Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 47–94 | Cite as

Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses

  • Adrian StegovecEmail author
Article

Abstract

The paper proposes a new type of control configuration: perspectival control. This involves control of a non-argument PRO that combines with a directive modal operator in the Mood domain. This PRO encodes the individual to whom the public commitments associated with the modal are anchored, and its presence can be detected in the syntax through a subject obviation effect. The empirical focus of the paper are Slovenian directive clauses (imperatives and subjunctives), but the analysis is shown to also have implications for analyses of other languages, as well as theories of directive clauses and the representation of discourse-related information in the syntax.

Keywords

Control Directives Embedded imperatives Performative modals Perspective PRO Slovenian Speech reports Subject obviation Subjunctives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Anand, Pranav. 2007. Dream report pronouns, local binding, and attitudes ‘de se’. In Proceedings of SALT 17, ed. T. Friedman and M. Gibson, 1–18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Arregui, Ana. 2007. Being ‘me’, being ‘you’: Pronoun puzzles in modal contexts. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. E. Puig-Waldmüller, 31–45. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi, Valentina. 2001. On person agreement. Manuscript. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
  6. Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/Tense and point of view, ed. J. Guéron and L. Tasmovski, 213–246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
  7. Bouchard, Denis. 1982. On the content of empty categories. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnavel, Isabelle. 2015. On scalar readings of French propre (‘own’). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33 (4): 1–57.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1987. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Language and context, ed. B. van Bartsch and E. van Boas, 1–31. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Condoravdi, Cleo, and Sven Lauer. 2012. Imperatives: Meaning and illocutionary force. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9, ed. C. Piñón, 37–58. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  16. Condoravdi, Cleo, and Sven Lauer. 2017. Conditional imperatives and endorsement. In Proceedings of NELS 47, ed. A. Lamont and K. Tetzloff, Vol. 1, 185–204. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  17. Costantini, Francesco. 2014. Subject obviation in subjunctive clauses as a semantic failure. Manuscript, University of Venice.Google Scholar
  18. Crnič, Luka, and Tue Trinh. 2009a. Embedding imperatives. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. S. Lima, K. Mullin, and B. Smith, 227–238. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  19. Crnič, Luka, and Tue Trinh. 2009b. Embedding imperatives in English. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, ed. A. Riester and T. Solstad, 113–127. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, Christopher M. 2011. Constraining interpretation: Sentence final particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. Dayal, Veneeta. 1994. Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2 (2): 137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dayal, Veneeta. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deal, Amy Rose. 2018. Indexiphors: Notes on embedded indexicals, shifty agreement, and logophoricity. Manuscript, UC Berkeley. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003836.
  24. Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  25. Despić, Miloje. 2013. Intensifiers, focus, and clitics: Is pronoun position truly an argument for D in SC? In Nominal constructions in Slavic and beyond, ed. L. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria, and P. Kosta, 39–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Dong, Quang Phuc. 1992. English sentences without overt grammatical subject. In Studies out in left field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on his 33rd or 34th birthday [reprint of the original edition], ed. A.M. Zwicky, P.H. Salus, R.I. Binnick, and A.L. Vanek, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. du Feu, Verónica. 1996. Rapanui. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Dvořák, Boštjan. 2005. Slowenische Imperative und ihre Einbettung. Philologie im Netz 33: 36–73.Google Scholar
  29. Dvořák, Boštjan, and Ilse Zimmermann. 2008. Imperative subordination in Slovenian. In Issues in Slavic syntax and semantics, vol. 6, ed. A. Smirnova and M. Curtis, 14–34. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Eckardt, Regine. 2002. Reanalyzing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9: 371–412.Google Scholar
  31. Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.Google Scholar
  32. Farkas, Donka F. 1992a. On obviation. In Lexical matters, ed. I.A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, 85–110. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Farkas, Donka F. 1992b. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages, ed. P. Hirschbühler and E.F.K. Koerner, 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–102.Google Scholar
  36. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1): 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hale, Austin Everett. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Papers in South East Asian linguistics, vol. 7, ed. R.L. Trail, 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  41. Han, Chung-Hye. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. [Published by Garland, 2000].Google Scholar
  42. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  43. Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In The interpretive text (MITWPL 25), ed. U. Sauerland and O. Percus, 205–246. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  44. Heim, Irene. 2002. Features of pronouns in semantics and morphology. Handout of talk given at USC on January 31, 2002.Google Scholar
  45. Heim, Irene. 2007. Forks in the road to Rule I. In Proceedings of NELS 38, ed. M. Abdurrahman, A. Schardl, and M. Walkow, 339–358. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  46. Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, ed. C. Philips, 175–196. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  47. Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. A. Lawson and E. Cho, 222–239. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  49. Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2016a. Fine-tuning natural language imperatives. Journal of Logic and Computation.  https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exw009. First published online, June 18, 2016.
  52. Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2016b. Free choice is a form of dependence. Natural Language Semantics 24 (3): 247–290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9125-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaufmann, Magdalena, and Stefan Kaufmann. 2015. Conditionals and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin and C. Fox, 237–270. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Kaufmann, Magdalena, and Claudia Poschmann. 2013. Embedded imperatives: Empirical evidence from colloquial German. Language 89 (3): 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. Romance subjunctive clauses and logical form. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  56. Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua 119 (12): 1788–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H.J. Eikmeyer and H. Riesner, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  58. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kratzer, Angelika. 2013. Modality and the semantics of embedding. (slides). Talk presented at the Amsterdam Colloquium, December 20, 2013.Google Scholar
  61. Lakoff, George. 1972. Linguistics and natural logic. In Semantics of natural languages, ed. D. Davidson and G. Harman, 545–655. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  62. Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lasnik, Howard. 1989. Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  66. Lauer, Sven. 2015. Performative uses and the temporal interpretation of modals. In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen, and N. Theiler, 217–226. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  67. Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Lewis, David. 1979a. Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88: 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lewis, David. 1979b. A problem about permission. In Essays in honor of Jaakko Hintikka, ed. E. Saarinen et al., 163–175. Dordrecht: Reidel. [Reprinted from 1970].Google Scholar
  70. Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis, and Hotze Rullmann. 2008. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. In The linguistic variation yearbook 7, ed. J. van Craenebroeck et al., 201–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  71. McCready, Eric, and Norry Ogata. 2007. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 147–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McFadden, Thomas, and Sandhya Sundaresan. 2018. Reducing pro and PRO to a single source. The Linguistic Review 35 (3): 463–518.Google Scholar
  73. Medeiros, David J. 2013. Formal approaches to the syntax and semantics of imperatives. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  74. Messick, Troy. 2017. The morphosyntax of self-ascription: A cross-linguistic study. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  75. Morgan, Jerry. 1970. On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. In Proceedings from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 6. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  76. Ninan, Dilip. 2005. Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In New work on modality (MITWPL 51), ed. J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel, and S. Yalcin, 149–178. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  77. Oikonomou, Despina. 2016. Covert modals in root contexts. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  78. Oshima, David Y. 2006. Perspectives in reported discourse. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. [Revised version published as a monograph with VDM Verlag, 2011].Google Scholar
  79. Pak, Miok, Paul Portner, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 2008. Agreement in promissive, imperative, and exhortative clauses. Korean Linguistics 14: 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pearson, Hazel. 2012. The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of de se expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard.Google Scholar
  81. Pearson, Hazel. 2013. A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics 30 (1): 103–154.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pearson, Hazel. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language Semantics 23 (2): 77–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9112-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34 (2): 691–738.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9313-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Picallo, M. Carme. 1985. Opaque domains. PhD dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
  85. Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15 (4): 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Potsdam, Eric. 1996. Syntactic issues in English imperatives. PhD dissertation, UCSC. [Published by Garland, 1998].Google Scholar
  88. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Subjunctive: The (mis) behavior of anaphora and negative polarity. The Linguistic Review 5: 75–110.Google Scholar
  89. Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interface. PhD dissertation, Uil OTS/Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  90. Quer, Josep. 2001. Interpreting mood. Probus 13: 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Quer, Josep. 2006. 68. Subjunctives. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. M. Evaraert and H. van Riemsdijk, 660–684. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  92. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  93. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
  94. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2: 27–42.Google Scholar
  95. Roeder, Carolin F., and Björn Hansen. 2006. Modals in contemporary Slovene. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 52: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rögnvaldsson, Einar. 1998. The syntax of the imperative in Old Scandinavian. Manuscript, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
  97. Rus, Dominik. 2005. Embedded imperatives in Slovenian. Georgetown University Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 153–183.Google Scholar
  98. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1984. Je veux partir/*je veux que je parte. Cahiers de grammaire 7: 74–138.Google Scholar
  99. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Sadock, Jerrold M., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, ed. T. Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  103. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (1): 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schlenker, Philippe. 2005a. The Lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November, ed. T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken, and H. Jacobs, 269–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schlenker, Philippe. 2005b. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13: 1–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Schwager, Magdalena. 2006. Interpreting imperatives. PhD dissertation, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  107. Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sharvit, Yael. 2011. Covaluation and unexpected BT effects. Journal of Semantics 28: 55–106.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sheppard, Milena Milojević, and Marija Golden. 2002. (Negative) imperatives in Slovene. In its interaction with the verbal system (Linguistics Today, vol. 47), ed. S. Barbiers, F. Beukema, and W. van der Wurff, 245–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  110. Speas, Peggy. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 14 (3): 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Speas, Peggy, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in grammar, ed. A.M. Di Sciulo, 315–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stegovec, Adrian. 2017. !? (Where’s the ban on imperative questions?). In Proceedings of SALT 27, ed. D. Burgdorf, J. Collard, S. Maspong, and B. Stefánsdóttir, 153–172. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  113. Stegovec, Adrian, and Magdalena Kaufmann. 2015. Slovenian imperatives: You can’t always embed what you want! In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, ed. E. Csipak and H. Zeijlstra, 621–638. Göttingen: LinG.Google Scholar
  114. Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics 27 (4): 409–436.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stojanovic, Isidora. 2012. The problem of de se assertion. Erkenntnis 76 (1): 49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9350-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2011. A plea for syntax and a return to first principles: Monstrous agreement in Tamil. In Proceedings of SALT 21, ed. N. Ashton, A. Chereches, and D. Lutz. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  117. Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  118. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 New York conference, ed. M. den Dikken and R.M. Vago, 251–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  119. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Infinitives vs. subjunctives: What do we learn from obviation and from exemptions from obviation? Manuscript, NYU.Google Scholar
  120. Thomas, Guillaume. 2012. Embedded imperatives in Mbyá. In Proceedings of NELS 43, ed. H. L. Huang, E. Poole, and A. Rysling, 181–194. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  121. Tóth, Enikő. 2007. The imperative and the subjunctive proper in Hungarian. Sprachtheorie und Germanistische Linguistik 17 (2): 125–145.Google Scholar
  122. von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2017. A modest proposal for the meaning of imperatives. In Modality across categories, ed. A. Arregui, M.L. Rivero, and A.P. Salanova, 288–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  123. von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  124. von Stechow, Arnim. 2004. Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, ed. H. Lohnstein and S. Trissler, 431–488. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  125. Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, and P. Norquest, 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  127. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak, and Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 1231–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Zu, Vera. 2016. Competition and obviation from French to Newari. In Proceedings of NELS 46, ed. C. Hammerly and B. Prickett, 329–342. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  131. Zu, Vera. 2018. Discourse participants and the structural representation of the context. PhD dissertation, NYU.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations