[Bach, Emmon. 1970. Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1(1). 121–122.]Search in Google Scholar
[Baker, Carl Lee. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71(1). 63–101. DOI: 10.2307/41596310.2307/415963]Search in Google Scholar
[Bickerton, Derek. 1987. He himself: Anaphor, pronoun, or...? Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 345–348.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Conditions on transformations. In Noam Chomsky, Essays on form and interpretation. New York, NY: North Holland. 81–160.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Foris.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1994. The theory of principles and parameters. In Noam]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. 13–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262527347.001.000110.7551/mitpress/9780262527347.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Cohen, Ariel. 2001. On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 18(3). 183–209. DOI: 10.1093/jos/18.3.18310.1093/jos/18.3.183]Search in Google Scholar
[Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–25.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gast, Volker & Peter Siemund. 2006. Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2). 343–381. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2006.01310.1515/LING.2006.013]Search in Google Scholar
[Goodall, Grant. 1984. Parallel structures in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of California San Diego.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003]Search in Google Scholar
[Grimshaw, Jane. 2006. Last resorts and grammaticality. In Hans Broekhuis & Ralph Vogel (eds.), Optimality Theory and Minimalism: A possible convergence?, 33–41. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hale, Austin. 1970. Conditions on English comparative clause pairings. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 30–55. Waltham: Ginn & Co.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hankamer, Jorge. 1971 Constraints on deletion in syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hornstein, Norbert & William Idsardi. 2014. A program for the Minimalist Program. In Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds.), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, 9–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2). 233–245.10.1007/BF00351105]Search in Google Scholar
[König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2002. Reflexive pronouns and other uses of ‘self’-forms in English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 50(3). 225–238.]Search in Google Scholar
[König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Locally free self-forms, logophoricity, and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 183–204. DOI: 10.1017/S136067430000022810.1017/S1360674300000228]Search in Google Scholar
[Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link & Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krivochen, Diego Gabriel. 2015. On Phrase Structure building and labelling algorithms: Towards a non-uniform theory of syntactic structures. The Linguistic Review 32(3). 515–572. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2014-003010.1515/tlr-2014-0030]Search in Google Scholar
[Krivochen, Diego Gabriel. 2017. Syntax as graph theory. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003842]Search in Google Scholar
[Kroch, Anthony S. & Aravind K. Joshi. 1987. Analyzing extraposition in tree adjoining grammar. In Geoffrey J. Huck & Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.), Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency, 107–151. New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373204_006]Search in Google Scholar
[Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington, IN: University of Iowa, Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic iIrregularity. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lasnik, Howard. 2011. What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 354-365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39(1). 17–28. DOI: 10.2307/41075910.2307/410759]Search in Google Scholar
[Leskosky, Richard J. 1972. Intensive reflexives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2(1). 42–65.]Search in Google Scholar
[Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 107–161.10.1017/S0022226700012433]Search in Google Scholar
[May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[McCawley, James D. 1998, The syntactic phenomena of English. (2nd edn) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In David Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, 201–224. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.]Search in Google Scholar
[Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.]Search in Google Scholar
[Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.]Search in Google Scholar
[Reuland, Eric & Tanya Reinhart. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4). 657–720.]Search in Google Scholar
[Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3). 287–350.10.1023/A:1024157132393]Search in Google Scholar
[Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ross, John Robert. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In William Todd, (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, 77–102. Evanstown, IL: Great Expectations.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Actes du Xe Congrès international des linguistes, 841–853. Bucharest.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ross, John Robert. 1991. Verbiness and the size of niches in the English auxiliary. In Carol Georgopolous & Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S-Y. Kuroda, 459–466. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_24]Search in Google Scholar
[Ross, John Robert. 2012. A preliminary, but fattened, list of transformations. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/haj/Preliminarybufattenedlistoftransformations.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Schmerling, Susan F.. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.10.7560/703124]Search in Google Scholar
[Schmerling, Susan F. 1983. A new theory of English auxiliaries. In Frank Heny & Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles (vol. 2), 1–53. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6992-6_1]Search in Google Scholar
[Schmerling, Susan F. 2018. Rhetorical meaning. Linguistic Frontiers 1(1). 55–64. DOI: 10.2478/lf-2018-000110.2478/lf-2018-0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers: A comparison of English and German. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar