Quotation as a challenge for feature-driven phases: An argument for Zwart’s merge
-
Jan Wiślicki
Abstract
The present paper discusses the problem of deriving quotational expressions (QEs)–a relatively unexplored field in the generative tradition–in the context of phase theory (PT). QEs are taken to be built within Narrow Syntax. While this fact is empirically well-motivated, it turns out to be conceptually problematic for cyclic derivations driven by feature makeup. Empirical data show that QEs represent a unique mixture of conflicting properties. On the one hand, they must be interpretable as both atomic and not. This extends to two readings of the embedding of enquotation, which are argued to follow from recursive and purely iterative, non-recursive interpretation. On the other hand, having no limits in length and scope, QEs are more challenging for PT than other non-compositional chunks. I argue that these effects unearth an important conceptual contrast. While they pose certain problems for the Minimalist approach, they naturally follow from the account of Narrow Syntax proposed by Jan-Wouter Zwart. In this regard the gap in applicability of each account to the discussed phenomenon sheds new light on the role of features in PT.
Acknowledgements
Various parts of this paper were presented at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe 7 (Berlin, 2014), Syntax Seminar at the University of Groningen (2015), Semantics Seminar at Goethe University (Frankfurt, 2015), PhiLang (Łódź, 2015), EGG Summer School Seminar (Brno, 2015), and Incontro di Grammatica Generativa 42 (Lecce, 2016). Critical comments from the participants, in particular James Griffiths, Wolfram Hinzen, Emar Maier, Henk ven Riemsdijk, Pavel Rudnev, Daniel Tiskin, Mark de Vries, Robert Truswell, Ede Zimmermann, Roberto Zamparelli, and Jan-Wouter Zwart as well as two anonymous reviewers of The Linguistic Review are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to Jarosław Jakielaszek, the true don Corleone (and hopefully not don Ciccio) of this paper. Of course, I am solely responsible for any errors.
References
Abels, K. 2012. The italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1). 229–254.10.1162/LING_a_00084Suche in Google Scholar
Ackema, P. & A. Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, & S. Wurmbrand. 2014. Movement vs. long distance agree in raising: Disappearing phases and feature valuation. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 43. 1–12.Suche in Google Scholar
Arsenijević, B. & W. Hinzen. 2012. On the absence of x-within-x recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 423–440.10.1162/LING_a_00095Suche in Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1988. Quotation. Noûs 22(3). 399–418.10.2307/2215710Suche in Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. & C. Chesi. 2014. Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4). 525–569.10.1162/LING_a_00166Suche in Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. & C. Chesi. 2015. On a pp/dp asymmetry in extraction. In E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (ed.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 47–65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, Amsterdam.10.1075/la.223.03biaSuche in Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. & S. Wurmbrand. 2013. Suspension across domains. In O. Matushansky & A. Marantz (eds.), Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 185–198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0011Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2008a. Aspects of the syntax of agreement. New York-London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203930335Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2008b. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2010. Why edges are needed. In A. M. Di Sciullo & V. Hill (eds.), Edges, heads, and projections. Interface properties, 11–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.156.04boeSuche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2012a. Phases beyond explanatory adequacy. In Á. J. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 45–66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110264104.45Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2012b. Syntactic islands. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022415Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2015. Elementary syntactic structures: Prospects of a feature-free syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524391Suche in Google Scholar
Boolos, G. 1995. Quotational ambiguity. In P. Leonardi & M. Santambrogio (eds.), On quine: New essays, 283–296. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring sense: Volume III: Taking form, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2014a. The category of roots. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 112–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006Suche in Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2014b. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4). 343–359.10.1515/tl-2014-0016Suche in Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2016a. Getting really edgy: On the edge of the edge. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1). 1–33.10.1162/LING_a_00203Suche in Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2016b. What is sent to spell-out is phases, not phasal complements. Ms.10.4312/linguistica.56.1.25-66Suche in Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2016. Alignment in syntax: Quotative inversion in English. Syntax 19(2). 111–155.10.1111/synt.12121Suche in Google Scholar
