Cover not available

Article published In: The Evolution of Expletives: Theoretical and diachronic perspectives
Edited by Eric Fuß and Benjamin L. Sluckin
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 6:1/2] 2024
► pp. 192–243

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The covert perceiver in English locative inversion

An alternative to expletive pro

 | Ruhr-University Bochum
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Ruhr University Bochum.

Published online: 6 March 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00058.slu
Abstract
Locative Inversion (LI) in English is a broad-focus inversion structure in which a spatio-deictic XP seemingly occupies the canonical subject position. An analysis of LI must explain EPP-satisfaction: previous approaches take either a silent expletive pro (Bruening, B. (2010). Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English Locative Inversion and do-support. Language, 86(1), 43–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Coopmans, P. (1989). Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language, 65(4), 728–751. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxord University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) to value EPP or they consider the locative element to do so like expletive there. Indeed, LI resembles inversion under there, showing pragmatic, lexical-semantic, and syntactic restrictions, being limited mostly to unaccusatives of speaker-directed movement/orientation, while verbs of disappearance or change-of-state are largely unacceptable. However, unlike inversion under there, LI does not trigger definiteness effects which are associated with expletives. Moreover, LI is incompatible with negation, do-support and the present perfect. We propose that LI is an inherently evidential construction. This behaviour results from an EPP-satisfying logophoric covert perceiver argument dubbed Exploc (Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S. & Martin, F. (2021). Locative Inversion in Germanic and Romance: a conspiracy theory. In C. Meklenborg & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Germanic and Romance: Continuity and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) which provides an alternative to the typologically anomalous expletive pro. Exploc moves from a vP-internal position scoping over a Small Clause to Spec,TP and is licensed only by contexts and verbs which can presuppose a perception event on the part of a perceiver. This explains previous observations that LI involves a visual experiential component (Breivik, L. E. (1989). On the causes of syntactic change in English. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change. contributions to the study of its causes (p. 29–70). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Brinton, L. J. & Stein, D. (1995). Functional renewal. In Historical linguistics, 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 august 1993 (Vol. 1241, pp. 33–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Importantly, Exploc derives known pragmatic and lexical-semantic restrictions on LI, e.g., no disappearance unaccusatives, negation (which negates a perceivable event), and the English present perfect which is infelicitous in reports of direct perception. Furthermore, we show that all unergative verbs participating in LI are coerced into an unaccusative structure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.LI: A construction across interfaces
    • 2.1The information-structural value of the late subject
    • 2.2The information-structural value of the preposed XP
    • 2.3Lexical-semantic restrictions
      • 2.3.1Unaccusatives
      • 2.3.2Unergative verbs
    • 2.4No inverted pronouns: Syntax vs information structure
    • 2.5No negation
    • 2.6No present perfect or do-support
    • 2.7A quick note on do-support
  • 3.The Syntactic profile of LI
    • 3.1An overview of the vP in LI
    • 3.2The EPP and the locative
      • 3.2.1A closer look at embedded LI
      • 3.2.2Variation with overt expletive there
      • 3.2.3That-trace effects in LI
    • 3.3Definiteness effects and their implications
      • 3.3.1Low arguments cause DE
      • 3.3.2DE result from expletives
      • 3.3.3A generalization for DE
      • 3.3.4Remaining questions for DE in LI
    • 3.4An intermediate analysis
  • 4.Syntactifying the semantico-pragmatic properties of LI
    • 4.1LI is evidential
    • 4.2The covert perceiver
    • 4.3The perceiver rules out negation
    • 4.4The perceiver rules out present perfect
  • 5.The argument structure of LI
    • 5.1The unergative problem: Testing unaccusativity for manner and activity verbs
      • 5.1.1No agentive external argument for Manner-of-motion and activity unergatives in LI
      • 5.1.2Coerced existential unaccusatives and again
    • 5.2The structure of the small clause in LI: Figure-ground results and states
    • 5.3The position of the experiencer
  • 6.A synchronic analysis
    • The CP
    • The TP
    • The vP
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (145)
References
Acedo-Matellan, V. (2016). The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellan, V. & Mateu, J. (2014). From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 14–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR : Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 491–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 193–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F. (2015). External arguments in transitivity alterations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B. & Schäfer, F. (2014). The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua, 1491, 118–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. (2011). There-insertion: An unaccusativity mismatch at the syntax-semantics interface. In M. B. Washburn et al. (Eds.), Online proceedings of WCCFL 281. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(1), 1–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 21, pp. 16–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 61, 291–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benincà, P. (1988). L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi & A. Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione (pp. 115–225). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bentley, D. & Cruschina, S. (2018). The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bentley, D., Maria Ciconte, F. & Cruschina, S. (2015). Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. (2006). Implicit arguments. In The Blackwel l companion to syntax (Vol. 21). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Implicit arguments. In M. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwel l companion to syntax (2nd ed.). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. (1993). Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 71, 51–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (2010). Semi pro-drop languages, expletives, and expletive pro reconsidered. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation (p. 153–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M. (2010). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2010). Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (p. 263–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70(2), 233–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). The discourse function of inversion in English. New York/London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for scepticism. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H. (1998). Formal and lexical semantics and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. In Bošković, S. Franks & W. Snyder (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting 1997 (Vol. 61, p. 75–96). MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2011). On valued uninterpretable features. In S. Lima, K. Mullin & B. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (p. 109–120). University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosse, S., Bruening, B. & Yamada, M. (2012). Affected experiencers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 1185–1230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 591–656.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA.: MIT University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breivik, L. E. (1989). On the causes of syntactic change in English. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change. contributions to the study of its causes (p. 29–70). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (p. 157–196). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Locative Inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language, 70(1), 72–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Stein, D. (1995). Functional renewal. In Historical linguistics, 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 august 1993 (Vol. 1241, pp. 33–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, B. (2010). Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English Locative Inversion and do-support. Language, 86(1), 43–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Locative Inversion, PP Topicalization, and Weak Crossover in English. Journal of Linguistics, 1–19.
Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Towards a cartogrpahy of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 21, pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 413–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). On Phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1995). Italian syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, C. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coopmans, P. (1989). Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language, 65(4), 728–751. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corr, A. (2016). Wide-focus subject-verb inversion in Ibero-Romance: A locative account. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 1(1), 207–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (2013). Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English (1992). In Explaining syntax: Representations, structures, and computation (p. 212–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Levine, R. D. (2001). Stylistic Inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19(2), 283–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. (2009). The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”. Syntax, 121, 285–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites (No. 20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobler, E. (2008a). ‘again’ and the structure of result states. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV, 11, 42–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Creating as putting something into the world. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI, 391, 39–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Stage topics and their architecture. In V. Molnár, V. Egerland & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. 223–248). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Kemenade, A. v., Koopman, W. & Wurff, W. v. d. (2001). The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, S. (2016). Existentials vs. unaccusatives: The definiteness restriction in Romance. In S. Fischer, T. Kupisch & E. Rinke (Eds.), Definiteness effects: Bilingual, typological and diachronic variation (pp. 301–332). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2019). A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68(3), 553–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). A medical topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 1991, 153–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2002a). Left Dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 2(31–81).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Minimalistische syntax. Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The left clausal periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German. In B. Shaer, P. Cook, W. Frey & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse:syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives (pp. 57–102). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1985). ‘shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(1), 83–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. & Castroviejo Miró, E. (2011). The dimensions of verum. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 81 (p. 143–165). Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. (2002a). Features, categories and the syntax of a-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 88–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2010). The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working papers in linguistics, 321, 73–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). There-insertion unaccusatives. (Ms. MIT)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. M. (2008). Expletives in existentials. English ‘there’ and German ‘da’. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2019). Subjects, Topics, and Anchoring to the Context. Syntax, 22(2–3), 199–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74(2–3), 101–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. & Mulder, R. (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 71, 1–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, D. & Fraser, K. (2019, November). At-issue and not-at-issue in the swarm alternation. (presentation at Event Semantics 2019, Berlin)
Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 311, 445–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hooper, J. & Thompson, S. (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 465–497.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husband, M. E. (2012). On the compositional nature of states. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1992). Über verum-fokus im deutschen [about verumfocus in german]. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 41, 112–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irwin, P. (2012). Unaccusativity at the interfaces (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY. (lingbuzz/001617)
(2018). Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa, 3(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica, 55(1), 39–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74(2), 245–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language, 525–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [spec, cp] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 867–916. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage level and individual level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (p. 125–175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. A. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Vol. 331, pp. 109–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of english: periphrastic do. In R. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (Vol. 521, p. 133–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. (2003). Np-subject inversion in French and (preposed) adverbs. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (p. 181–96). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations. Lingua, 1161, 424–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Implicit stage topics. Discour. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 11, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Quand passent les cigognes. le sujet nominal postverbal en Français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2010). The locative syntax of experiencers (No. 53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (No. 261). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic semantics of event predicates (pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In German Westphal, B. Ao & H.-R. Chae (Eds.), Proceesings of ESCOL (pp. 234–253). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateu, J. & Acedo-Matellán, V. (2012). The manner/result complementarity revisited: A syntactic approach. In M. C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure (pp. 209–228). Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McFadden, T. (2004). The position of morphological case in the derivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in english (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Miyagawa, S. (2017). Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ouali, H. (2008). On C-to-T-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement restrictions (pp. 159–180). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Agreement, pronominal clitics and negation in Tamazight Berber. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. (2008). Existential sentences, be, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 147–190). Dodrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In 4th annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 157–190). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL.
Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxord University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(2014). Agreement and its failures (No. 68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments (No. 49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T. (2005). Explaining expl. In M. den Dikken & T. Christina (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (p. 115–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 501–557.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). ‘on the position “int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (Vol. 591, p. 287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). On some properties of subjects and topics. In L. Brugè, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert & G. Turano (Eds.), Contributions to the xxx incontro di grammatica generativa (p. 203–224). Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of pro. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Beyond the veil of Maya. from sounds to structures (p. 510–529). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U. (2006). Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and heavy NP shift. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (p. 341–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1987). Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry, 181, 267–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. (2011). Towards a typology of Locative Inversion-Bantu, perhaps Chinese and English-but beyond? Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(4), 169–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2007). The EPP and null subjects in Romance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, Newcastle.
Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sluckin, B. L. (2021). Non-canonical subjects and subject positions: locative inversion, v2-violations, and feature inheritance (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Berlin).
Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S. & Martin, F. (2021). Locative Inversion in Germanic and Romance: a conspiracy theory. In C. Meklenborg & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Germanic and Romance: Continuity and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. (2006). Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung Des deutschen. Mannheim: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Svenonius, P. (2003). Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, 31(2), 431–445.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teixeira, J. (2016). Locative Inversion and stage topics: a cross-linguistic study. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tortora, C. M. (1997). The syntax and semantics of the weak locative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Deleware, Newark, DE.
(2001). Evidence for a null locative in Italian. In C. Guglielmo & S. Giampaolo (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (p. 313–326). London: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. (2021). The BaSiS basics of information structure. Retrieved from [URL] (Accessed: 01.09.2024)
von Stechow, A. (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13(2), 87–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure and linguistic theory (Vol. 901). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, J. & Marantz, A. (2017). The interpretation of external arguments. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Franco & À. J. Gallego (Eds.), The verbal domain (p. 255–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, R. (2019). Deriving the variation and constraints of the present perfect. In A. van Alem, M. De Sisto, E. J. Kerr & J. Wall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the student organization of linguistics in Europe (21–23 february 2019, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) (Vol. XXVII1, pp. 215–327). Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (1992). Dutch expletives and small clause predicate raising. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 221, 477–491.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue