Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r8tb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T07:37:28.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extra Be: The Syntax of Shared Shell-Noun Constructions in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Diane Massam
Diane Massam*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 4072 100 St. George St., Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G3 [diane.massam@utoronto.ca]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the syntax of extra be constructions, common in nonprescriptive English and often considered a curiosity, such as: The problem is, is that she hates apples. It has been claimed that there are many different types of extra be constructions, with the two main types being double be and single be, but this article argues that these distinctions are largely superficial. The article reviews previous accounts, presents the complex data, and categorizes most cases of extra be into one unified syntactic construction, the SHARED SHELL-NOUN CONSTRUCTION. It is argued that such constructions are syntactically fairly ordinary biclausal specificational copular sentences, consisting of a setup clause and a resolution clause, which share an argument. A second construction is also proposed for one subset of examples, the LINKING FOCUS BE CONSTRUCTION, where be lexicalizes a left-peripheral focus head.

Keywords

spoken Englishcopular constructionsdouble be constructionssingle be constructionsspecificational constructionsshared-argument constructionsexceptional case markingshell nouns

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 121 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, David, and Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 325–59. DOI: 10.1162/002438903322247515.10.1162/002438903322247515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. Connectives as discourse landmarks, ed. by Celle, Agnès and Huart, Ruth, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.161.05aijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2004. A bird in the hand is, is… Language Log, June 29, 2004. Online: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001139.html.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2002. Corpora and the double copula. From the COLTS mouth… and others: Language corpora studies: In honour of Anna-Brita Stenstrom, ed. by Breivik, Leiv Egil and Hasselgren, Angela, 43–58. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004334267_003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract nouns in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 513–53. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178644.Google Scholar
Bakke, Abigail, and Kornkven, Erik. 2009. Use of nonstandard reduplicative copula is is by speakers of English in the Upper Midwest. Linguistic Circle of Manitoba and North Dakota E-Journal 9:1. Online: http://www.umanitoba.ca/linguistic_circle/e_journal/v2009_1.html.Google Scholar
Bejar, Susana, and Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses. Journal of Linguistics 53 (3), to appear.10.1017/S002222671700010XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70. 233–59. DOI: 10.2307/415828.10.2307/415828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert; and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511761997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1987. The remarkable double IS. English Today 9. 39–40. DOI: 10.1017/S0266078400002728.10.1017/S0266078400002728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178835.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1997. A binary analysis of resultatives. Texas Linguistics Forum (Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference) 38. 43–58.Google Scholar
Brenier, Jason, and Michaelis, Laura. 2005. Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1. 45–88. DOI: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brians, Paul. 2013. Common errors of English usage. Sherwood, OR: William James. Online: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html.Google Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. 2008. Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English. Studia Linguistica 62. 78–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00140.x.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00140.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, internal Merge, and parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 475–97. DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464331.10.1162/002438905774464331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, James. 2004. Between you and I: A little book of bad English. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 461–97. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178987.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, Brenier, Jason, Staum, Laura; and Michaelis, Laura. 2006. ‘The thing is, is’ is no mere disfluency. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32. 85–96. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3444.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Staum, Laura. 2004. Origin of the English double-is construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Costa, João. 2004. Subjects in Spec, vP: Locality and agree. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Collected papers on Romance syntax) 47. 41–55.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. The Oxford handbook of the history of English, ed. by Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 211–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0020.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008-2012. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Online: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, William, and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2004. The grammar of raising and control. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William, and Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.) 2007. New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6176-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 229–70. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.229.10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. Specifying coordination: An investigation into the syntax of dislocation, extraposition and parenthesis. Language and linguistics: Emerging trends, ed. by Dreyer, Cynthia R., 37–98. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Déchaîne, Rose-Marie. 1986. Opérations sur les structures d'argument: Le cas des constructions sérielles en haitien. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal masters thesis.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts, and pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Leuven University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Copulas. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, ms.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Appraising The raising of predicates: Review article on Moro 1997. Linguistische Berichte 174. 246–63.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. 2013. Issues in the syntax of specificational copular sentences and (pseudo)clefts. SCILLS Pazmany Summer Course in Linguistics for Linguistics Students. Online: http://scills.btk.ppke.hu/?page_id=454, accessed August 18, 2014.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, André, Meinunger; and Wilder, Chris. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54. 41–89. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9582.00050.10.1111/1467-9582.00050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerman, Stacy M. 2009. The thing is is it's a focus particle: A new analysis of the Thing-is constructions in English. New York: New York University, ms.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1993. Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 2000. Clauses without ‘that’: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Foley, William, and Olson, Mike. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialization. Grammar inside and outside the clause, ed. by Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony, 17–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill. 1994. Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal group lexical cohesion. Advances in written text analysis, ed. by Coulthard, Malcolm, 83–101. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular structures. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie, and Iwasaki, Eiichi. 2013. The inverse copular construction revisited: Pragmatic ambiguity and dual syntactic positions. Normal: Illinois State University, ms. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001970.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna. 2005. Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195082913.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1994. The internal structure of small clauses: New evidence from inversion. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25. 223–38.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57 (2). 209–40. DOI: 10.1017/S0008413100004758.10.1017/S0008413100004758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1997. Inversion and equation in copular sentences. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. 71–87.10.21248/zaspil.10.1998.697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 365–97. DOI: 10.1162/002438999554110.10.1162/002438999554110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 2002. Topic, focus and syntactic representation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 21. 101–25.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101–39. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90056-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Small clause theory. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 7 (1). 125–51. DOI: 10.1075/bjl.7.08hoe.10.1075/bjl.7.08hoeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Polinsky, Maria (eds.) 2010. Movement theory of control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Francis, Gill. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, Roz. 1991. Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open- and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29. 93–114. DOI: 10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93.10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, Richard Douglas. 1979. That's something that I wouldn't want to account for, is a sentence like this. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 51–62.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 577–636. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134751.10.1007/BF00134751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783111682228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolhatkar, Varada. 2015. Resolving shell nouns. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Kolhatkar, Varada, and Hirst, Graeme. 2014. Resolving shell nouns. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Doha: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2001. LFG problem set: FOCUS and TENSE in the thing is construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian, and Ross-Hagebaum, Sebastian. 2008. Information structure and discourse function of amalgam wh-clefts. Berkeley Linguistics Society 34. 461–72. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v34i1.3590.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 321–44.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 319–39. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1796.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 9. 463–516. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2001.021.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2004. The thing is is people talk this way, the question is is why? The answer is is (drumroll please)… Language Log, June 27, 2004. Online: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001123.html.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2011. Xtreme isisism. Language Log, August 13, 2011. Online: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3361.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what's the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3 (2). 335–52.10.1017/S136067439900026XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2013. Intrusive be constructions in English: Apposition and beyond. Proceedings of the 2013 meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Online: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2013/Massam-2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane, and Grant, Erin. 2014. Given two be's, how do they Agree? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 59. 395–405. DOI: 10.1017/S0008413100000414.10.1017/S0008413100000414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1988. To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8. 287–305.10.1080/07268608808599401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 2004. Catastrophic change in current English: Emergent double be's and free-be's. Paper presented at the Australian National University. Online: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/anubbppt3.pdf.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick, and Zwicky, Arnold. 2006. Isis bibliography, version 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/isisbibl.2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. Specification is not inverted predication. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 32. 403–22.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specifying who: On the structure, meaning, and use of specificational copular clauses. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Line, Mikkelsen.. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 305–42. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00183.10.1162/LING_a_00183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Teresa. 2015a. Demystifying double-is. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21:23. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol21/iss1/23.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Teresa. 2015b. The domain of finiteness: Anchoring without tense in English copular amalgam sentences. New York: CUNY dissertation.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Teresa. 2016. The structure of English amalgam pseudoclefts. New York: CUNY, ms.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1986. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 16. 354–66.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 2010. Specificational copular sentences in Russian and English. Oslo Studies in Language (Russian in contrast: Grammar) 2. 25–49. Online: https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/osla/article/view/127.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 2008. On the topic of pseudoclefts. Syntax 11. 91–124. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00104.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00104.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–90. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: An inquiry into one rule in English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54. 883–906. DOI: 10.2307/413238.10.2307/413238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2010. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2000 [1992]. Direct perception, government, and thematic sharing. Comparative syntax and language acquisition, Ch. 8. London: Routledge. [Originally published in Geneva Generative Papers 0.39-52.].Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian, and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 687–737. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9.10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Hagebaum, Sebastien. 2004. The That's X is Y construction as an information-structure amalgam. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30. 403–14. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v30i1.961.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Small clauses and copular constructions. Small clauses, ed. by Cardinaletti, Anna and Guasti, Maria-Teresa, 27–48. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey T. 1995. Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns. Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Hoek, Karen van, Kibrik, Andrej A., and Noordman, Leo, 111–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1993. Presidential address [to the Semiotic Society of America]: The boundary question. American Journal of Semiotics 10. 5–25. DOI: 10.5840/ajs1993103/42.10.5840/ajs1993103/42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Michael, and Haley, Michael C.. 2002. The reduplicative copula is is. American Speech 77. 305–8. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-77-3-305.10.1215/00031283-77-3-305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 2000. Language history: An introduction. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science 191.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J.; and Swales, J. M.. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 258–312.Google Scholar
Stvan, Laurel Smith. 2014. Truth is, sentence-initial shell nouns are showing up bare. Complex visibles out there: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium: Language Use and Linguistic Structure, 591–606. Online: http://olinco.upol.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/olinco-2014-proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2014. System and society in the evolution of change: The view from Canada. The variability of current World Englishes, ed. by Green, Eugene and Meyer, Charles F., 199–238. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110352108.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tailleur, Sandrine. 2013. The French wh interrogative system: Est-ce que, clefting? Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1996. The thing is is that people talk that way. Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, ed. by Casad, Eugene, 713–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627484.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the DP phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2011. The elusive triple ‘is’. Language Log, September 25, 2011. Online: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3452.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2012. Obama's ‘is is’. Language Log, October 23, 2012. Online: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4269.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2003. Isis inaugurates Memorial Day weekend. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/isisfest.pdf.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2007. Extris, extris. Handout from Stanford SemFest, Stanford University, 16 March 2007. Online: http://www.stanford.edu/~zwicky/SemFest07.out.pdf.Google Scholar