The Syntax and Semantics of Nonfinite Forms

Literature Cited

1. Aarts B 2004. Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Lang. Sci. 26:343–89
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aarts B 2007. In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft. Stud. Lang. 31:431–43
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ackerman F, Stump G 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism. Projecting Morphology L Sadler, A Spencer111–58 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Ackerman F, Stump GT, Webelhuth G 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology. Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar RD Borsley, K Börjars325–58 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
   [Google Scholar]
5. Adger D 2007. Three domains of finiteness: a Minimalist perspective. See Nikolaeva 2007c 23–58
6. Alexiadou A 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity Amsterdam: Benjamins
7. Alexiadou A 2005. Gerund types, the present participle and patterns of derivation. Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications C Maienborn, A Wöllstein139–52 Berlin: de Gruyter
   [Google Scholar]
8. Alexiadou A 2010.a Nominalizations: a probe into the architecture of grammar. Part I: The nominalization puzzle. Lang. Linguist. Compass 4:496–511
   [Google Scholar]
9. Alexiadou A 2010.b Nominalizations: a probe into the architecture of grammar. Part II: The aspectual properties of nominalizations, and the lexicon versus syntax debate. Lang. Linguist. Compass 4:512–23
   [Google Scholar]
10. Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E 2008. Structuring participles. Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics CB Chang, HJ Haynie33–41 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
11. Alexiadou A, Iordăchioaia G, Schäfer F 2011. Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation and Change P Sleeman, H Perridon25–40 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
12. Alexiadou A, Iordăchioaia G, Soare E 2010. Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: a Distributed Morphology approach. J. Linguist. 46:537–74
    [Google Scholar]
13. Alexiadou A, Rathert M 2010. The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks Berlin: de Gruyter
14. Anagnostopoulou E 2003. Participles and voice. Perfect Explorations A Alexiadou, M Rathert, A von Stechow1–36 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
15. Anderson JM 2007. Finiteness, mood and morphosyntax. J. Linguist. 43:1–32
    [Google Scholar]
16. Arnold D, Sadler L 2013. Displaced dependent constructions. Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King48–68 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Baker MC 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
18. Bianchi V 2000. On finiteness and nominative case licensing. Quad. Lab. Linguist. 1:145–67
    [Google Scholar]
19. Bianchi V 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. Temps et point de vue [Tense and Point of View] J Guéron, L Tasmovski213–46 Nanterre, Fr.: Univ. Paris X (In French)
    [Google Scholar]
20. Bisang W 2007. Categories that make finiteness: discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. See Nikolaeva 2007c 115–37
21. Bonami O 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25:63–110
    [Google Scholar]
22. Bonami O, Samvelian P 2009. Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar S Müller26–46 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Bonami O, Samvelian P 2015. The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian. J. Linguist. 51:327–82
    [Google Scholar]
24. Bonami O, Webelhuth G 2012. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: a lexicalist account. Periphrasis: The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms M Chumakina, G Corbett141–67 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press/Br. Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Brandner E 2004. Head-movement in minimalism and V2 as FORCE-marking. The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery H Lohnstein, S Trissler97–138 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
26. Bresnan J 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. 17 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Bresnan J, Asudeh A, Toivonen I, Wechsler S 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 2nd ed.
28. Brown D, Chumakina M, Corbett G, Popova G, Spencer A 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology 22:233–75
    [Google Scholar]
29. Cristofaro S 2003. Subordination Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
30. Cristofaro S 2007. Deconstructing categories: finiteness in a functional-typological perspective. See Nikolaeva 2007c 91–114
31. Croft WA 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
32. Croft WA 2007. Beyond Aristotle and gradience: a reply to Aarts. Stud. Lang. 31:409–30
    [Google Scholar]
33. Dalrymple M 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar San Diego: Academic
34. de Groot C 1995. The Hungarian converb or verbal adverbial in -va/-ve. See Haspelmath & König 1995 283–311
35. Drijkoningen F 1992. Derivation in syntax. Morphology Now M Aronoff48–68 Albany, NY: SUNY Press
    [Google Scholar]
36. Ebert KH 2003. Equivalents of ‘conjunctive participles’ in Kiranti languages. Themes in Himalayan Linguistics TR Kasakar, M Turin27–47 Heidelberg, Ger.: Südasien Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Ebert KH 2008. Converbs in Kiranti languages. From Siberia to Ethiopia—Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective KH Ebert, J Mattissen, R Suter63–89 Zürich: Univ. Zürich
    [Google Scholar]
38. Embick D 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguist. Inq. 35:355–92
    [Google Scholar]
39. Halle M, Marantz AP 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger KL Hale, SJ Keyser111–76 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
40. Haspelmath M 1994. Passive participles across languages. Voice: Form and Function B Fox, PJ Hopper151–77 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
41. Haspelmath M 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. See Haspelmath & König 1995 1–55
42. Haspelmath M 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1995 G Booij, J van Marle43–66 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
43. Haspelmath M, König E 1995. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms—Adverbial Participles, Gerunds Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
44. Haug DTT 2008. Tense and aspect for glue semantics: the case of participial xadj's. Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King291–311 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Haug DTT 2010. Participles, events and discourse structure in Ancient GreekPaper presented at the Oxford Linguistics Seminar, Oxford, UK, March 1
46. Haug DTT 2011. Backward control in Ancient Greek—subsumption or linearization?. Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King278–98 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Haug DTT 2012. Open verb-based adjuncts in New Testament Greek and the Latin of the Vulgate. Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration C Fabricius-Hansen, DTT Haug287–321 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
48. Haug DTT 2017. Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 35:99–159
    [Google Scholar]
49. Haug DTT, Fabricius-Hansen C, Behrens B, Helland HP 2012. Open adjuncts: degrees of event integration. Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration C Fabricius-Hansen, DTT Haug131–78 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
50. Haug DTT, Nikitina T 2012. The many cases of non-finite subjects: the challenge of “dominant” participles. Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King292–311 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Haug DTT, Nikitina T 2016. Feature sharing in agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 34:865–910
    [Google Scholar]
52. Hoekstra T, Hyams N, Becker M 1999. The role of the specifier and finiteness in early grammar. Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches D Adger, S Pintzuk, B Plunkett, G Tsoulas252–70 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
53. Holmberg A, Platzack C 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
54. Hopper PJ, Thompson SA 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60:703–52
    [Google Scholar]
55. Iordăchioaia G, Soare E 2009. Structural patterns blocking plural in Romance nominalizations. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory E Aboh, E van der Linden, J Quer, P Sleeman145–60 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
56. Kamp H, Reyle U 1993. From Discourse to Logic Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
57. Kaplan RM, Bresnan J 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations J Bresnan173–281 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
58. Kiparsky P 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 G Booij, J van Marle113–35 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
59. Klein W 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68:525–52
    [Google Scholar]
60. Klein W 1994. Time in Language London: Routledge
61. Klein W 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71:669–95
    [Google Scholar]
62. Klein W 1998. Assertion and finiteness. Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn N Dittmar, Z Penner225–45 Bern: Peter Lang
    [Google Scholar]
63. Klein W 2006. On finiteness. Semantics in Acquisition V van Geenhoven245–72 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
64. Koptjevskaja-Tamm M 1993. Nominalizations London: Routledge
65. Koptjevskaja-Tamm M 2003. Action nominal constructions in the languages of Europe. Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe F Plank723–59 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
66. Koptjevskaja-Tamm M 2006. Nominalization. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguisticsvol. 8: Mel–Nya K Brown, AH Anderson, L Bauer, M Berns, G Hirst, J Miller652–59 Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2nd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Langacker RW 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63:53–94
    [Google Scholar]
68. Lowe JJ 2015. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
69. Lowe JJ 2016. Participles, gerunds and syntactic categories. Proceedings of the HeadLex16 Conference D Arnold, M Butt, B Crysmann, T Holloway King, S Müller401–21 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Lowe JJ 2017. Transitive Nouns and Adjectives: Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
71. Marantz A 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:14
    [Google Scholar]
72. Mithun M 2000. Noun and verb in Iroquoian languages: multicategorisation from multiple criteria. Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes PM Vogel, B Comrie397–420 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
73. Nedjalkov IV 1998. Converbs in the languages of Europe. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe J van der Auwera, DÓ Baoill421–55 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
74. Nedjalkov VP 1995. Some typological parameters of converbs. See Haspelmath & König 1995 97–136
75. Nikitina TV, Haug DTT 2013. Latin constructions with participles in a diachronic perspectivePaper presented at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Univ. Oslo, Nor., August 9
76. Nikitina TV, Haug DTT 2016. Syntactic nominalization in Latin: a case of non-canonical subject agreement. Trans. Philol. Soc. 114:25–50
    [Google Scholar]
77. Nikolaeva I 2007.a Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses. See Nikolaeva 2007c 138–82
78. Nikolaeva I 2007.b Introduction. See Nikolaeva 2007c 1–19
79. Nikolaeva I 2007.c Finiteness Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
80. Nikolaeva I 2010. Typology of finiteness. Lang. Linguist. Compass 4:1176–89
    [Google Scholar]
81. Paslawska A, von Stechow A 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. Perfect Explorations A Alexiadou, M Rathert, A von Stechow307–62 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
82. Pires A 2007. The derivation of clausal gerunds. Syntax 10:165–203
    [Google Scholar]
83. Platzack C, Holmberg A 1989. The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic VO languages. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 43:51–76
    [Google Scholar]
84. Platzack C, Rosengren I 1998. On the subject of imperatives: a minimalist account of the imperative clause. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 1:177
    [Google Scholar]
85. Polinsky M, Potsdam E 2002.a Backward control. Linguist. Inq. 33:245–82
    [Google Scholar]
86. Polinsky M, Potsdam E 2002.b Backward control: evidence from Malagasy. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association A Rackowski, N Richards257–72 Cambridge, MA: Dep. Linguist. Philos., MIT
    [Google Scholar]
87. Polinsky M, Potsdam E 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9:171–92
    [Google Scholar]
88. Popova G, Spencer A 2012. Relatedness in periphrasis: a paradigm-based perspective. Periphrasis: The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms M Chumakina, G Corbett191–225 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press/Br. Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Pullum GK 1991. English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb phrase heads. Linguistics 29:763–99
    [Google Scholar]
90. Rauh G 2010. Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
91. Reichenbach H 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic New York: Free Press
92. Rizzi L 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar L Haegeman281–337 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
93. Rizzi L, Cinque G 2016. Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:139–63
    [Google Scholar]
94. Ross JR 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society PM Peranteau, JN Levi, GC Phares316–28 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
95. Roussou A 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages ML Rivero, A Ralli74–104 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
96. Schachter P 1976. A nontransformational account of gerundive nominals in English. Linguist. Inq. 7:205–41
    [Google Scholar]
97. Sleeman P 2011. Verbal and adjectival participles: position and internal structure. Lingua 121:1569–87
    [Google Scholar]
98. Sleeman P, Brito AM 2010. Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: a split VP analysis. Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks A Alexiadou, M Rathert199–218 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
99. Spencer A 2015. Participial relatives in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King378–98 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
100. Spencer A, Popova G 2015. Periphrasis and inflection. The Oxford Handbook of Inflection M Baerman197–230 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
101. Toivonen I 2003. Non-Projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Verbal Particles Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
102. Wurmbrand S 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
103. Ylikoski J 2003. Defining non-finites: action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY J. Linguist. 16:185–237
     [Google Scholar]
104. Zaenen A, Kaplan RM 2002. Subsumption and equality: German partial fronting in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference M Butt, T Holloway King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. 19 pp.
     [Google Scholar]