[Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4). 238–266.]Search in Google Scholar
[Armstrong, Lilias E. & Ida C. Ward. 1926. A handbook of English intonation. Cambridge: Heffer.]Search in Google Scholar
[Balazs, Julie Elizabeth. 2012. The syntax of small clauses. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Cornell University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bondaruk, Anna. 2013. Copular clauses in English and Polish: Structure, derivation, and interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Günther Grewendorf & Thomas E. Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 112), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 179-242.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bošković, Željko & Jon Gajewski. 2011. Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society: Cornell University, 121–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bowers, John. 2003. Predication. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1111/b.9781405102537.2003.00012.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47(2). 257–281.10.2307/412081]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell, Richard. 1996. Specificity operators in SpecDP. Studia Linguistica 50(2). 161–188.10.1111/j.1467-9582.1996.tb00348.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structure. Vol. 3 (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2). 239–297.]Search in Google Scholar
[Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118(3). 261–295.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.009]Search in Google Scholar
[Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move, and labels (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 129). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794278]Search in Google Scholar
[Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Donati, Caterina. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on (Current Studies in Linguistics 42), 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1). 1–25.]Search in Google Scholar
[Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A grammar of Mupun (Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 14). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.]Search in Google Scholar
[Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (Generative Syntax 6). 90–105. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.10.1002/9780470755662.ch5]Search in Google Scholar
[Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. In Ileana Comorowski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 84), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_3]Search in Google Scholar
[Green, Melanie. 2007. Focus in Hausa (Publications of the Philological Society 40). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hale, Kenneth L. & Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress (Current Studies in Linguistics 15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Heggie, Lorie, A. 1988. The syntax of copular clauses. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South California.]Search in Google Scholar
[Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 254–274.10.1093/jos/19.3.245]Search in Google Scholar
[Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3). 365–397.10.1162/002438999554110]Search in Google Scholar
[Higgins, Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.]Search in Google Scholar
[Higgins, Roger. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York: Garland.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575129]Search in Google Scholar
[Huber, Christian. 1999. Issues in syntax and interpretation of Sumerian clauses. In Jeremy Black & Gábor Zólyomi (eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Diachronic and Synchronic Variations in the Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax of Sumerian, (no pages). Oxford: Oriental Institute.]Search in Google Scholar
[Huber, Stefan. 2002. Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen (Lunder Germanistische Forschungen 64). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kiss, Katalin É. 2006. Focussing as predication. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus (Studies in Generative Grammar 82), 193–193. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kiss, Katalin É. 2010. Structural focus and exhaustivity. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological and, experimental perspectives, 64–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0004]Search in Google Scholar
[Kohler, Klaus J. 2006. What is emphasis and how is it coded? In Rüdiger Hoffmann & Hansjörg Mixdorff (eds.), Speech prosody: 3rd International Conference, Dresden, May 2-5, 2006, 748–751. Dresden: TUDpress.]Search in Google Scholar
[Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2-3). 211–258.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W]Search in Google Scholar
[Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga. 2007. Small clauses reconsidered revisited: Not so small and not all alike, and far fewer. Lingua Posnaniensis 49. 83–91.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.), Proceedings of WIGL 2006 (LSO Working Papers in Linguistics 6), 103–117.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mikkelsen, Line. 2005a. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation (Linguistik Aktuell 85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.85]Search in Google Scholar
[Mikkelsen, Line. 2005b. Subject choice in copular clauses. Unpublished MS, UC Berkeley.10.1075/la.85]Search in Google Scholar
[Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519956]Search in Google Scholar
[Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 38). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Moro, Andrea. 2008. The boundaries of Babel: The brain and the enigma of impossible languages (Current Studies in Linguistics 46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262134989.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the nature of intra-clausal relations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian. A theory of intra-clausal relations (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 70). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-5793-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Prince, Ellen F. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Weber & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 231–250. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Progovac, Ljiljana. 2010. Syntax: Its evolution and its representation in the brain. Biolinguistics. 4.(2-3). 234–254.10.5964/bioling.8789]Search in Google Scholar
[Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2001. Extraction from nominal phrases and the theory of determiners. In Ewa Willim & Piotr Bański (eds.), Formal approaches to Polish syntax, 159–198. Bloomington, IN; Slavica Publishers.]Search in Google Scholar
[Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computation (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Rizzi, Luigi. 2006.“On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lisa Lai Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on (Current Studies in Linguistics 42), 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Roberts, Ian. 2011. Head movement and the Minimalist Program. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0009]Search in Google Scholar
[Roy, Isabelle. 2006. Non-verbal predication: A syntactic analysis of predicational copular sentences. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rutkowski, Paweł. 2006. From demonstratives to copulas: A cross-linguistic perspective and the case of Polish. Journal of Universal Language 7. 147–173.10.22425/jul.2006.7.2.147]Search in Google Scholar
[Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure (Current Studies in Linguistics 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7(3). 299–339.10.1023/A:1008390623435]Search in Google Scholar
[Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tajsner, Przemysław. 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus: A minimalist view (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 24). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tajsner, Przemysław. forthcoming. On focus marking and predication. Evidence from Polish with some notes on Hausa. Lingua Posnaniensis.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wedgwood, Dan. 2003. Predication and information structure. A dynamic account of the Hungarian pre-verbal system. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Edinburgh.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wedgwood, Dan. 2006. Predication, focus and the positions of negation in Hungarian. Lingua 116(3). 351–376.]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(3). 423–446.10.1007/BF00627484]Search in Google Scholar
[Willim, Ewa. 2000. On the grammar of Polish nominals. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 319–346. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Witkoś, Jacek. 1998. The syntax of clitics. Steps towards a minimalist account. Poznań. Motivex.]Search in Google Scholar
[Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. 3 (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 19), 522–568. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
