Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-7wx25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T20:02:48.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Syntax of English Presentatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jim Wood  and
Raffaella Zanuttini
Jim Wood*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Raffaella Zanuttini*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Department of Linguistics, Yale University, 370 Temple Street, New Haven, CT 06520, [jim.wood@yale.edu], [raffaella.zanuttini@yale.edu]
Department of Linguistics, Yale University, 370 Temple Street, New Haven, CT 06520, [jim.wood@yale.edu], [raffaella.zanuttini@yale.edu]
Get access

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the syntax of sentences such as Here is my daughter, which we refer to as presentatives. Presentatives turn out to have a wide range of properties that distinguish them sharply from ordinary declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives, and exclamatives. Drawing on recent work on the left periphery, we develop a novel account of their syntactic structure that uses only independently proposed syntactic primitives. We argue that English presentatives involve an ordinary DP combined with two left-peripheral heads, encoding the time and location of the speaker, along with an anaphoric T head and a light verb. The resulting structure is a triple consisting of the speech time, speech location, and an entity denoted by a DP. The overall picture that emerges suggests that presentatives may constitute their own minor clause type, one that we might expect to be widely available crosslinguistically, since it is built from a particular combination of these widely available primitives. A brief survey of presentatives in languages other than English suggests that they are indeed widely available, and our analysis provides an explicit framework for detailed investigations of presentatives in other languages, which may use an overlapping, but not necessarily fully identical, set of primitives.

Keywords

presentativesspeakeraddresseetime of utterancelocation of utterancenegationleft peripherylocative inversionclause typeEnglishsyntax

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 563 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 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

Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2004. The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511619830.10.1017/CBO9780511619830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2022. Presentative datives in Modern Hebrew. Construire sur les décombres de Babel/Building on Babel's rubble, ed. by Boneh, Nora, Harbour, Daniel, Matushansky, Ora, and Roy, Isabelle, 337–54. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. DOI: 10.3917/puv.boneh.2022.01.0337.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo and Salvi, Giampaolo, 39–64. Amsterdam: North-Holland.10.1163/9780585473949_005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola, and Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, ed. by Rizzi, Luigi, 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. Temps et point de vue/Tense and point of view, ed. by Guerón, Jacqueline and Tasmovski, Liliane, 213–46. Paris: Université Paris X Nanterre.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116. 2023–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.002.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, and Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2. 43–88. Online: https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/iberia/article/view/86.Google Scholar
Biondo, Nicoletta, Vespignani, Francesco, Rizzi, Luigi; and Mancini, Simona. 2018. Widening agreement processing: A matter of time, features and distance. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33. 890–911. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1446542.10.1080/23273798.2018.1446542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 2006. Inferential relations and noncanonical word order. Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence H. Horn, ed. by Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory, 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.80.04birCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn Moore. 2011. BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/68911.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn Moore. 2016. Go get, come see: Motion verbs, morphological restrictions, and syncretism. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34. 53–91. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9301-0.10.1007/s11049-015-9301-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1988. French voici/voilà and the analysis of pro-drop. Language 64. 89–100. DOI: 10.2307/414786.10.2307/414786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casalicchio, Jan. 2013. Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: Affinità (solo) superficiali e differenze strutturali. Padua: University of Padua dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/371453.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chung, Inkie. 2009. Suppletive verbal morphology in Korean and the mechanism of vocabulary insertion. Journal of Linguistics 45. 533–67. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226709990028.10.1017/S0022226709990028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1995. Italian syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511554261.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195179545.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M.. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Diana, and Tortora, Christina. 2000. Aspects of locative doubling and resultative predication. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 62–73. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v25i1.3405.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Focus in existential sentences. Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. by Bianchi, Valentina and Chesi, Cristiano, 77–107. Siena: CISCL Press. Online: http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/gg60/papers/volume.pdf.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7991.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. Directions from the GET-GO: On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9. 23–53. DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.93.10.5565/rev/catjl.93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubrig, Hans Bernhard. 1988. On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th birthday, ed. by Klegraf, Joseph and Nehls, Dietrich, 83–95. Heidelberg: Julius Gross.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12969.Google Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 633–57. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178564.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2004. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian & English. Aspectual inquiries, ed. by Slabakova, Roumyana and Kempchinsky, Paula, 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 197–238. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197.10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2013. The syntax of argument structure: Evidence from Italian complex predicates. Journal of Linguistics 49. 93–125. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226712000072.10.1017/S0022226712000072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x.10.1007/s11049-007-9025-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages, ed. by Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.100.07fraCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.. 2021. How much room for discourse in imperative? The lens of interface on English, Italian and Spanish. Studia Linguistica 75. 375–434. DOI: 10.1111/stul.12153.10.1111/stul.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571895.001.0001.Google Scholar
Göksel, Asli, and Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
González i Planas, Francesc. 2014. On quotative recomplementation: Between pragmatics and morphosyntax. Lingua 146. 39–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1982. Colloquial and literary uses of inversion. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Tannen, Deborah, 119–54. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2019. Lexical unexceptionalism. Talk given at the Princeton Symposium on Syntactic Theory (PSST), April.Google Scholar
Haddad, Youssef A. 2014. Attitude datives in Lebanese Arabic and the interplay of syntax and pragmatics. Lingua 145. 65–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica 68. 116–39. DOI: 10.1111/stul.12023.10.1111/stul.12023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Hill, Virginia. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. Syntax and its limits, ed. by Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina, and Truswell, Robert, 370–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Negative heads and the Neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8. 233–51. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.233.10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–88.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. 31–70. DOI: 10.1075/livy.2.04har.10.1075/livy.2.04harCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Rapoport, Tova, 42–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harves, Stephanie, and Kayne, Richard S.. 2012. Having need and needing have. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 120–32. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00076.Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Man, Osa-Gómez, Adriana; and Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. How to do things with particles. Actes du congrès annuel de l'Association canadienne de linguistique 2014/Proceedings of the 2014 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Online: https://cla-acl.ca/pdfs/actes-2014/Heim_Keupdjio_Lam_Osa-Gomez_Wiltschko-2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Man, Osa-Gómez, Adriana, Thoma, Sonja; and Wiltschko, Martina. 2016. Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37. 109–29. DOI: 10.1515/scl-2016-0005.10.1515/scl-2016-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007a. Romanian adverbs and the pragmatic field. The Linguistic Review 24. 61–86. DOI: 10.1515/TLR.2007.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007b. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 117. 2077–2105. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2013. Features and strategies: The internal syntax of vocative phrases. Vocative! Addressing between system and performance, ed. by Sonnenhauser, Barbara and Noel, Patrizia Hanna, Aziz, 133–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110304176.133.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2014. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004261389.10.1163/9789004261389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2019. Subjects, topics, and anchoring to the context. Syntax 22. 199–228. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Referring to yourself in self-talk. Structure preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster, ed. by Jan-Wouter Zwart, C. and de Vries, Mark, 185–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–97. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177789.Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia L. 2012. Unaccusativity at the interfaces. New York: New York University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kandel, Margaret. 2015. Ecco location: The Italian presentative ecco and its spatial interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University senior thesis. Online: https://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/MaggieKandelSeniorEssay.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. Themes from Kaplan, ed. by Almong, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wettstein, Howard, 481–564. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Michaelis, Laura A.. 2016. Partial inversion in English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, and Boulder: University of Colorado Boulder, ms. Online: https://spot.colorado.edu/~michaeli/documents/partial.inv.new.series.7.web.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2020. Notes on expletive there. The Linguistic Review 37. 209–30. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2019-2042.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. 92–110. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808.10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lundin, Katarina. 2003. Small clauses in Swedish: Towards a unified account. Lund: Lund University dissertation. Online: https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/small-clauses-in-swedish-towards-a-unified-account.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. by Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane, and Nye, Rachel, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.190.04miyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1985. On the two French subjectless verbs voici and voilà. Language 61. 777–820. DOI: 10.2307/414490.10.2307/414490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1988. French voici and voilà: A reply to Bouchard. Language 64. 101–3. DOI: 10.2307/414787.10.2307/414787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997a. Dynamic antisymmetry: Movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51. 50–76. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9582.00017.10.1111/1467-9582.00017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997b. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511519956.10.1017/CBO9780511519956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1989. Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Pak, Miok, Portner, Paul; and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2022. Restrictions on indexicals in directive clauses. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00473.10.1162/ling_a_00473.10.1162/ling_a_00473.10.1162/ling_a_00473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–9. DOI: 10.2307/2025024.10.2307/2025024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia, and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2010. Sentential particles and remnant movement. Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 5, ed. by Benincà, Paola and Munaro, Nicola, 201–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.003.0007.Google Scholar
Porhiel, Sylvie. 2012. The presentative voici/voilà—Towards a pragmatic definition. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 435–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.001.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2016. Imperatives. The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics, ed. by Aloni, Maria and Dekker, Paul, 593–626. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139236157.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul, Pak, Miok; and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2019. The speaker-addressee relation at the syntax-semantics interface. Language 95. 1–36. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0008.10.1353/lan.2019.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2016. A constructional analysis of obligatory XVS syntactic structures. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 51. 51–82. DOI: 10.1515/stap-2016-0002.10.1515/stap-2016-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 223–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. Phases of interpretation, ed. by Frascarelli, Mara, 341–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197723.5.341.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2011. Solving for interpretation. Manuscript of a talk given at the Workshop on Meaning and Understanding at the Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo. Online: http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw-spring-12/roberts.pdf.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 222–72. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Sadka, Yitshak. 2001. Hinne in Biblical Hebrew. Ugarit-Forschungen 33. 479–93.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Einar Freyr, and Wood, Jim. 2021. On the implicit argument of Icelandic indirect causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 52. 579–625. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00384.10.1162/ling_a_00384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004a. Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2004. 235–59. DOI: 10.1075/livy.4.07sig.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004b. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 16. 219–51. Online: https://www.italian-journal-linguistics.com/app/uploads/2021/06/06_Halldor.pdf.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64. 159–89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2010.01171.x.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2010.01171.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2014. Context-linked grammar. Language Sciences 46. 175–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.010.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2016. The split T analysis. Finiteness matters, ed. by Eide, Kristin Melum, 79–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.231.03sigCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2019. Gender at the edge. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 723–50. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00329.10.1162/ling_a_00329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slocum, Poppy. 2016. The syntax of address. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/11401/77740.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret, and Tenny, Carol L.. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in grammar, ed. by Maria, Anna Sciullo, Di, 315–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1996. The phrase structure of tense. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 277–91. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_10.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2016. Spans and words. Morphological metatheory, ed. by Siddiqi, Daniel and Harley, Heidi, 201–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary, Adger, David, Heycock, Caroline; and Smith, Jennifer. 2019. Syntactic variation and auxiliary contraction: The surprising case of Scots. Language 95. 421–55. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0052.10.1353/lan.2019.0052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Matthew. 2015. Main-clause contexts and all-clause contexts. New Haven, CT: Yale University, ms.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Temmerman, Tanja. 2017. How (not) to elide negation. Syntax 20. 41–76. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12131.10.1111/synt.12131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139833899.10.1017/CBO9781139833899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2017a. Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. The Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. by Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane, and Travis, Lisa de-Mena, 419–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.18.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2017b. Response particles beyond answering. Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure, ed. by Bailey, Laura R. and Sheehan, Michelle, 241–80. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1117725.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, and Heim, Johannes. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals: A neo-performative analysis. Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, ed. by Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne, 303–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87. 1–52. Online: https://projekt.ht.lu.se/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/WPSS87_Wood.pdf.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2021. Towards a model of the syntax–discourse interface: A syntactic analysis of please. English Language & Linguistics 25. 121–53. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674319000510.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yang, Xiaodong, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2016. The confirmational marker ha in Northern Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 104. 67–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.004.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2002. Tenses and anaphora: Is there a tense-specific theory of coreference? Anaphora: An overview, ed. by Barss, Andrew, 140–17. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2014. Sequence-of-tense and the features of finite tenses. Nordlyd 41. 261–76. DOI: 10.7557/12.3419.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 185–218. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9029-6.10.1007/s11049-007-9029-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2017. Presentatives and the syntactic encoding of contextual information. Elements of comparative syntax: Theory and description, ed. by Aboh, Enoch, Haeberli, Eric, Puskás, Genoveva, and Schönenberger, Manuela, 221–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Pak, Miok; and Portner, Paul. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 1231–74. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-012-9176-2.10.1007/s11049-012-9176-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zu, Vera. 2015. Probing for conversation participants: The case of Jingpo. Chicago Linguistic Society 49. 379–89.Google Scholar
Zu, Vera. 2018. Discourse participants and the structural representation of the context. New York: New York University dissertation.Google Scholar