Chesi, C. & A. Moro. 2015. The subtle dependency between Competence and Performance. In J. Gallego Ángel & D. Ott (eds), 50 years later: reflections on Chomsky’s aspects, 33–46. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In D. M. R. Martin & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic inquiry 36(1). 1–22.10.1162/0024389052993655Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from Below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207552-001Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On Phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean–Roger Vergnaud, 133–167. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.10.1075/la.223.01choSuche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015a. A discusion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Sophia Linguistica 64. 70–97.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015b. Problems of projection: extensions. In E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choSuche in Google Scholar
De Belder, M. & J. Van Craenenbroeck. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). 625–655.10.1162/LING_a_00196Suche in Google Scholar
De Vries, M. 2006. Reported direct speech in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23(1). 212–223.10.1075/avt.23.21vriSuche in Google Scholar
De Vries, M. 2007. Invisible constituents? Parentheses as b-merged adverbial phrases. In N. Dehé & Y. Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 203–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.106.11vriSuche in Google Scholar
De Vries, M. 2008. The representation of language within language: A syntactico-pragmatic typology of direct speech. Studia Linguistica 62(1). 39–77.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00142.xSuche in Google Scholar
De Vries, M. 2012. Notes on the syntax of quotation. Conference presentation: Quotation. Perspecitives from Philosophy and Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Dummett, M. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501502569Suche in Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 2001. Lexicon and grammar: The English syntacticon. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872996Suche in Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara & D. Seely. 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33(1). 87–102.10.4324/9780367343699-2Suche in Google Scholar
Fortuny, J. 2008. The Emergence of Order in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.119Suche in Google Scholar
Fortuny Andreu, J. & B. Corominas Murtra. 2009. Some formal considerations on the generation of hierarchically structured expressions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8. 99–111.10.5565/rev/catjl.143Suche in Google Scholar
Frampton, J. & S. Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2(1). 1–27.10.1111/1467-9612.00012Suche in Google Scholar
Frampton, J. & S. Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In T. D. S. Samuel David Epstein (ed.), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, 90–105. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9780470755662.ch5Suche in Google Scholar
Frampton, J. & S. Gutmann. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and selection in an efficient minimalist syntax. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems, 121–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.92.08fraSuche in Google Scholar
Gallego, A. J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.152Suche in Google Scholar
Gallego, A. J. 2016. Lexical items and feature bundling. Consequences for microparametric approaches to variation. In L. Eguren, O. Fernández-Soriano & A. Mendikoetxea (eds.), Rethinking Parameters, 133–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190461737.003.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Gallego, A. J. & J. Uriagereka. 2015. Head movement in the clausal domain. In A. Fábregas, J. Mateu & M. Putnam (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters, 227–249. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. & D. J. Hill. 2013. Reach’s puzzle and mention. dialectica 67(2). 201–222.10.1111/1746-8361.12021Suche in Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1980. Quotation and semantics. In P. T. Geach (ed.), Logic Matters, 189–211. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520352391-007Suche in Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & R. Cooper. 2014. Quotation via dialogical interaction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 23(3). 287–311.10.1007/s10849-014-9200-5Suche in Google Scholar
Grano, T. & H. Lasnik. 2016. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Ms., Indiana University and University of Maryland.Suche in Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. 2015a. Parenthetical verb constructions, fragment answers, and constituent modification. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1). 191–229.10.1007/s11049-014-9256-6Suche in Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. 2015b. Speaker and quote reduced parenthetical clauses. In S. Schneider, J. Glikman, & M. Azanzi (eds.), Parenthetical Verbs, 71–102. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110376142-005Suche in Google Scholar
Harwood, W., M. Hladnik, S. Leufkens, T. Temmerman, N. Corver, & J. van Craenenbroeck. 2016. Idioms: Phasehood and Projection. Ms.Suche in Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2015. Nothing is Hidden: Contextualism and the Grammar-Meaning Interface. Mind & Language 30(3). 259–291.10.1111/mila.12080Suche in Google Scholar
Hinzen, W., M. Sheehan, & U. Reichard. 2014. Intensionality, grammar, and the sententialist hypothesis. In P. Kosta, S. Franks, T. Radev-Bork, & L. Schürks (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, 315–349. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.11.13hinSuche in Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & J. Uriagereka. 2002. Reprojections. In S. Epstein & D. Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, 106–132. Malden, Mass: Wiley Online Library.10.1002/9780470755662.ch6Suche in Google Scholar
i Planas, F. 2014. On quotative recomplementation: Between pragmatics and morphosyntax. Lingua 146. 39–74.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.007Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2003. Towards an etiology of adjunct islands. Nordlyd 31(1). 187–215.10.7557/12.25Suche in Google Scholar
Kluck, M. & M. de Vries. 2015. On v2, gaps, and operators in comment and reporting parentheticals. In S. Shneider, J. Glikman & M. Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical Verbs, 103–132. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110376142-006Suche in Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. N. C. J. 2000. The flexible nature of verb movement. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Koster, J. 2007. Structure preservingness, internal merge, and the strict locality of triads. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & W. K.Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 188–205. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.101.10kosSuche in Google Scholar
Kremers, J. 2015. Morphology is in the eye of the beholder. Linguistische Berichte 2015(243). 245–294.10.46771/2366077500243_3Suche in Google Scholar
Kuratowski, C. 1921. Sur la notion de l’ordre dans la théorie des ensembles. Fundamenta mathematicae 1(2). 161–171.10.4064/fm-2-1-161-171Suche in Google Scholar
Larson, R. 2011. Clauses, propositions, and phases. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise. New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lechner, W. 2007. Interpretive effects of head movement. Ms., University of Athens.10.1515/9783110197723.2.45Suche in Google Scholar
Lechner, W. 2010. On the orthodoxy of head movement. Paper presented at the conference Verb movement: Its nature, triggers, and effects, University of Amsterdam/CASTL, 11-12 December.Suche in Google Scholar
Lobina, D. J. 2017. A Computational Investigation into the Representation and Processing of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2007. Quotation marks as monsters, or the other way around. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 145–150.Suche in Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2008. Breaking quotations. In S. Satoh, et al. (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 187–200. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_18Suche in Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2014a. Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(7). 1–67.10.3765/sp.7.7Suche in Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2014b. Pure quotation. Philosophy Compass 9(9). 615–630.10.1111/phc3.12149Suche in Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2017. Mixed quotation. Ms., University of Groningen.Suche in Google Scholar
Mathew, R. 2015. Head Movement in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.224Suche in Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2008. On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5). 573–627.10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1Suche in Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2015. The other francis bacon: on non-bare proper names. Erkenntnis 80(2). 335–362.10.1007/s10670-014-9703-0Suche in Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, R. L. 2005. The Philosophy of Gottlob Frege. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511497964Suche in Google Scholar
Muysken, P. & H. C. van Riemsdijk. 1986. Features and projections. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871661Suche in Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., E. Titov, H. Van De Koot, & R. Vermeulen. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In J. van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110217124.15Suche in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2015. Parentheticals and the grammar of complementation. In S. Schneider, J. Glikman & M. Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical Verbs, 13–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110376142-003Suche in Google Scholar
Pafel, J. 2011. Two dogmas on quotation. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds.), Understanding Quotation, 249–276. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240085.249Suche in Google Scholar
Pagin, P. & D. Westerståhl. 2010. Pure quotation and general compositionality. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(5). 381–415.10.1007/s10988-011-9083-8Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. 1973. The syntax and semantics of quotation. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Hale, pages 410–418. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In K. Simin, V. Samiian, & W. K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.101.14pesSuche in Google Scholar
Phillips, C. 2013. Parser-grammar relations: We don’t understand everything twice. In Montserrat Sanz, Itziar Laka & Michael K. Tanenhaus (eds.), Language down the garden path: the cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structure, 294–315. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0017Suche in Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2007. The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (eds.), Direct compositionality, 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199204373.003.0012Suche in Google Scholar
Reach, K. 1938. The name relation and the logical antinomies. The journal of symbolic logic 3(3). 97–111.10.2307/2267594Suche in Google Scholar
Read, S. 1997. Quotation and reach’s puzzle. Acta Analytica 19. 9–20.Suche in Google Scholar
Richards, M. D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563Suche in Google Scholar
Richards, M. D. 2012. On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement-morphology connection. In Á. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework, 195–232. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110264104.195Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti, (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3, 223–251. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1991. Excorporation and Minimality. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 209–218.10.4324/9781315310572-10Suche in Google Scholar
Rudnev, P. 2015. Dependency and discourse-configurationality: a study of Avar. Groningen: University of Groningen.Suche in Google Scholar
Saka, P. 2013. Quotation. Philosophy Compass 8(10). 935–949.10.1111/phc3.12069Suche in Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Y. 2016. Phases and argument ellipsis in japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25(3). 243–274.10.1007/s10831-016-9145-6Suche in Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: a cross categorial approach. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2015. Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.Suche in Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(3). 353–395.10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9Suche in Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 2011. Covaluation and unexpected bt effects. Journal of Semantics 55–106.10.1093/jos/ffq012Suche in Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. & W. Hinzen. 2011. Moving towards the edge. Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4). 405–458.Suche in Google Scholar
Sudo, Y. 2013. Metalinguistic quantification: Evidence from japanese wh-doublets. Ms., Institut Jean Nicod.Suche in Google Scholar
Sugimoto, Y. 2016. De-phasing effect: External pair-merge of phase head and non-phase head. Paper presented at GLOW 2016, Goettingen, 5-7 April.Suche in Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 2000. The syntax of direct quotes with special reference to spanish and english. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(3). 525–578.10.1007/s11049-007-9022-0Suche in Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1983. The concept of truth in formalized languages. In J. Corcoran (ed.), Logic, semantics, metamathematics: papers from 1923 to 1938, 152–278. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Trotzke, A. & Lahne, A. 2011. Recursion as derivational layering: an amendment to zwart. Biolinguistics 5(4). 335–346.10.5964/bioling.8865Suche in Google Scholar
Trotzke, A. & J.-W. Zwart. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest merge. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 128–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0007Suche in Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to c in german. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3). 257–306.10.1515/TL.2006.018Suche in Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic anchors: On semantic structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511481482Suche in Google Scholar
Werning, M. 2005. Right and wrong reasons for compositionality. In M. Werning, E. Machery & G. Schurz (ed.), The compositionality of meaning and content, 285–309. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.10.1515/9783110323627.285Suche in Google Scholar
Werning, M. 2012. Quotation as marked referential imitation: A compositional analysis of an allegedly opaque phenomenon. Paper presented at Quotation. Perspecitives from Philosophy and Linguistics, Bochum, 27-29 September.Suche in Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 183–193.Suche in Google Scholar
Williams, E. 2011. Regimes of Derivation in Syntax and Morphology. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203830796Suche in Google Scholar
Wiślicki, J. 2014. Semantics of quotation. Proceedings of PhML 2014 238–249.Suche in Google Scholar
Wiślicki, J. 2016. Roots and root typing: evidence from discontinuity. Paper presented at Incontro di Grammatica Generativa 42, Lecce, 18-20 February.Suche in Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2013. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 42. 277–290.Suche in Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2017. Stripping and Topless Complements. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2).10.1162/LING_a_00245Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2003. On the format of dependency relations. Paper presented at Harvard University, 10 November.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2004a. Assymetric merge. Paper presented at the University of Michigan, 23 March.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2004b. The format of dependency relations. merge. Paper presented at Indiana University, June-July.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2009. Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguisitcs 8. 161–187.10.5565/rev/catjl.146Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2011a. Recursion in language: A layered-derivation approach. Biolinguistics 5(1–2). 043–056.10.5964/bioling.8829Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2011b. Structure and order: Asymmetric Merge. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 96–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2013. Language innateness. Debate with Dan Everett, University of Groningen, 12 September.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2015. Top-down derivation, recursion, and the model of grammar. In A. Trotzke & J. Bayer, (eds.), Syntactic complexity across interfaces, 25–42. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9781614517900.25Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2017. Eliminating External Merge. Ms., University of Groningen.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
