The Case Hierarchy as Functional Sequence

Pavel Caha
CASTL, University of Troms
March 29, 2008

1 Intro
Non-accidental/systematic syncretism in Czech, Russian and Slovenian case morphology forms
a hierarchy, which also holds for some cases of morphological containment.
The hierarchy connects to various other case hierarchies: Distribution of case across lan-
guages, Agreement, Relativization, Extraction, and other phenomena.
The goal is to devise a representation of case such that given standard P&P version of
syntax the various phenomena follow.
In short, the answer is that the various hierarchies reflect a single underlying hierarchy: the
functional sequence.

2 Syncretism in Czech (West Slavic), Slovene (South-Slavic)

and Russian (East Slavic)
I would like to propose a hypothesis that syncretism in the languages under consideration can
be modeled as a total linear ordering, identical for all of them.

(1) The Linearity of non-accidental Syncretism:

In the sequence: Nom Acc Gen Prep Dat Ins
only adjacent cases can be expressed by an identical lexical entry.

Qualifications of the hypothesis:

Expressed by an identical lexical entry does not stand for syncretic. Homophony is
allowed.
I would like to believe that the hierarchy is universal, and I turn to some more data once
I go through the Slavic patterns.

I look at nouns, pronouns, adjectives and numerals, i.e. all categories marked for case.
To exclude accidental homophony, I only look at cases where two distinct morphemes delineate
an identical pair.

1
 Another characteristic of non-accidental syncretism that it targets relatively large classes of
items, and that it is distributed across various parts of speech, numbers etc. (Plank (1991)).
I leave vocative aside.

2.1 Nominative
In all three languages, nominative is often syncretic with accusative. The same conclusion is
reached by Baerman et al. (2005) for a much larger sample.
All neuters (N, A, Num, Dem)
All duals
...

(2) Non-accidental syncretism of nominative and accusative in Czech

machine both city machine pl. castl pl. that fem., pl.
nom stroj ob-a mest-o stroj-e kost-i t-y
acc stroj ob-a mest-o stroj-e kost-i t-y
gen stroj-e ob-ou mest-a stroj-u kost- t-ech
prep stroj-i ob-ou mest-u stroj-ch kost-ech t-ech
dat stroj-i ob-ema mest-u stroj-um kost-em / -m t-em
ins stroj-em ob-ema mest-em stroj-i/-ema kost-mi t-emi

(3) Non-accidental syncretism of nominative and accusative in Russian

table, sg. table, pl. window, sg. window, pl. farmer du.
nom stol- stol-y okn-o okn-a pol-e
acc stol- stol-y okn-o okn-a pol-e
gen stol-a stol-ov okn-a okon- pol-ja
prep stol-e stol-ax okn-e okn-ax pol-e
dat stol-u stol-am okn-u okn-am pol-ju
ins stol-om stol-ami okn-om okn-ami pol-em

(4) Non-accidental syncretism of nominative and accusative in Slovene

table, du. peach, sg. peach, pl. apple, sg. farmer du.
nom mz-i breskev- breskv-e jabolk-o kmet-a
acc mz-i breskev- breskv-e jabolk-o kmet-a
gen mz breskv-e breskv- jabolk-a kmet-ov
prep mz-ah breskv-i breskv-ah jabolk-u kmet-ih
dat mz-ama breskv-i breskv-am jabolk-u kmet-oma
ins mz-ama breskv-ijo breskv-ami jabolk-om kmet-oma

2.2 Accusative
Apart from nominative, accusative shows systematic syncretism with genitive.
All animates (in the singular); involves N, A, Dem, Pron.

2
(5) Non-accidental syncretism of accusative and genitive in Czech
man sir that, masc. an.
nom muz pan t-en
acc muz-e pan-a t-oho
gen muz-e pan-a t-oho
prep muz-i pan-ovi t-om
dat muz-i pan-ovi t-omu
ins muz-em pan-em t-m

(6) Non-accidental syncretism of accusative and genitive in Russian

student, sg. student,pl. teacher, pl.
nom student- student-y ucitel-ja
acc student-a student-ov ucitel-ej
gen student-a student-ov ucitel-ej
prep student-e student-ax ucitel-jax
dat student-u student-am ucitel-am
ins student-om student-ami ucitel-ami

(7) Non-accidental syncretism of accusative and genitive in Slovene

farmer du. I he
nom kmet- jaz on
acc kmet-a men-e nj-e ga
gen kmet-a men-e nj-e ga
prep kmet-u men-i nj-em
dat kmet-u men-i nj-emu
ins kmet-om men-oj mano nj-m

In Czech, accusative also shows non-accidental syncretism with instrumental. This is the only
problem for the hypothesis I put forth.

(8) Non-accidental syncretism of accusative and instrumental in Czech

good, fem. sir, pl.
nom dobr-a pan-i
acc dobr-ou pan-y
gen dobr-e pan-u
prep dobr-e pan-ech
dat dobr-e pan-um
ins dobr-ou pan-y

The instrumental -y is no longer used in colloquial Czech. It has been replaced by -ama.
The syncretism is also attested in Slovene with -o.
Russian does not have it.

3
2.3 Genitive
Genitive shows syncretism with prepositional. For pairs of syncretic cases, the non-accidental
nature of the syncretism can be shown only for Czech.
All As in the plural, targets also demonstratives and numerals.

(9) Non-accidental syncretism of genitive and prepositional in Czech

good, pl. m. both, m.
nom dobry ob-a
acc dobry ob-a
gen dobry-ch ob-ou
prep dobry-ch ob-ou
dat dobry-m ob-ema
ins dobry-ma ob-ema

(10) Syncretism of genitive and prepositional in Russian

big, pl. inan. both, m. inan.
nom bols-ie dv-a
acc bols-ie dv-a
gen bols-ix dv-ux
prep bols-ix dv-ux
dat bols-im dv-um
ins bols-imi dv-umja
(11) Syncretism of genitive and prepositional in Slovene
my, pl. m. both
nom moj-i dv-a
acc moj-i dv-a
gen moj-ih dv-eh
prep moj-ih dv-eh
dat moj-im dv-ema
ins moj-imi dv-ema

However, the systematic nature of Gen Prep can be shown on triplets of cases which embed
the Gen Prep syncretism as a proper subpart:

(12) Acc Gen Prep in Czech, Russian and Slovene

we Cz we Rus they Rus we Slo two of us, Slo
nom my my oni m mdva
acc na-s na-s ich na-s na-ju
gen na-s na-s ich na-s na-ju
prep na-s na-s (n)ich na-s na-ju
dat na-m nam im nam na-ma
ins na-ma nami imi nami na-ma

4
(13) Syncretism of Gen Prep Dat
good, fem. Cz bone, sg., CZ 5, Rus thread, sg., Slo
nom dobr-a kost- pjat- nt
acc dobr-ou kost- pjat- nt
gen dobr-e kost-i pjat-i nt-i
prep dobr-e kost-i pjat-i nt-i
dat dobr-e kost-i pjat-i nt-i
ins dobr-ou kost- pjat-ju nt-jo

2.4 Prepositional
Cz and Slo: All nouns in the singular show syncretism of prepositional and dative.

(14) Non-accidental syncretism of prepositional and dative in Czech

man sir city woman
nom muz pan mest-o zen-a
acc muz-e pan-a mest-o zen-u
gen muz-e pan-a mest-a zen-y
prep muz-i pan-ovi mest-u zen-e
dat muz-i pan-ovi mest-u zen-e
ins muz-em pan-em mest-em zen-ou

(15) Non-accidental syncretism of prepositional and dative in Russian

book, sg. bridge, sg.
nom knig-a most-
acc knig-u most-
gen knig-y most-a
prep (in) knig-e most-u
dat knig-e most-u
ins knig-oj most-om

(16) Non-accidental syncretism of prepositional and dative in Slovene

peach, sg. apple, sg. I she
nom breskev- jabolk-o jaz ona
acc breskev- jabolk-o men-e njo
gen breskv-e jabolk-a men-e nje
prep breskv-i jabolk-u me n-i njej
dat breskv-i jabolk-u me n-i njej
ins breskv-ijo jabolk-om men-o njo

2.5 Dative
Dative and instrumental used to be syncretic in the Old Slavic in dual. Slovene has kept the
dual and the syncretism.
In Czech, it survives on items like two, both.

5
(17) Syncretism of dative and instrumental in Czech
both
nom ob-a
acc ob-a
gen ob-ou
prep ob-ou
dat ob-ema
ins ob-ema

(18) Non-accidental syncretism of dative and instrumental in Slovene

apple, du. table, du
nom jabolk-i mz-i
acc jabolk-i mz-i
gen jabolk- mz
prep jabolk-ih mz-ah
dat jabolk-oma mz-ama
ins jabolk-oma mz-ama

Again, the Dat Ins connection can be supported by additional patterns.

(19) Structural vs. oblique

five, Cz she, Cz good, fem. sg., Rus 100, Rus
nom pet on-a xoros-aja st-o
acc pet j-i xoros-uju st-o
gen pet-i j- xoros-ej st-a
prep pet-i j- xoros-ej st-a
dat pet-i (n)j- xoros-ej st-a
ins pet-i j- xoros-ej st-a

2.6 Summing up
(20) a. Nom Acc
b. Acc Gen
c. Gen Prep
d. Prep Dat
e. Dat Ins
f. (Acc Ins)

6
(21) Nom

Acc

Gen

Prep

Dat

Ins

3 Precedence as containment
I suggest that the precedence relation corresponds to containment relation.
(22) Instrumental

U Dative

T Prepositional

S Genitive

R Accusative

Q Nominative

P DP

...

With the structure (22), let me show one possible way of deriving the syncretism facts.
Further advantages of the structure (22) will follow.

4 Spell-Out
I assume that phonological exponents are inserted into the structure once the syntactic deriva-
tion has been completed (e.g. McCawley 1968, Halle and Marantz 1993).
I assume that spell out targets both terminal and non-terminal nodes (McCawley 1968, Starke
2006, Neeleman and Szendroi to appear).
Lexicalization of syntactic structure is driven by some version of the Superset Principle (Starke
2006, Caha 2007b, Caha 2007a Abels and Muriungi to appear, Ramchand 2007).
(23) Superset Principle: A phonological exponent is inserted into a node if its lexical entry has
a (sub-)constituent that is identical to the node. If there are more such items, the one with
least features not contained in the node gets inserted.

7
 To illustrate how the principle works, consider the scenario below.

(24) Lexical entry A: /a/

P Q R
(25) Lexical entry B : /b/
O
P Q R
(26) Syntactic structures

a. Q R (spelled out as a)

b. (spelled out as a)
P Q R
c. (spelled out as b)
O
P Q R

(24) and (25) are a Lexical entries, spell out rules pairing syntactic structure with sound (in
slashes).
According to the Superset Principle (23), each of them is allowed to spell out any structure
which is identical to the lexical entry, or any subconstituent. E.g., (24) can spell out (26-a)
and (26-b).
The structure in (26-c) cannot be spelled out by the entry (24), since the entry does not
match (26-c). (It matches only a subset of it.)
(25-c) is spelled out as /b/.
This approach provides a possible explanation for why, in most cases, we do not see Case
markers stack one on top of the other, despite the fact that individual syntactic Cases are
argued here to do so. In our toy example, the structure (26-a) is properly contained in (26-b),
which is in turn properly contained in (26-c), but this is opaque at the surface, where none
of the markers properly contains the other.
Note that the entry (25) can also (in principle) be used to spell out structures (26-a) and
(26-b), since it represents a superset of these structures.
But notice as well that according to the Superset Principle (23), such a situation is ruled out
by competition (Elsewhere condition).
Given that there is the entry A (24), the entry B (25) will not be allowed to spell out structures
(26-a) or (26-b), because the rule B contains more superfluous features than the rule A.
Given this reasoning, we derive the necessary property of paradigms based on nested struc-
tures like (26-a), (26-b) and (26-c).
The property is that the structures (26-a) and (26-c) will never receive an identical spell out
/x /, if (26-b) is not spelled out by /x / either.

8
 That is because for the structures (26-a) and (26-c) to receive an identical spell out, something
like the spell out rule (25) has to be assumed. Furthermore, there can be nothing like the
rule in (24), otherwise the structures (26-a) and (26-c) would receive a different spell out, in
contradiction with the initial assumption. But in such case, the rule (25) also spells out the
structure (26-b), and hence we get /x / in all three cases.
This property of nested paradigms has been already noted in Bobaljik (2007), who calls such
a generalization the *A-B-A.

(27) *A-B-A: In nested structures, it is impossible that a complex structure and a less complex
one are going to be spelled out as A, if structures that are in-between them in terms of
complexity are spelled out as B.

5 Some of the systems discussed by Plank (1991)

The hypothesis that syncretism forms a total linear ordering has been set to test by Plank
(1991) (with relevant references therein), with the difference that Plank also deals with single-
morpheme syncretisms.
The results of Planks study can be understood as showing the impossibility of the hypothesis
(27).

5.1 Sanskrit
Sanskrit is one of the linear languages. However, the traditional ordering is completely at
odds with the proposal put forth here.

(28) Traditional ordering of Sanskrit declension:

(Voc) Nom Acc Ins Dat (Abl) Gen (Loc)
(29) Syncretisms
a. Voc Nom
b. Nom Acc
c. Dat Abl
d. Abl Gen
e. Gen Loc
f. Voc Nom Acc
g. Ins Dat Abl
(30) Two partial orders
a. Voc Nom Acc
b. Ins Dat Abl Gen Loc
(31) Another possible ordering: (Voc) Nom Acc (Loc) Gen (Abl) Dat Ins

5.2 Old English

Plank also deals at length with Old English, and he finds that a total linear order is impossible
to find.

9
 However, he concludes that a hierarchy nom acc gen dat ins is the best match for
Old English with the following counterexamples:

Nom Gen: dubious and probably unattested in later West-Saxon (p. 178)
Acc Dat: Singular, Plural and Dual of 1st and 2nd Person pronouns (p. 172)
Note here the so-called PCC/Animacy Hierarchy effects: 1st and 2nd person pronouns
are bad direct objects; perhaps there is a way of making sense of this pattern.
Nom Acc Dat.
The three offensive patterns, furthermore, are clearly surpassed by all the inoffensive
ones, except one or two, in the number of their instances throughout subparadigms
(p.178)

6 Containment (Compound Case Marking)

The proposed implementation can readily be used to capture patterns of morphological con-
tainment.

(32) Acc Ins containment in coll. Czech

man chicken mouse building good (adj.)
Nom muz-i kurat-a mys-i staven- dobr-y
Acc muz-e kurat-a mys-i staven- dobr-y
Gen muz-u kurat mys- staven- dobr-ych
Prep muz-ch kurat-ech mys-ch staven-ch dobr-ych
Dat muz-um kurat-um mys-m staven-m dobr-ym
Ins muz-e-ma kurat-a-ma mys-i-ma staven--ma dobr-y-ma

(33) InsP

AccP Ins

DP Acc Ins DatP

... Acc NomP Dat PrepP

Nom DP
Prep GenP.
...
Gen AccP

...

The derivation is a combination of successive cyclic movement of the noun and pied-piping.
The derivation complies with Cinques (2005) approach to U20.
The entries are as follows:

10
(34) /acc/ AccP

Acc Nom
(35) /-ma/ InsP

Ins DatP

Dat PrepP

Prep Gen
(36) Potential problems
sir
Nom pan-y
Acc pan-y
Gen pan-u
Prep pan-ech
Dat pan-um
Ins pan-a-ma

The relation of the accusative vowel to the instrumental vowel is still completely transparent,
but it is not identity.

(37) Containment relations of genitive and dative (Czech)

man castl mouse song
Nom muz-i hrad-y mys-i psn-e
Acc muz-e hrad-y mys-i psn-e
Gen muz-u hrad-u mys- psn-
Prep muz-ch hrad-ech mys-ch psn-ch
Dat muz-um hrad-um mys-m psn-m
Ins muz-i hrad-y mys-i-ma psn-e-ma

(38) DatP

GenP Dat

DP Gen Dat PrepP

... Prep GenP

Gen AccP
...
Acc NomP

Nom DP

...

11
(39) /gen/ GenP

Gen AccP

Acc Nom
(40) /-m/ DatP

Dat Prep
(41) Potential problem
woman city
Nom zen-y mest-a
Acc zen-y mest-a
Gen zen- mest-
Prep zen-ach mest-ech
Dat zen-am mest-um
Ins zen-ami mest-y

It is perhaps possible to assume an underlying vowel which gets deleted under particular
circumstances.
(42) Containment relation of dative and instrumental (Russian)
we Rus they Rus all, pl. the very, pl. two, m./n.
nom my oni vse samye dva
acc na-s ix vse samye dva
gen na-s ix vsex samyx dvux
prep na-s nix vsex samyx dvux
dat nam im vsem samym dvum
ins nami imi vsemi samymi dvumja

(43) Potential problems (Russian)

4
nom cetyr-e
acc cetyr-e
gen cetyr-ex
prep cetyr-ex
dat cetyr-em
ins cetyr-mja

It is perhaps possible to explain this by a phonological rule: e / coda

(44) poln-a polon-
full-fem full-masc

7 The order of markers

(45) The order of Case markers: If a marking for a case X is suffixal, all markers higher on the
hierarchy are suffixal as well.

12
(46) DP movement can target various positions

... Instrumental

U
... Dative

T
... Prepositional

S
... Genitive

R
... Accusative

Q
... Nominative

P DP

...
Blake (1994) investigates case in a similar (but distinct) fashion.
His hierarchy says: If a language has case X, it also has case Y.
This has number of counterexamples. However, as far as I know, none of them violates (46).
(47) Blakes hierarchy:
NOM > ACC / ERG > GEN > DAT > LOC > ABL / INS > COM > others
(48) a. s Petr-em
with Peter-ins (Czech)
b. Peter hat die Suppe [mit einem Loffel] gegessen
Peter has the soup with a.dat.sg spoon eaten
Peter has eaten the soup with a spoon (German)

8 Extractions
(49) German, Muller (1995)
a. [Uber Scrambling], habe ich [einem Buch uber Optionalitat] [einen Aufsatz t]
about scrambling have I a-dat book about optionality an-acc article
hinzugefugt
added
I have added to a book about optionality an article about scrambling
b. *[Uber Optionalitat] habe ich [einen Aufsatz uber Scrambling] [einem Buch t]
about optionality have I an-acc article about scrambling a-dat book
hinzugefugt
added

13
 I have added an article about scrambling to a book about optionality
(50) a. Ktereho herce to byla [chyba t]?
whose actor it was mistake-nom
Which actor was it a mistake of?
b. Od ktereho autora sis precetl [clanek t]?
By which author did-you read paper-acc
Which author did you read a paper by?
c. *Od ktereho autora se bojs [clanku t]?
By which author refl are-you-afraid of-papers
Papers by which author are you afraid of?
d. *Od ktereho autora vers [clankum t]?
By which author trust-you to-papers
Papers by which author do you trust?
e. *Z jakeho kovu po tobe strleli [kulkami t]?
Out-of which metal after you did-they-shoot bullets-ins
Bullets made of which metal were they shooting at you?

(51) *InsP

Ins *DatP

Dat *GenP

Gen ok AccP

Acc ok NomP

Nom ...

N PP

...

9 Agreement
Bobaljik (to appear), building on previous work (for references see Bobaljiks work) presents
the following hierarchy, which is to be read as follows: If a language allows the verb to agree
with an argument marked X, it also allows the verb to agree with all arguements higher on
the hierarchy.
Bobaljiks contribution to the debate concerns the discussion whether the hierarchy should be
stated in terms of grammatical function, or case. Based on ergative languages, he concludes
that the correct way is to look at case, not the grammatical function. Similar reasoning will
apply later to the relativization hierarchy.

(52) Agreement hierarchy: Nom > Acc/Erg > Obl

14
 Under the assumption that Agreement involves movement of formal features up to the verb,
the hierarchy gets an identical explanation as the hierarchy concerning extractions.
If agreement involves a Probe - Goal relation Agree (as proposed by Chomsky), than all we
need to say is that a certain layer in the case-stack is a blocker.

(53) *DatP

Dat *GenP

Gen ok AccP

Acc ok NomP

Nom DP

...

10 Keenan-Comrie relativization hierarchy

Keenan and Comrie (1977) present a hierarchy pertinent to accessibility of a particular argu-
ment to relativization.

(54) SU > DO > IO > OBL > POSS > Object of Comparison

Ergative languages (e.g., Tongan) provide evidence for stating the hierarchy in terms of case
(a point already made in Bobaljik (to appear).
Tongan allows pronoun strategy for Subjects and some obliques, but not on SU. This can be
understood once we say that absolutive/nominative takes precedence over (marked) ergative.
I also leave out the Object of Comparison, following Hawkins (1999) (see his work for some
relevant comments).

(55) nom > acc > dat > oblique (> gen)

The position of the genitive in the Keenan-Comrie hierarchy and the hierarchy I propose is
obviously different. I suspect that this has to do with the fact that most genitives, unlike
other items on the hierarchy, live inside islands (57). Hence, different laws apply to them, on
analogy with other island constructions (58). Specifically, the pronoun is used to avoid island
violations that would otherwise arise.
Using a pronoun to avoid island violations is a wide-spread strategy, which targets subjects,
objects and obliques alike. This seems to have little to do with the rest of the hierarchy, which
cannot be explained in such terms.

(56) [SU V DO IO OBL]

(57) [ [Poss SU] V [Poss DO] [Poss IO] [Poss OBL] ]

15
(58) [SU V [DP DO [SU V DO IO OBL] ] ]
(59) Resumptive pronoun strategy:
CP

DP C

...
C ...

DatP ...

Dat GenP

Gen AccP

Acc NomP

Nom DP

...
(60) Resumptive pronoun strategy:
CP

DP C

...
C ...

AccP ...

Acc NomP

Nom DP

...

16
(61) pronoun

Dat (irrelevant)

Gen

Acc

Nom DP

...
(62) Resumptive pronouns in Czech
a. ten hrad co jsem videl
this castle what I-have seen
b. ten typek co jsem mu pomohl
this guy what I-have him-dat helped

This solution is tentative. It leads to an interesting prediction/expectation that the possibility

of zero pronoun for, say, dative, is going to have implications for other areas of grammar. E.g.,
in Japanese, which allows the gap strategy for all positions on the relativization hierarchy,
also exhibits the phenomenon of Topic Drop (Neeleman and Szendroi (to appear)).

11 Conclusions
I have provided some data in favor of the claim that syncretism in Slavic and some other
languages conforms to the ordering nom acc gen dat ins.
The same hierarchy, I believe, is relevant for the morphological containment relationship, the
distinction between a preposition and a case suffix, agreement, and extractions.
I have attempted to derive these phenomena from the combination of standard P&P assump-
tions about syntax, plus the assumption that precedence in the hierarchy maps onto syntactic
relation of containment.
The hierarchy of accessibility for relativization supports the proposal as well, if it is agreed
that the position of the possessor is irrelevant.

References
Abels, Klaus and Peter K. Muriungi. to appear. The focus particle in Ktharaka: Syntax and
semantics. To appear in Lingua.
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology In-
terface. A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edn.

17
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2007. On comparative suppletion. Ms., University of Connecticut.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. to appear. Wheres phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-
Theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, edited by David Adger, Susana Bejar, and
Daniel Harbour. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Caha, Pavel. 2007a. Case movement in PPs. In Nordlyd 34.2: Special issue on Space, Motion, and
Result , edited by Monika Basic, Marina Pantcheva, Minjeong Son, and Peter Svenonius, pp. 239
299. University of Troms, Troms. Available at www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/.
Caha, Pavel. 2007b. The shape of paradigms. Talk at GLOW XXX. Ms., University of Troms.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenbergs universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry
36: 315 332.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In
The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , edited by
Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, pp. 111176. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Lan-
guage 75: 244285.
Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry 8: 6399.
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a grammar without deep structure. In Papers from
the fourth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by B. J. Darden, C.-J. N.
Bailey, and A. Davidson. University of Chicago, Chicago.
Muller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar syntax: a study in movement types. Studies in generative grammar ;
42. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Neeleman, Ad and Krista Szendroi. to appear. Radical pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry .
Plank, Frans. 1991. Rasmus Rasks dilemma. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, edited by
Frans Plank, pp. 161196. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2007. Selection, conflation and denominal verbs. Ms., University of Troms.
Talk at the University of Basque Country, May.
Starke, Michal. 2006. Nanosyntax class lectures. Fall 2006, University of Troms.

18