Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
On Specification Predication and the derivation of copular to-clauses in Polish Cover

On Specification Predication and the derivation of copular to-clauses in Polish

Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
Volume 50 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)
By:   
Open Access
|Mar 2016
References

References

  1. Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax.33(3–4). 238–266.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, Lilias E. & Ida C. Ward. 1926.. Cambridge: Heffer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Balazs, Julie Elizabeth. 2012.. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Cornell University.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Bondaruk, Anna. 2013.. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds.),, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Günther Grewendorf & Thomas E. Zimmermann (eds.),, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 179-242.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Bošković, Željko & Jon Gajewski. 2011. Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.),, 121–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication.24(4). 591–656.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, John. 2003. Predication. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.),(Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations.47(2). 257–281.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, Richard. 1996. Specificity operators in SpecDP.50(2). 161–188.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1995.(Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.),Vol. 3 (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.),, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection.130. 33–49.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress.24(2). 239–297.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike.118(3). 261–295.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Citko, Barbara. 2011.(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 129). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Dikken, Marcel den. 2006.(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Donati, Caterina. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.),(Current Studies in Linguistics 42), 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity.22(1). 1–25.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993.(Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 14). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.),(Generative Syntax 6). 90–105. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. In Ileana Comorowski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.),syntax (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 84), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. Green, Melanie. 2007.(Publications of the Philological Society 40). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Hale, Kenneth L. & Jay Keyser. 2002.(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987.(Current Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Heggie, Lorie, A. 1988.. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South California.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure.19(3). 254–274.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level.30(3). 365–397.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. Higgins, Roger. 1973.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Higgins, Roger. 1979.(Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Hornstein, Norbert. 2009.. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Huber, Christian. 1999. Issues in syntax and interpretation of Sumerian clauses. In Jeremy Black & Gábor Zólyomi (eds.),, (no pages). Oxford: Oriental Institute.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Huber, Stefan. 2002.(Lunder Germanistische Forschungen 64). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Kiss, Katalin É. 2006. Focussing as predication. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.),(Studies in Generative Grammar 82), 193–193. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Kiss, Katalin É. 2010. Structural focus and exhaustivity. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.),, 64–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Kohler, Klaus J. 2006. What is emphasis and how is it coded? In Rüdiger Hoffmann & Hansjörg Mixdorff (eds.),, 748–751. Dresden: TUDpress.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects.85(2-3). 211–258.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga. 2007. Small clauses reconsidered revisited: Not so small and not all alike, and far fewer.49. 83–91.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga & Paweł Rutkowski. 2006. NP coordination as a new argument in the debate on the DP-analysis of Polish. In Blake H. Rodgers (ed.),(LSO Working Papers in Linguistics 6), 103–117.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Mikkelsen, Line. 2005a.(Linguistik Aktuell 85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Mikkelsen, Line. 2005b. Subject choice in copular clauses. Unpublished MS, UC Berkeley.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Moro, Andrea. 1997.(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Moro, Andrea. 2000.(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 38). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Moro, Andrea. 2008.(Current Studies in Linguistics 46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007.(Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 70). Dordrecht: Springer.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Weber & Ivan A. Sag (eds.),, 231–250. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Progovac, Ljiljana. 2010. Syntax: Its evolution and its representation in the brain.. 4.(2-3). 234–254.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2001. Extraction from nominal phrases and the theory of determiners. In Ewa Willim & Piotr Bański (eds.),, 159–198. Bloomington, IN; Slavica Publishers.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006..(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  54. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006.“On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.),(Current Studies in Linguistics 42), 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Roberts, Ian. 2011. Head movement and the Minimalist Program. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.),(Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  56. Roy, Isabelle. 2006.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Rutkowski, Paweł. 2006. From demonstratives to copulas: A cross-linguistic perspective and the case of Polish.7. 147–173.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  58. Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984.(Current Studies in Linguistics 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences.7(3). 299–339.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  60. Stowell, Tim. 1981.. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Tajsner, Przemysław. 2008.(Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 24). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. Tajsner, Przemysław. forthcoming. On focus marking and predication. Evidence from Polish with some notes on Hausa..
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. Wedgwood, Dan. 2003.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Edinburgh.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Wedgwood, Dan. 2006. Predication, focus and the positions of negation in Hungarian.116(3). 351–376.
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories.6(3). 423–446.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  66. Willim, Ewa. 2000. On the grammar of Polish nominals. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.),Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. Witkoś, Jacek. 1998.Poznań. Motivex.
    Search in Google Scholar
  68. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998.(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.),(Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 19), 522–568. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stap-2015-0032 | Journal eISSN: 2082-5102 | Journal ISSN: 0081-6272
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 25 - 66
Published on: Mar 19, 2016
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
copula,
copular clauses,
predication,
specification,
focus,
derivation
Related subjects:
Literary studies,
Anglo-American literature,
Anglo-American literature, general

© 2016 Przemysław Tajsner, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 50 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)
Previous article
Next article