Phi in Syntax and Phi Interpretation

  • Milan RezacEmail author
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 81)


Chapter 6 explores the syntax-interpretation interface through phi-mismatches: arguments like French on 'we', with one set of phi-features, 1PL, for interpretation, another, 3SG, uninterpretable, for phenomena such as concord. The uninterpretable phi-features are shown to play a role in syntax, not realizational morphology alone. Therefore, the syntactic phi-specifications of some arguments and their dependencies are autonomous of interpretation, along with expletives, phi-agreement, Case and A-movement. The person of the person interactions in Chapter 4 is among them. The diachronic sources, syntactic properties, and eventual elimination of these uninterpretable phi-features are discussed.


Person Pronoun Grammatical Gender Syntactic Dependency Person Restriction Uninterpretable Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705–750.Google Scholar
  3. Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  4. Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Los Angeles, CA: Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  5. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, and Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of Sign Language morphology. Language 81: 301–44.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. Anna-Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.Google Scholar
  9. Belletti, Adriana. 2005. (Past) participle agreement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 3, case 48. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Bever, Thomas G. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. In Of minds and language, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1978. A propos des traits sémantiques utilisés en syntaxe: Critique du trait ‘+/−humain'. Cahier de linguistique 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
  12. Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky Agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.Google Scholar
  13. Bonami, Olivier, Danièle Godard and Jean-Marie Marandin. 1999. Constituency and word order in French subject inversion. In Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics, ed. Gosse Bouma, Erhard Hinrichs, Geert-Jan M. Kruijff and Richard Oehrle, 21–40. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  14. Bonami, Olivier, and Danièle Godard. 2001. Inversion du sujet, constituance et ordre des mots. In Cahier Jean-Claude Milner, ed. Jean-Marie Marandin, 117–174. Paris: Verdier.Google Scholar
  15. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995a. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647.Google Scholar
  17. Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Schmidt, and Webb Phillips. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Language in mind, ed. Gentner, Dedre, and Susan Goldin Meadow, 61–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 455–496.Google Scholar
  19. Brandt, Patrick. 2003. Constructing cipient predication. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
  20. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.Google Scholar
  22. Burston, Jack L. 1983. Clitic object sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–75.Google Scholar
  23. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2003. Arbitrary readings of third person plural pronominals. In Proceedings of the conference ''sub7 - Sinn und Bedeutung, ed. Matthias Weisgerber, 81–94. Konstanz: Konstanz University.Google Scholar
  24. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2008. Les pronoms impersonnels humains - syntaxe et interprétation. Modèles Linguistiques XXIX–1, 57: 35–56.Google Scholar
  25. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. On different types of clitic clusters. In The Bantu-Romance connection, ed Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth, 41–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. In Natural Language and Semantics 6: 339–405.Google Scholar
  27. Chierchia, Gennaro. forthcoming. Mass nouns, vagueness, and semantic variation. Synthese.Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. In Scope of American linguistics, 159–196. Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press.Google Scholar
  29. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  30. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  31. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–581.Google Scholar
  38. Collins, Christopher, and Paul Postal. 2008. Imposters. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
  39. Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Creissels, Denis. 2008a. Impersonal and related constructions: a typological approach. New York: Ms., Université de Lyon.Google Scholar
  41. Creissels, Denis. 2008b. Impersonal pronouns and coreference: The case of French on. Lyon: Ms., Université de Lyon.Google Scholar
  42. Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Honorific uses of clusivity. In Clusivity, ed. Elena Filimonova. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. D'Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  44. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2006. The syntax of the indefinite pronoun nome. Probus 18: 189–218.Google Scholar
  45. Davison, Alice. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language 60: 797–846.Google Scholar
  46. Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–102.Google Scholar
  47. Espinal, M. Teresa. 2007. Clitic incorporation and abstract semantic objects in idiomatic constructions. Spain: Ms., Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  48. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1974. La coréference: Syntaxe ou sémantique? Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  49. Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on Surface Structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  50. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Ms. Northeastern University. Boston. On-line: Accessed September 9, 2010.
  53. Franck, Julie, Gabriela Soare, Ulrich H. Frauenfelder, and Luigi Rizzi. 2010. Object interference in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 166–182.Google Scholar
  54. Fried, Myriam. 2004. Czech reflexivization and the invariance principle revisited. The Slavic and East European Journal 48: 627–653.Google Scholar
  55. Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. García, Erica C. 2002. Deconstructed morphology vs. con-structive syntax. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 103: 73–101.Google Scholar
  57. Gentner, Dedre, and Susan Goldin Meadow. 2003. Language in mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
  59. Harbour, Daniel. 2008. Morphosemantic number. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Harris, James, and Moris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflection in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 195–222.Google Scholar
  61. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  62. Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi theory, ed. Daniel , David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Heim, Irine, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.Google Scholar
  65. Higginbotham, James. 1991. The autonomy of syntax and semantics. In Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language, ed. Jay L. Garfield, 119–131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hinzen, Wolfram. 2006. Mind design and minimal syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Holmberg, Anders. forthcoming. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish. In Passives and impersonals in European languages, ed. Elsi Kaiser, Satu Mannien, Katri Hiietam, and Virve Vihman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Horn, George M. 2003. Idioms, metaphors, and syntactic mobility. Journal of Linguistics 39: 245–273.Google Scholar
  69. Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the Binding Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 1–31.Google Scholar
  71. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Kayne, Richard. 1979. Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 710–719.Google Scholar
  74. Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Kayne, Richard S. 2007. Some silent first person plurals. MS., New York University.Google Scholar
  76. Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Teresa Biberauer. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  77. Kayne, Richard, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2008. Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion. In Functional heads, ed. Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.Google Scholar
  79. Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.Google Scholar
  80. Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  81. Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  82. Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924.Google Scholar
  83. Larrivée, Pierre. 1994. Quelques hypothèses sur les structures syntaxique et sémantique de Ce fripon de valet. Revue québécoise de linguistique 23: 101–113.Google Scholar
  84. Lasnik, Howard, and Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535–572.Google Scholar
  85. Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Erfurt.Google Scholar
  86. Lewis, David. 1972. General semantics. In Semantics of natural language, ed. Gilbert Harman and Donald Davidson, 169–218. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  87. Maier, Emar. 2006. Belief in context. Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  88. McGilvray, James. 1998. Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head. Mind and Language 13: 225–80.Google Scholar
  89. Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  90. Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2008. Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 290–336.Google Scholar
  91. Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281.Google Scholar
  92. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1978. Interprétation des pronoms et des réfléchis en français. In Cahier de linguistique 8: 337–76.Google Scholar
  93. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1982. De quelques [l] non étymologiques dans le français du Québec: notes sur les clitiques et la liaison. Revue québecoise de linguistique 11: 9–47.Google Scholar
  94. Muxí, Isabel. 1996. Optional participial agreement with direct object clitics in Catalan. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 127–145.Google Scholar
  95. Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena. Lingua 111: 515–537.Google Scholar
  96. Noyer, Rolf R. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12: 109–113.Google Scholar
  98. Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2004a. Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In Descriptions and beyond, ed. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, 261–279. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  99. Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2004b. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 343–364. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  100. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538.Google Scholar
  101. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.Google Scholar
  102. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2009. Problems in microvariation in the clitic system. Handout from European Research Nets in Lingusitics - 3rd workshop, Basque: University of the Basque Country, Oct. 29–30 2009.Google Scholar
  103. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010a. Object clitics and agreement. Ms., University of the Basque Country and Universidad de Extremadura. On-line: Accessed on September 9, 2010.
  104. Oukada, Larbi. 1982. On on. The French Review 56: 93–105.Google Scholar
  105. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. Boston: Ms., MIT and the University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  106. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. forthcoming. Case. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Meaning before truth. In Contextualism in philosophy, ed. Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peters, 253–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  109. Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  110. Postal, Paul M. 1989. Masked inversion in French. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  111. Postal, Paul M. 2003. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441.Google Scholar
  113. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  114. Reuland, Eric. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing grammar, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, and Ursula Kleinhenz, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  115. Rezac, Milan. 2004a. Elements of cyclic syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  116. Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque. Ms., University of the Basque Country. On-line: Accessed on September 9, 2010.
  117. Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and Absolutive Displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.Google Scholar
  118. Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffability through modularity: Gaps in French clitic clusters. In Defective paradigms, ed. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.Google Scholar
  120. Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum.Google Scholar
  121. Rezac, Milan, and Mélanie Jouitteau. in prep. Animacy and the Person Case Constraint. Ms., UMR 7023 CNRS/Université de Paris 8 and UMR 7110 CNRS/Université de Paris 8.Google Scholar
  122. Rhodes, Richard. 1993. Syntax vs. morphology: A chicken and egg problem. Proceedings of BLS 19, Special session on syntactic issues in Native American languages, 139–147. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  123. Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 494–502.Google Scholar
  124. Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  125. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
  126. Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116: 1561–1579.Google Scholar
  127. Rullman, Hotze. 2004. First and second pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–68.Google Scholar
  128. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques. Langages 97: 51–81.Google Scholar
  129. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  130. Safir, Kenneth. 1982. Syntactic chains and the Definiteness Effect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  131. Sailer, Manfred. 2003. Combinatorial semantics and idiomatic expressions in Head-Drive Phrase Structure Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  132. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1970 [1928]. Syntaxe du francais contemporain I: les pronoms. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  133. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12: 63–127.Google Scholar
  134. Sauerland, Uli. 2007. Flat binding. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, ed. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 197–253. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  135. Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Phi Theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Béjar, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.Google Scholar
  137. Schenk, André. 1995. The syntactic behavior of idioms. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, ed. Martin Everaert et al., 253–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  138. Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Person and binding (A partial survey). Los Angeles, CA/Paris: Ms., University of California and Institut Jean-Nicod.Google Scholar
  139. Seuren, Pieter. 2005. Meaning: Cognitive dependency of lexical meaning. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 575–577. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  140. Sigurðsson, Halldór A´rmann. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251.Google Scholar
  141. Speas, Margaret, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In: Asymmetry in grammar, vol 1: Syntax and Semantics, ed. Anna-Maria Disciullo, 315–343. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  142. Taylor, Michael. 2009. On the pronominal status of Brazilian Portuguese a gente. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2. On-line:
  143. Wanner, Dieter. 1977. On the order of clitics in Italian. Lingua 43: 101–128.Google Scholar
  144. Ward, Gregory. 2004. Equatives and deferred reference. Language 80: 262–289.Google Scholar
  145. Wechsler, Stephen. 2004. Number as person. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5, ed. Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 255–274. On-line: Accessed on September 9, 2010.
  146. Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 1998. Agreement in discourse. Proceedings of the Conference on the Structure of Non-narrative Texts. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  147. Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76: 799–832.Google Scholar
  148. Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  149. Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of Tense on D and its consequences for Case theory. Lingua 113: 659–696.Google Scholar
  150. Winter, Yoad. 2002. Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505.Google Scholar
  151. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1982. La construction ‘se moyen' du français et son statut dans le triangle: Moyen-passif-réfléchi. Lingvisticae Investigationes 6: 345–401.Google Scholar
  152. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view. Language 65: 695–727.Google Scholar
  153. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2009. Syntax at the interfaces: On the restricted productivity of the French mediopassive within the Romance family. Ms., Université de Paris 8 / UMR 7023.Google Scholar
  154. Zweig, Eytan. 2008. Dependent plurals and plural meaning. Doctoral dissertation, New York: New York University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris 8Saint Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations