The grammar of truth

References

• Betti, A. 2015. Against Facts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In Structures and Beyond, edited by A. Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. 2005. Predication and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, W. D., and S. Dubinsky. 2009. “On the Existence (and Distribution) of Sentential Subjects.” In Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B. Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter, edited by D. B. Gerdts, J. C. Moore, and M. Polinsky, 111–128. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delahunty, G. P. 1983. “But Sentential Subjects Do Exist.” Linguistic Analysis 12: 379–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emonds, J. 1972. “A Reformulation of Certain Syntactic Transformations.” In Goals of Linguistic Theory, edited by S. Peters, 21–62. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, K. 1982. “First-Order Modal Theories III-Facts.” Synthese 53: 43–122. doi: 10.1007/BF00500112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, K. 2012. Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, edited by Guide to Ground, Fabrice Correia, and Benjamin Schnieder, 37–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi, A. 2010. About the Speaker. Towards a Syntax of Indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haegeman, L., and B. Ürögdi. 2010. “Referential CPs and DPs.” Theoretical Linguistics 36 (2/3): 111–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heycock, C. 2006. “Embedded Root Phenomena.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, edited by M. Everaert, and H. van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hinzen, W. 2003. “Truth’s Fabric.” Mind & Language 18 (2): 194–219. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinzen, W. 2015. “Nothing is Hidden: Contextualism and the Syntax-semantics Interface.” Mind & Language 30 (3): 259–291. doi:10.1111/mila.12080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinzen, W. 2016. “Linguistic Evidence Against Predicativism.” Philosophy Compass: 1–18. doi:10.1111/phc3.12348.
   Google Scholar
• Höhle, T. 1992. “Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen.” In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, edited by J. Jacobs, 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, J., and S. Thompson. 1973. “On the Applicability of Root Transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.
   Google Scholar
• Horwich, P. 2010. Truth, Meaning, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iatridou, S. 2000. “The Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality.” Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 231–270. doi: 10.1162/002438900554352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, M. 2014. “Embedded imperatives across languages: Too rare to expect, too frequent to ban.” Handout for presentation at Colloquium Stony Brook, April 4, 2014. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU5OGQ4N/kaufmann_HO2014_embedded_imps.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Koster, J. 1978. “Why Subject Sentences Don’t Exist.” In Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, edited by S. J. Keyser, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lackey, J. 2007. “Norms of Assertion.” Nous (detroit, Mich ) 41 (4): 594–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laka, I. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York-London: Garland Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Lohndal, T. 2013. “Sentential Subjects: Topics or Real Subjects.” In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31), edited by R. Santana-LaBarge, 315–324. Cascadilla, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• Mikkelsen, L. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Moltmann, F. 2012. “‘Truth Predicates’ in Natural Language.” In Unifying the Philosophy of Truth, edited by D. Achourioti, H. Galinon, J. Martinez, and K. Fujimoto, 57–83. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moltmann, F. 2013. Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mulligan, K. 2010. “The Truth Predicate vs the Truth Connective.” Dialectica 64: 565–584. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2010.01247.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, Gideon. 2010. “Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.” In Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology, edited by Bob Hale, and Aviv Hoffmann, 109–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruwet, N. 1991. Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Safir, K. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffer, J. 2009. “On What Grounds What.” In Metametaphysics, edited by David J. Chalmers, David Manley, and Ryan Wasserman, 347–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwager, M. 2006. Interpreting Imperatives. PhD thesis. University of Frankfurt.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, M., and W. Hinzen. 2011. “Moving Towards the Edge.” Linguistic Analysis 3 (3–4): 405–458. 1023/A.
   Google Scholar
• Sigurdsson, H. A. 2004. “The Syntax of Person, Tense, and Speech Features.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251.
   Google Scholar
• Stowell, T. 1981. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” (Ph.D. thesis). MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, E. 1980. “Predication.” Linguistic Inquiry 11 (1): 203–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar