Article published in:
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 181206
References

References

Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S.
1966Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Golda
2003The problem is / are your parents: Resolving number conflicts in equative sentences in Dutch and German. Honours dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila
2008Predication and Equation in Copular Sentences. In Existence: Semantics and Syntax [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 84], Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heggie, Lorie
1988The Syntax of Copular Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna
2005Identity and Information: Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Specificational Sentences. PhD dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
2009Agreement in specificational sentences in Faroese. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 36, 56–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2): 209–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony
1998Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In Papers in Linguistics 10, Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Ursula Kleinhenz, & Paul Law (eds), 71–87. Berlin: Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
1999Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2003 A Cognitive−Functional Approach to Nominalization in English [Cognitive Linguistics Research 26]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis R.
1973The Pseudo−cleft Constructions in English. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA [Published by Garland Press, New York 1979].Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2005: Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Intransitive clause types: existential, locational and possessive clauses]. In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [ Studies in Grammatical Functions ], Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds), 139–160. Vilnius: Institute for the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
2006Dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo ir teminės-reminės struktūros [On syntactic ambiguity and theme-rheme structure]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 116–124.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar , vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Grammar and Conceptualization , 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001Topic, Subject, and Possessor. In A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives [Cognitive Linguistics Research 16], Hanne Gram Simonsen & Rolf Theil Endresen (eds), 11–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002 Concept, Image, and Symbol . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James
2010Mood and transitivity in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1: 115–142.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2004Specifying Who: On the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
2006Specificational copular clauses. Talk given at the Kobe Area Circle of Linguistics, Kobe Shoin Women’s University, November 22 2006.Google Scholar
Mikulskas, Rolandas
2006Pastabos dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo sąvokos ir kiti susiję dalykai [Notes on the notion of syntactic ambiguity and other related matters]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 1–53.Google Scholar
2009Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas [Copular constructions and their grammatical context]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 61: 113–156.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1991The raising of predicates: copula, expletives and existence. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 15: More Papers on Wh−Movement , Lisa Cheng & Hamida Demirdash (eds), 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
1997 The Raising of Predicates . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1986Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be . In Proceedings of NELS 16, Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds), 354–366. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2008 Copular Sentences in Russian: A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 70]. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2001 Predicates and Their Subjects [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 74]. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2002 Cognitive Grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1990The aspectual case of predicative nouns in Lithuanian texts. In Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Contributions to the Semantics of Time and Temporal Perspective in Slavic and Non-Slavic Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 5], Nils B. Thelin (ed), 325–347. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007 Theory and Typology of Proper Names . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1983Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar