 285–296.Google Scholar
Bamgboṣe, Ayọ. 1966. A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2015. Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. A case for an Agree-based theory of control. In Kim, Sun-Woong (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 101–123. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Lingustic Inquiry 40, 35–73.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara & Pustet, Regina. 2000. Adjective. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on word-formation, 757–770. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biggs, Alison. 2014. Dissociating Case from theta-roles: A comparative investigation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Landau, Idan. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 113–132.Google Scholar
Bokamba, Eyamba G.1976. Question formation in some Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.Google Scholar
Bošković, Žejlko & Lasnik, Howard. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34.4, 527–546.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1977. Alternatives to the Tensed S and specified subject conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 381–411.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 1986. Proper government in Yoruba. MA thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 1987. On empty categories and phonological rules. Ms., UCLA & Yale University.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 219–279.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121.5, 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Diercks, Michael. 2013. Parameterizing Case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. In Kan, Seda, Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Staubs, Robert (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40), 99–118. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Mletshe, Loyiso. 2015. Radical defectivity: Implications of Xhosa expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 46.2, 187–242.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Mletshe, Loyiso. 2016. N-words in disguise: A negative concord approach to augmentless NPIs in Xhosa and Zulu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34, 716–804.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz (ed.), 28–53.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2004. The agreement parameter. In Breitbarth, Anne & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Triggers, 115–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane & Travis, Lisa (eds.). 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Pedro, Pedro Mateo & Preminger, Omer. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14.2, 179–242.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elisabeth. 2002. Finiteness. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Ergativity. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Kiss, Tibor (eds.), Syntax – theory and analysis: An international handbook, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rosemary. 2001. On the Left Edge of Yoruba complements. Lingua 111, 81–130.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2011. The morphosyntax of Lubukusu locative inversion and the parameterization of Agree. Lingua 121.5, 702–720.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2012. Parameterizing Case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15.3, 253–286.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds.). 2008. Differential Subject Marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel & Singhapreecha, Pornsiri. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7.1, 1–54.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie, Ranero, Rodrigo & Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Two kinds of syntactic ergativity in Mayan. In Yoshitaka Erlewine, Michael (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), vol. 2, 41–56.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Hyman, Larry M.. 2015. Information structure in Bantu. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 790–813. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durrleman-Tame, Stephanie. 2008. The syntax of Jamaican Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. Why the null complementizer is special in the English that–trace effect. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34.2, 429–479.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 1991. Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax?In Abraham, Werner, Kosmeijer, Wim & Reuland, Eric (eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax, 277–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2004. Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Castro, Ana, Ferreira, Marcelo, Hacquard, Valentine & Salanova, Andres P. (eds.), Collected papers on Romance syntax (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47), 57–85.Google Scholar
Filbeck, David. 1973. The passive in Thai. Anthropological Linguistics 15.1, 33–41.Google Scholar
Fisher, Karen. 1988. Agreement and the distribution of anaphors. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 25–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafeconstruction in Persian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 729–788.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2013. Genitives, adjectives and relative clauses. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2012. Control and restructuring at the syntax–semantics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom, Zerbian, Sabine & Zimmermann, Malte. 2015. Variation in information structure with special reference to Africa. Annual Review of Linguistics 1.1, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. INFL, COMP and nominative Case assignment in Flemish. In van Riemsdijk, Henk & Muysken, Pieter (eds.), Features and projections, 123–137. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Halpert, Claire. 2013. Structural case and the nature of vP in Zulu. In Sloggett, Shayne & Keine, Stefan (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 42), 209–222. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Halpert, Claire. 2015. Argument licensing and agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harford Perez, Carolyn. 1985 Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86.3, 663–687.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard (eds.). 1995. Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2000. Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions, 31–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Henderson, Brent. 2006. Multiple agreement, concord and case checking in Bantu. In Arasanyin, Olaoba F. & Pemberton, Michael A. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 60–65. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.Google Scholar
Hu, Jianhua, Pan, Haihua & Xu, Liejiong. 2001. Is there a finite vs. nonfinite distinction in Chinese? Linguistics 39, 1117–1148.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Ken (eds.), The null subject parameter, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29, 423–509.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Li, Yen-hui Audrey & Li, Yafei. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Shi-Zhe & Jenks, Peter. 2013. Nominal modification in Chinese and Thai. In Santana-LaBarge, Robert E. (ed.), Proceedings of 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31), 227–237. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Katamba, Francis X.. 1993. The augment in Luganda: Syntax or pragmatics? In Mchombo, Sam (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 209–256. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative Case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 175–96.Google Scholar
Iorio, David. 2014. Subject and object marking in Bembe. Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Carnie, Andrew. 2003. Argument hierarchies and the mapping principle. In Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi & Willie, MaryAnn (eds.), Formal approaches to function in grammar: In honor of Eloise Jelinek (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 62), 265–296. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter. 2006. Control in Thai. Ms., University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter. 2011. The hidden structure of Thai noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter. 2014. Generalized clausal modifiers in Thai noun phrases. Syntax 17.4, 299–342.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Comp–trace effects explained away. In Baumer, Donald, Montero, David & Scanlon, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25), 220–228. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Karimi, Yadgar. 2007. Kurdish ezafeconstruction: Implications for DP structure. Lingua 117.12, 2159–2177.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2010. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. In Kayne, Richard S. (ed.), Comparisons and contrasts, 165–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A Minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael(ed.). 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Wellington, Jean. 1999. Passive in Jamaican Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 14.2, 259–283.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht & Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.4, 811–877.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of profrom Case. Syntax 9.2, 153–170.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2014. A two-tiered theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. & Yamakido, Hiroko. 2008. Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. In McNally, Louise & Kennedy, Chris (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie-Anne. 2008. Morphological case and abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55–101.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie-Anne. 2012. Types of ergativity. Lingua 122.3, 181–191.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1985. Abstract case in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2005. Ellipsis and missing objects. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 4, 3–19.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2007. Theories of empty categories and Chinese null elements. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 6, 37–47.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2008. Case, 20 years later. In Chan, Marjorie K. M. & Kang, Hana (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), 41–68. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lin, Jonah T. H. 2011. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in Mandarin Chinese. Syntax 14.1, 48–73.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-wang. 2010. A tenseless analysis of Mandarin Chinese revisited: A response to Sybesma 2007. Linguistic Inquiry 41.2, 305–329.Google Scholar
Madugu, Isaac S. George. 1976. Yoruba adjectives have merged with verbs: Or are they just emerging? Journal of West African Languages 11.1–2, 1–18.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause bound reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 211–241.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, Germán F., Ao, Benjamin & Chae, He-Rahk (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ECOL), 234–253.Google Scholar
Markman, Vita. 2009. On the parametric variation of case and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 379–426.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger A.1996. A Minimalist theory of PRO and Control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax–morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2015. The structural/inherent divide and the challenge from intermediate cases. Presented at Workshop on Case and 𝜑-features, 26 January 2015, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2000. Discourse-configurationality in Bantu morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2006. Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43, 161–188.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Thomas, Daniela. 2017. Three-way systems do not exist. In Coon et al. (eds.), 279–307.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina(ed.). 2007. Finiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Possession and modification – a perspective from Canonical Typology. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Grev (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 207–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogunbo̩wale, P. R. 1970. The essentials of the Yoruba language. London: University of Lodon Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Pak, Marjorie. 2008. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 27), 361–369. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pan, Victor & Paul, Waltraud. 2014. Finiteness in Mandarin Chinese and the basic syntax of kěnéng. Ms., CNRS & Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. 2002. Sentence-internal topics in Mandarin Chinese: The case of object preposing. Language and Linguistics 3, 695–714.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2014. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 495–538. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, Joy N.2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Philip, Joy N. 2013. (Dis)harmony, the Head–Proximate Filter, and linkers. Journal of Linguistics 49, 165–213.Google Scholar
Plann, Susan. 1986. On Case-marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case Resistance Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 336–345.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Post, Mark. 2008. Adjectives in Thai: Implications for a functionalist typology of word classes. Linguistic Typology 12, 339–381.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric & Runner, Jeffrey T.. 2001. Richard returns: Copy Raising and its implications. In Andronis, Mary, Ball, Christopher, Elston, Heidi & Neuvel, Sylvain (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 37), 453–468. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2000. Adjectives as verbs in Thai. Linguistic Typology 4, 251–271.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiliana. 1993. Non-augmented NPs in Kinande as negative polarity items. In Mchombo, Sam (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 257–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pulleybank, Douglas. 1986. Clitics in Yoruba. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 43–64. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quicoli, A. Carlos. 1996. Inflection and parametric variation: Portuguese vs. Spanish. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar, 46–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18.1, 85–109.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Schadler, Dagmar. 2011. Approaching body part reflexives (Technical report for The Afranaph Development Workshop).Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2, 27–42.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. Cartography, criteria, and labeling. In Shlonsky, Ur (ed.), Beyond the functional sequence, 314–338. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Evan Celyn. 1969. Teach yourself Yoruba. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim & Zeller, Jochen. 2006. WH question formation in Nguni. In Mugane, John, Hutchison, John P. & Worman, Dee A. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 271–283. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1994. The ezafeconstruction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In Marashi, Meshi (ed.), Persian Studies in North America, 17–41. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks.Google Scholar
Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 103–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2011. A note on Case-assignment to CP. Snippets 24, 18–19.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Portuguese, Russian and the theory of Control. In Huang, Hsin-Lun, Poole, Ethan & Rysling, Amanda (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 43), 115–126. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Parameterising ergativity: An inherent case approach. In Coon et al. (eds.), 59–85.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. To appear a. Control of inflected infinitives in European Portuguese. In Gonçalves, Anabela & Santos, Ana-Lúcia (eds.), Complement clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and acquisition, 27–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. To appear b. On the difference between exhaustive and partial control. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Understanding null subjects: A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle & van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Do we need abstract Case? In Kim, Kyeong-min, Umbal, Pocholo, Block, Trevor, Chan, Queenie, Cheng, Tanie, Finney, Kelli, Katz, Mara, Nickel-Thompson, Sophie & Shorten, Lisa (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 33), 351–360. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 327–363.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 403–450.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 191–227.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2006. The (dis)association of tense, phi-features EPP and nominative case: Case studies from Romance and Greek. In Costa, João & Silva, Maria Cristina Figeiredo (eds.), Studies on agreement, 243–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sudmuk, Cholthicha. 2003. The thuuk construction in Thai. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, 402–431.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. Making sense of silence: Finiteness and the (OC) PRO vs. prodistinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32, 59–85.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2016. Anaphora vs. agreement: Introducing a new kind of Anaphor Agreement Effect. In Grosz, Patrick & Patel-Grosz, Pritty (eds.), The impact of pronominal form on interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar), 77–106. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya & McFadden, Thomas. 2009. Subject distribution in Tamil and other languages: Selection vs. Case. Journal of South Asian Languages 2.1, 5–34.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically: Data, diagnostics, and preliminary analyses. New York University Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 1–55.Google Scholar
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended $\overline{X}$ -theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Tang, Ting-Chi. 2000. Finite and nonfinite clauses in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 1, 191–214.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1995. Visibility, complement selection and the case requirement of CP. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 281–312.Google Scholar
Tucker, Matthew A.2011. Even more on the Anaphor Agreement Effect: When binding does not agree. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Mark L. O. 2013. The Bantu connective construction. In Carlier, Anne & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (eds.), The Genitive, 217–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2010. Makhuwa non-subject relatives as participial modifiers. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31.2, 205–231.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015a. Evidence for abstract Case in Bantu. Lingua 165, 109–132.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015b. Bantu object clitics as defective goals. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LX.2–3, 277–296.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015c. Bantu syntax (Oxford Handbooks Online). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.50.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke & Namyalo, Saudah. 2016. The interaction of two focus marking strategies in Luganda. In Payne, Doris L., Pacchiarotti, Sara & Bosire, Mokaya (eds.), Diversity in African languages, 355–377. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Van Urk, Coppe. 2010. On obligatory control: A movement and PRO approach. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek sentential complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes. 1990. Serial verb constructions in Jamaican Creole and grammatical theory. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1977/2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and control’. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Luisa Zubizarreta, Maria (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 3–15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1993. Predication in Carribean English creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30.2, 257–287.Google Scholar
Yoneda, Nobuko. 2011. Word order in Matengo (N13): Topicality and informational roles. Lingua 121.5, 754–771.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3, 441–483.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of information structure in Northern Sotho. Ph.D. dissertation, Humboldt University.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2007. The subject/object asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages, 323–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar