Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

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

On (partially) quirky subjects, numeral subjects, and subject-oriented anaphor binding

Nominal and non-nominal subjects and their structural positions

 | University of Connecticut
Published online: 20 March 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24034.bos
Abstract
I examine certain quirky subjects that pass some but not all subjecthood tests, arguing they are PPs, located in a higher subject position than fully quirky subjects and agreeing subjects, in line with Bošković (2024), where non-nominal subjects satisfy the EPP in a higher position than nominal subjects. Regarding subject-oriented anaphors, in principle the element in any of the three positions where the EPP is satisfied in . 2024a. On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. The Linguistic Review 411. 7–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and the element in SpecvP can bind them, the closest subject being the binder when more than one is present. However, the binder must be nominal, which is not the case with non-subject-oriented anaphors. I also examine Slavic numeral subjects (where the noun bears genitive), which show complex behavior regarding agreement, case, and binding, the main claim being that with some numeral phrases (agreeing numeral subjects in Russian and non-agreeing ones in Serbo-Croatian), a null noun is present and assigns genitive.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Variation regarding quirky subjects: Quirky subjects that pass only some subjecthood tests
  • 3.What is the binding domain/binder for subject-oriented anaphors?
  • 4.Numeral constructions in Slavic
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (134)
References
Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 51. 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modem English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amiridze, Nino. 2005. Georgian reflexives in subject function in special contexts. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 449–466. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Raghavachari. 1999. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Kannada. In Barbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair, & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 49–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. In Joan Bresnan (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antonenko, Andrei. 2012. Feature-based binding and phase theory. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University dissertation.
Atlamaz, Ümit. 2013. Cyclic agreement and empty slots in Pazar Laz. In Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, & Clare S. Sandy (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on languages of the Caucasus, 18–31. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 51. 91–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Subject control as direct predication: Evidence from Russian. In Željko Bošković, Steven Franks, & William Snyder (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 61, 17–37. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bailyn, John. 1991. The configurationality of Case assignment in Russian. In Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, & Wayne Harbert (eds.), Cornell working papers in linguistics 91, 57–98. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Some derivational binding effects. In John Bailyn, Carlos de Cuba, Ivana Mitrović, & Radmila Šević (eds.), Proceedings of the University of Novi Sad Workshop on Generative Syntax, 25–38. University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, Michael P. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 371. 13–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1997. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 601. 25–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 61. 291–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2008. Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. In Elliott Lash, Yi An Li, & Thomas Rainsford (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 41, 1–45. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Experiencer subjects. Handout, MIT course “Structure of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages”.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 221. 681–742. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006a. Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. Case checking versus Case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 371. 522–533. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP?. In Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow, Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Gunther Grewendorf & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, 179–242. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Phases beyond clauses. In Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou, & Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond, 75–128. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. On the limits of across-the-board movement: Distributed extraction coordinations. Philosophies 71, 10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024a. On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. The Linguistic Review 411. 7–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024b. Binding and agreement in distributed coordinations. In Jiayi Lu, Erika Petersen, Anissa Zaitsu, & Boris Harizanov (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 22–31. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. in press. Contextuality of syntax and adieu to the A/A’-distinction. In Maša Bešlin, Katherine Howitt, Alexandra Krauska, Luisa Seguin, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Structured sentences and computational theory of mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [URL]
Butt, Miriam. 2006. The Dative-Ergative connection. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in syntax and semantics 6: Papers from CSSP 2005, 69–92. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structure, Vol. 2, 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Null objects in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 181. 597–612.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Janice Jake. 1978. Accusative subjects in Imbabura Quechua. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 81:72–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1974. The second dative: A transformational approach. In Richard D. Brecht & Catherine V. Chvany (eds.), Slavic transformational syntax, 123–150. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2015. Null Subject. In Antonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu, & Michael Putnam (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters, 201–226. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2014. All-in-one: generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. In Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 115–123. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1985. Experiencers and patients as subjects in Hindi-Urdu. In Arlene R. K. Zide, David Magier, & Eric Schiller (eds.) Proceedings of the conference on participant roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, 160–178. Bloomington, Ind.: IULC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demirok, Ömer Faruk. 2013. Agree as a unidirectional operation: Evidence from Laz. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Master’s thesis.
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of Determiner Phrase. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1994. Polish subjects. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999a. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and Dative Subjects. Syntax 21. 101–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999b. Datives in constructions with unaccusative Se. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 89–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Quirky “subjects” and other specifiers. In Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (ed.) More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 227–260. Boston: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 121. 597–674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2013. Null subjects in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 441. 271–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
George, Leland and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 105–127. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna, and Cheong Youn. 1988. Korean psych construction: Advancement or Retreat?. In Lynn MacLeod, Gary Larson, & Diane Brentari (eds.), Papers from the 24th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 151–175. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary M. 1987. A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.
Giorgi, Alessandra. (1990). On the Italian and French Pronominal Systems. Italian Journal of Syntax 21. 9–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glushan, Zhanna. 2013. The role of animacy in Russian morphosyntax. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1984. Inversion as a rule of universal grammar: Georgian evidence. In David Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar 21, 259–291. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinat, Frank. 2006. Probes, pronouns, and binding in the Minimalist Program. Lund: Lund University dissertation.
Hermon, Gabriella. 1984. Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. Null subjects in Finnish and the typology of pro-drop. Unpublished manuscript., Newcastle University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2014. A Note on oblique case: Evidence from Serbian/Croatian. In Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi, & Alexander Grosu (eds.), Advances in the syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case, 117–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hubbard, Philip. 1983. Albanian reflexives: Violations of proposed universals. In Letta Strantzali (ed.) Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 81, 63–71. Linguistics Graduate Student Association, University of Kansas. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iovtcheva, Snejana P. 2019. The dative arguments in Bulgarian. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1983. Case-marking and θ-marking in Malayalam: Implications for the projection principle. In Amy Dahlstrom, Claudia Brugman, Monica Macaulay, Inese Cirkulis, Michele Emanatian, Donna Sakima, & Raquel Teixeira (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 104–115. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, 227–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joshi, Smita. 1993. Selection of grammatical and logical functions in Marathi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd 361: 142–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In Robert D. Levine & Georgia M. Green (eds.), Studies in contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1990. Experiencer and other oblique subjects in Hindi. In Mahendra Verma & Karuvannur Puthanveettil Mohanan (eds.) Experiencer and subjects in South Asian languages, 59–75. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1978. On identifying grammatical relations. Gengo Kenkyu 731. 43–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1997. V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 326–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interpretation between lexical and semantic levels of representation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1980. Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 511. 275–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kondrashova, Natalia. 1993. Dative subjects in Russian. In A. Davidson et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica, 200–219. Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 401. 187–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 1997. Telugu. In Sanford Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 202–240. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kulkarni, R. V. 1988. Case in English and Marathi. Doctoral dissertation, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
LaFond, Larry. 2003. Historical changes in verb-second and null subjects from Old to Modern French. In D. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change, 387–412. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 877–924. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laurençot, Elizabeth. 1997. On secondary predication and null Case. In Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches in Slavic Linguistics, 191–206. Michigan Slavica Publishers, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas. 1993. A grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 311. 57–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masullo, Pascual J. 1993. Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic. In Amy J. Schafer (ed.), Proceedings of the 23th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 303–317. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2006. Quirky Subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 601. 282–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Messick, Troy. 2016. Pronouns and agreement in Telugu embedded contexts. In Kyeong-min Kim, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Sophie Nickel-Thompson, & Lisa Shorten, Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 309–319. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna. 2005. Subjecthood of quirky subjects and GF-split. In K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, J. Witkoś, G. Michalski, & B. Wiland (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Student Conference on Formal Linguistics, 29–57. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mistry, P. J. 2004. Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur P. 1982. Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 504–589. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nizar, Milla. 2010. Dative subject constructions in South-Dravidian languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California BA thesis..
O’Grady, William. 1991. Categories and case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pankau, Andreas. 2016. Quirky subjects in Icelandic, Faroese, and German: A Relational Grammar account. In Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King, & Stefan Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, 499–519. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1984. Working 1s and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua. In David Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2, 292–330. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Joyce McDonough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 483–500. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poole, Ethan. 2015. Deconstructing quirky subjects. In Thuy Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), Proceedings of 45th meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 247–256. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Deconstructing subjecthood. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 2004. A paradox in English syntax. In Skeptical linguistic essays, 15–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2006. Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2005. Agreeing to bind. In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky wubjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 351. 494–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Topics in Bulgarian morphology and syntax: A minimalist perspective. Lingua 1151. 1083–1128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 21. 27–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–134. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2009. Optional A-scrambling. In Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak & Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 161. 44–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schein, Вarry. 1982. Non-finite complements in Russian, In Alec Marantz & Timothy Stowell (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41, 217–244. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 531. 789–809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 201. 691–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Peters. 2015. Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Sridhar, S. N. 1976. Dative subjects. In Salikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker, & Sanford B. Steever (eds.), Papers from the 12th meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 582–593. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979. Dative subjects and the notion of subject. Lingua 491. 99–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, and Peri Bhaskararao. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in Telugu In Peri Bhaskararao, & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, 161–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya, and Thomas McFadden. 2009. Subject distribution in Tamil and other languages: selection vs. Case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 21. 5–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2013. Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam. Nanzan Linguistics 91. 173–192.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turano, Giuseppina. 2024. Quirky subjects in nonactive sentences in Albanian. Lingua 3011. 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: a theory of grammatical function splitting. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Verma, Manindra, and Karuvannur P. Mohanan. 1990. Introduction to the experiencer subject construction, In Manindra Verma & Karuvannur P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 1–11. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wali, Kashi. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in Marathi. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects: Volume 2, 223–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, & Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 761. 799–832. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Kemp. 1988. Exceptional behavior of anaphors in Albanian. Linguistic Inquiry 191. 161–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 441–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2010. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmerling, Anton. 2008. The Null-Subject Parameter, overt expletives and zero subjects in Scandinavian languages. Paper presented at Revisiting Parameters: Holmberg and Platzack (1995) Reloaded. Lund University.
Zimmermann, Michael. 2009. On the evolution of expletive subject pronouns in Old French. In Georg A. Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, 63–92. Konstanz: Universität, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue