A Unified Theory of `Standard' and `Transparent' Free Relatives

By Alexander Grosu. 2003

85 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Theory and Mathematics, Language and Linguistics, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af2969b0dddbe6df10ccd0044eac3836a96481a2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

1. Ivano Caponigro

In Language and Linguistics

1. Naama Friedmann
2. Ivano Caponigro
3. A. Belletti
4. Luigi Rizzi
5. J. Grinstead
6. Rama Novogrodsky

In Philosophy

1. Ivano Caponigro
2. Luigi Rizzi

Citations in the corpus

• The Semantic Contributions of Wh-words and Type Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically (2004, background): “I refer the interested reader to Citko (2000), Grosu (2003) and de Vries (2002) for detailed discussions.”
• The Nominal Nature of where, when, and how: Evidence from Free Relatives (2009, unknown): “For simplicity, we assume w/w/h FRs are bare complement clauses (CPs) without any overt or covert external element or head, though the syntactic nature of FRs is controversial and has generated considerable debate (see Grosu (2003) and van Riemsdijk (2005) for an extended overview).”
• Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies (2009, background): “Free relatives in Hebrew (examples 9, 10) are constructed with a relative operator that corresponds to the Wh element (such as mi, who, or ma, what), and a complementizer, she- (Grosu, 2003).”