Article published in:
Inquiries in Hispanic Linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence
Edited by Alejandro Cuza, Lori Czerwionka and Daniel Olson
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12] 2016
► pp. 2138


Abels, K.
(2003) Successive cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Basilico, D.
(2010) The se clitic and its relationship to paths. Probus, 22, 271–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J.
(2010) Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1986) Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 81–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campanini, C., & Schäfer, F.
(2011) Optional se-constructions in Romance: Syntactic encoding of conceptual information. Handout from talk given at GLOW 34 , Universität Wien.
Campos, H., & Kempchinsky, P.
(1991) Case absorption, theta structure and pronominal verbs. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 171–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coon, J.
(2013) Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, M.C.
(2003) Datives at large. Unpublished PhD dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
De Miguel, E., & Fernández Lagunilla, M.
(2000) El operador aspectual se . Revista Española de Lingüística, 30, 13–41.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
(2006) The se anaphor and its role in argument realization. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. 4; pp. 118–179). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S.J.
(2002) Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
(2000) Parameters and universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J.E.
(2004) Spanish reflexive pronouns: A null preposition hypothesis. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 23 Proceedings (pp. 528–540). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns and leísta PCC repair. To appear in Probus. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P.J.
(1992a) Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: A cross linguistic perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Washington.Google Scholar
(1992b) Antipassive constructions in Spanish. In P. Hirschbühler & K. Koerner (Eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, (pp. 175–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A.
(2008) Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation. Transactions of the philological society, 106(2), 290–336 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pujalte, M., & Saab, A.
(2012) Syncretism as PF-repair: The case of se-insertion in Spanish. In M.C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure? (pp. 229–260) Bingley: Emerald Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, M.
(2008) Phi-agree and theta-related case. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Bejar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across the interfaces and modules (pp. 83–129). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sanz, M.
(2000) Events and predication: A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F.
(2008) The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.A.
(2012) Minimalist C/Case. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 191–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P.
(2007) Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar