SPECIFICITY AND THE LICENSING OF SUBJECTS IN MANDARIN SENTENCES
Tsai-Heng Tiffany Yang and T.-H. Jonah Lin
Harvard University / National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan

1. Introduction
In this work, we consider the question of how the TP is labeled in Mandarin. Chomsky(2013, 2015) proposes that when two maximal projections XP and YP are merged, either oneof them must move away, or a feature shared by XP and YP is selected as the label; for instance,
the TP in English is labeled <φ, φ> and a wh-clause <Q, Q>. Mandarin is a language without
φ-feature agreement; it is therefore a question how the grammar of Mandarin labels the TP. We
argue that the subject DP and TP of a Mandarin sentence indeed share a feature: specificity -the finite tense T in Mandarin sentences must denote a specific time interval, and, the subject
in Mandarin sentences must be definite or specific. We therefore propose both the T and thesubject DP in a Mandarin sentence share the specificity feature SPE, so the Mandarin TP islabeled <SPE, SPE>. We draw evidence for the following phenomena: (i) the finite tense islandfor quantifier scope in Mandarin and (ii) the definiteness or specificity requirement of Mandarin
subject DP. We also suggest some extensions of our theory. First, since specificity is notreferential in nature and does not require a one-to-one correspondence like φ-features, thelabeling algorithm permits multiple DPs to merge to a TP, resulting in recursive labeling of TP,
generating sentences with multiple subjects. Second, there are other analytic languages in thegreater East Asian region that lack φ-feature agreement, too, such as Vietnamese and Thai. It is
expected that they may use the specificity feature SPE to label TPs. This expectation appears
to be true: both Vietnamese and Thai exhibit the definiteness/specificity effect with the subjects,
and they also permit multiple subjects in a sentence.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the question of labeling of TP.
Section 3 argues for the specificity of the tense and the subject DP in Mandarin sentences.
Section 4 provides a further explication for the labeling of TP in Mandarin sentences. Section
5 discusses possible extensions of the proposed theory.
2. Labeling
Chomsky (2013, 2015) adopts the anti-symmetry approach to structure building (Kayne
1994) and proposes that symmetry-breaking motivates movement (Moro 2000). In addition, thetheory of projection also changes significantly. In the framework of Chomsky (1995), when
two syntactic objects α and β are merged, either α or β projects. In the framework of Chomsky(2013, 2015), Merge is defined as a simple operation of set formation, and a labeling algorithm
LA determines the label, i.e. the identity, of the set. Several sub-cases are distinguished. When-65-

Nanzan Linguistics15: Research and Activities 2019a head H is merged with a maximal projection XP, the head H projects and labels the new
syntactic object. When two maximal projections XP and YP are merged, one of two situations
happens. In the first situation, since XP and YP form a symmetrical structure, LA cannot
determine the label of the resulting syntactic object, and one of the two maximal projections
must be moved away to break the symmetrical structure. Suppose that XP moves. This leaves
YP in place, and the label of the structure is still YP. An example is the merger of the externalargument to vP, as in (1).

(1)





























In the second situation, a criterial feature is retrieved from both XP and YP; the feature
helps to “freeze” XP in place and serves to label the resulting syntactic object (Rizzi 2010, 2016;
Chomsky 2013, 2015). TP and interrogative CP are examples. Chomsky (2013, 2015) suggeststhat the external argument (the subject DP) and the TP to which it is merged share the φ-features,
so the TP in English is labeled as <φ, φ>, as in (2). In an interrogative CP, where a wh-phrase
is merged to a CP, the feature Q is shared by both the wh-phrase and the interrogative C. Thus,
an interrogative CP is labeled <Q, Q>, as shown in (3).
(2)φφ
δIǡIε

φI
φI




φI





(3)










δǡε













-66-

Specificity and the Licensing of Subjects (T.-H. T. Yang and T.-H. J. Lin)Now we ask the following question. In languages that have no ϕ-feature agreement, how
can a TP be labeled? Mandarin (and other analytic languages such as Vietnamese and Thai) is
known to lack both case and agreement (Markman 2009, Lin 2011). Mandarin is argued to havesyntactic tense (Sybesma 2007, Lin 2011, 2015), which projects a TP. How is the Mandarin TP
labeled? What feature helps to freeze the external argument as it is merged to TP?
We suggest that the feature is specificity. In particular, we propose that a finite tense in a
Mandarin sentence must be specific, and the subject DP of a Mandarin sentence must be definiteor specific, too. It is the feature of specificity, SPE, in the subject DP and the finite T that labels
the TP in Mandarin.1 See (4), in which TP is labeled <SPE, SPE>.
(4)










δǡε













In the next section, we will argue for the specificity of the finite T and the subject DP in
Mandarin sentences.
3.

Specificity of T and subject DP in Mandarin sentences

In this section, we look into two sets of phenomena in Mandarin sentences: (i) the finite
tense island for quantifier scope and (ii) the subject definiteness/specificity.
3.1. The subject-object asymmetry in quantificational scope
A proposal of Lin (2013) provides evidence for the specificity of the tense in Mandarin
sentences. Lin (2013) observes that, though a finite sentence in Mandarin with a quantificational
subject and a quantificational object does not exhibit scope ambiguity, they may exhibit scope
ambiguity in a nonfinite clause, e.g. the complement clause of a subjunctive verb. Look at thefollowing examples.
(5) a.

yishengMou-yigecertain-one.CL doctor

zhaogu mei-yige
bingren.
take.care every-one.CL patient‘A certain doctor took care of every patient.’ (∃>∀, *∀>∃)1

Our current analysis does not directly account for how a non-finite TP or a stative sentence in MC islabeled. We will see how our analysis for labeling finite MC TP can account for them for future research.

-67-

1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFKDQG$FWLYLWLHV









E




<XDQ]KDQJ \DRTLXPRX\LJH \LVKHQJ]KDRJX 
GLUHFWRU
DVNFHUWDLQRQH&/GRFWRUWDNHFDUH 
PHL\LJH ELQJUHQHYHU\RQH&/ SDWLHQWµ7KHGLUHFWRUDVNHGWKDWDFHUWDLQGRFWRUWDNHFDUHRIHYHU\SDWLHQW¶ !! 








,Q D WKHH[LVWHQWLDOVXEMHFWDV\PPHWULFDOO\VFRSHVRYHUWKHXQLYHUVDOREMHFW,Q E 
ZKHUHWKHVDPHFODXVHDV D LVHPEHGGHGXQGHUWKHVXEMXQFWLYHYHUE\DRTLXµDVN¶HLWKHUWKH
H[LVWHQWLDO VXEMHFW RU WKH XQLYHUVDO REMHFW PD\ WDNH WKH ZLGH VFRSH RYHU WKH RWKHU $ PDMRUGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ D DQG E LVWKDWLQ D WKHTXDQWLILHUVRFFXULQDILQLWHFRQWH[WZKHUHDV
LQ E WKH\RFFXULQDQRQILQLWHFRQWH[W6FRSHDPELJXLW\DULVHVLQ E EXWQRWLQ D /LQ SURYLGHVWKHIROORZLQJH[SODQDWLRQIRUWKLVFRQWUDVW,WLVDVVXPHGWKDWWKHILQLWHWHQVHLQ
0DQGDULQVHQWHQFHVGHQRWHVDVSHFLILFWLPHLQWHUYDODQGWKHSURMHFWLRQRIWKHWHQVHQDPHO\73
FRQVWLWXWHV D VSHFLILFLW\ LVODQG DQG H[KLELWV WKH VSHFLILFLW\ FRQGLWLRQ HIIHFW VHH )LHQJR DQG+LJJLQERWKDPDQG0DQ]LQLDPRQJRWKHUVVHHDOVR+XDQJIRUWKHSURSRVDORIIDFWLYH LVODQG  7KH SDUDPHWULF GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ (QJOLVK DQG 0DQGDULQ DFFRUGLQJ WR /LQ LVWKDWWKHWHQVHLQ(QJOLVKVHQWHQFHVLVORFDWHGLQ& DQGLVLQKHULWHGE\7VHH&KRPVN\ ZKHUHDVWKHWHQVHLQ0DQGDULQVHQWHQFHVLVORFDWHGLQ7$VDFRQVHTXHQFH73LV
D VSHFLILFLW\ LVODQG LQ 0DQGDULQ ZKLOH &3 LV D VSHFLILFLW\ LVODQG LQ (QJOLVK 6LQFH D
TXDQWLILFDWLRQDO REMHFW QHHGV WR 45 WR 73 WR RXWVFRSH WKH VXEMHFW ZKHQ D TXDQWLILFDWLRQDO
REMHFWLQD0DQGDULQVHQWHQFH45VWR73LWQHFHVVDULO\YLRODWHVWKHVSHFLILFLW\FRQGLWLRQ DV
DGMXQFWLRQ WR 73 DPRXQWV WR PRYLQJ RXWVLGH RI 73 DV QRW DOO VHJPHQWV RI WKH FDWHJRU\ 73
GRPLQDWHVWKHTXDQWLILHUVHH0D\&KRPVN\.D\QHDPRQJRWKHUV 7KXVD
TXDQWLILFDWLRQDOREMHFWLQD0DQGDULQVHQWHQFHFDQRQO\45WRY3DQGWDNHWKHQDUURZVFRSHUHODWLYHWRWKHVXEMHFW,QVHQWHQFHVOLNH E RQWKHRWKHUKDQGWKHTXDQWLILFDWLRQDOVXEMHFWDQG
REMHFWDUHLQDQHPEHGGHGFODXVHZLWKDVXEMXQFWLYHWHQVH6LQFHWKHVXEMXQFWLYHWHQVHGHQRWHV
DQLQGHILQLWHIXWXUHRULHQWHGWLPHUDWKHUWKDQDVSHFLILFWLPHLQWHUYDODVXEMXQFWLYHFODXVHGRHVQRWIRUPDVSHFLILFLW\LVODQG6RWKHHPEHGGHGTXDQWLILFDWLRQDOREMHFWFDQ45WRWKHHPEHGGHG
73DQGVFRSHRYHUWKHHPEHGGHGVXEMHFW6HHWKHIROORZLQJH[DPSOHVIRUGHPRQVWUDWLRQ  D >732EMHFWL>736XEMHFW7),1,7(>Y3«9HUEHL@@@ 
9LRODWLQJWKHVSHFLILFLW\FRQGLWLRQ E >732EMHFWL>736XEMHFW7121),1,7(>Y3«9HUEHL@@@
1RWYLRODWLQJWKHVSHFLILFLW\FRQGLWLRQ :KDWLVLPSRUWDQWLVWKDWLI/LQ¶V  WKHRU\LVFRUUHFWWKHWHQVHRIDILQLWHFODXVHLQ
0DQGDULQPXVWEHVSHFLILFEHFDXVHRQO\DVSHFLILFKHDGSURMHFWVDVSHFLILFLW\LVODQG7KXVWKLVSURYLGHVHYLGHQFHIRUWKHSURSRVDOWKDWWKHWHQVHLQ0DQGDULQVHQWHQFHVLVVSHFLILF

'HILQLWHVSHFLILFVXEMHFWV/LDQG7KRPSVRQ  QRWHWKDWVXEMHFWVWRSLFVDQGREMHFWVWKDWDUHSUHSRVHGWR
SUHYHUEDOSRVLWLRQVLQ0DQGDULQVHQWHQFHVQHHGWREHGHILQLWHRUVSHFLILF)RUH[DPSOHWKH

-68-

Specificity and the Licensing of Subjects (T.-H. T. Yang and T.-H. J. Lin)

unaccusative verb lai ‘come’ in the following sentences may take the theme argument ren‘person’ either pre-verbally or post-verbally, but ren has to be interpreted as definite when it
appears pre-verbally.
(7) a.

Renlai
person come

le.
PERF

‘The person(s) has/have come.’b.

Lai-lerenle.
come-PERF person PERF
‘Some person(s) has/have come.’

Tsai (2001: 129-130) also observes that an indefinite numeral subject is unacceptable in
Mandarin, in sharp contrast with the case of English:2(8) A man arrived yesterday.
a. A certain man arrived yesterday. (specific)
b. One man (rather than two) arrived yesterday. (nonspecific)(9) ?Akiu
Akiu

yiwei yigerendaothought one.CL person arrive

le
PERF

‘Akiu thought a certain person arrived.’ (?specific reading; *nonspecific reading)
These phenomena show that Mandarin does not permit non-specific or indefinite subjects. The
subjects must be either definite or specific.3
To conclude, we have shown that the tense of the Mandarin sentences is specific, and thesubject of Mandarin sentences is definite of specific. Thus, specificity is a shared feature of T
and the subject DP of Mandarin sentences.

2

The grammatical judgments of (7)-(8) are from Tsai (2001).

3

An exception is predicates that semantically license a quantity subject. The following examples arefrom Li (1998: 695).
(i) a.

Sanzhi gunzi gou
ni da ta ma?
three.CL stick enough you hit him Q‘Are three sticks enough for you to hit him (with)?’b.

jiu zhaogu ni yige xiaohai a?
Sange
baomu
you one childPART
three.CL babysitter only care‘Three babysitters took care of you, only one child?’

For details, see (Li 1998).

-69-

Nanzan Linguistics15: Research and Activities 20194.

Specificity as the label of Mandarin TP

Having shown that specificity is a shared feature of T and the subject DP of Mandarin
sentences, we propose that the feature of specificity, SPE, labels the Mandarin TP. One mightquestion whether specificity, a semantic attribute, is an appropriate feature to be used insyntactic operations. We have several reasons to believe that this is warranted. First, thespecificity effects in English and the finite tense island in Mandarin indicate that specificity,
empirically, can affect syntactic operations. Second, using semantic features in syntactic
operations is not unprecedented. For example, Thompson (2006) argues that the checking of
the feature [bounded] in the projection AspP determines the telicity of a sentence (also see
MacDonald 2008). Alexiadou (2005) (and also references cited therein) assumes that the featureof definiteness participates in Spec-Head agreement in genitive constructions. Thus, there is noa priori reason to exclude the feature of specificity from syntactic operations.
We suggest the following derivation for the labeling of Mandarin TP. When the subject
DP is merged to vP, a symmetrical configuration is created. See (10a). Since there is no feature
shared by the two maximal projections, one of them, specifically the subject DP, must moveaway. Along with the merger of the head T, the subject DP moves to TP. Now the same
symmetrical configuration obtains. But now, the feature SPE is available in both the subject DP
and TP. LA searches and selects SPE, and labels the resulting syntactic object as <SPE, SPE>.
This is shown in (10b).
 D(10)a.

ȏȐ


























b.
E

δǡε

ȏȐ


ȏȐ

ȏȐ








ȏȐ



-70-




Specificity and the Licensing of Subjects (T.-H. T. Yang and T.-H. J. Lin)

This proposal has the following merits. First, it accounts for the grammatical phenomena
in Mandarin discussed in the previous section, namely the specificity island effect of the finite
tense clause, and the definiteness-specificity of the subjects of Mandarin sentences. They havebeen seen as separate phenomena independent of each other, but under the present proposal,
they are unified in a principled account along with the labeling of the Mandarin TP.
Second, this theory can provide a basis for an account of the multiple-subject sentences in
Mandarin. Li and Thompson (1981: 92-93) note that Mandarin sentences can take two subjects.4(11) a.

Xiangbizi chang.
elephant nose long
‘Elephants’ noses are long / Elephants have long noses.’b.

Wuge pingguo liangge huai le.
five.CL apple
two.CL spoil PERF‘(Of) the five apples, two are spoiled.’

c.

Jiaju
jiu-dehao.
furniture ole-NMZ good‘[Regarding] furniture, old ones are good.’

We suggest that multiple subjects are possible in Mandarin sentences because the feature of
specificity does not require one-to-one correspondence. In English, the TP is labeled by the φfeatures. The φ-features are referential in nature and can function as a pronominal (Alexiadou
and Anagnostopoulou 1998). Thus, they require one-to-one correspondence with the nominalthat they agree with. But the feature SPE in Mandarin does not require one-to-one
correspondence. Specificity is a feature that restricts the possible denotation of a nominal; it is
not referential itself. As a consequence, additional subjects can be merged to a TP with recursive
labeling of <SPE, SPE> as long as the subjects are definite or specific.5

(12)
 
δ 
ǡ 
ε




ȏ Ȑδ 
ǡ 
ε




ȏ Ȑȏ Ȑ





ȏ Ȑ
4Li and Thompson call them “double-subject sentences.”

5

We assume that the acceptability of multiple subjects in a Mandarin sentence and the possible semantic
relation between the subjects are determined by semantics and world knowledge, which is not directly
relevant to the recursive labeling of TP and the feature SPE.

-71-

Nanzan Linguistics15: Research and Activities 2019

If this proposal is correct, a major parametric difference between the English type of
languages and the Mandarin type of languages with respect to the labeling of TP is that, in theformer, the labeling of TP is restrictive due to the referential nature of the criterial feature (theφ-features), and hence only one subject is sanctioned, whereas in the latter, the labeling of TP
can be recursive and multiple subjects are permitted in a sentence, due to the non-referential
nature of the criterial feature (the specificity feature), in the same spirit as Kuroda (1986).6
5.

Extensions

The proposed theory can be extended to other languages, in particular other analytic
languages. Mandarin is an analytic language, which lacks morphological inflections such as φfeature agreement. One would expect that other analytic languages show similar grammaticalproperties as Mandarin with respect to the labeling of TP. This expectation appears to be correct.
Vietnamese and Thai require that subjects be definite or specific (see (13a) and (14a)); theyalso permit multiple subjects in a sentence (see (13b) and (14b)).7(13) Vietnamesea. *Hai
học sinh tới
rồi.
two.CL student come PERF(*Indefinite reading)‘Two students have come.’b.

Voielephant

(thì)
TOP

mũi
nose

rất
dài.
verylong‘(Regarding) elephants, [their] noses are long.’(14) Thaia. *nak.rian
student

sɔːŋ
two

khon
CL

maː
come

ca.mu:k ja:w
nose
long

ma:k
very

lɛːw
PERF

(*Indefinite reading)‘Two students came’
b.

chang
elephant‘(Regarding) elephants, [their] noses are long.’
These phenomena indicate that Vietnamese and Thai may also label the TP by the featureof specificity, the same as Mandarin. This provides further support for the theory proposed in

6

See Saito (2016) for a similar idea.

7

We are grateful to Tran N. Phan and Noppakao Sirintranon for the Vietnamese and Thai data.

-72-

Specificity and the Licensing of Subjects (T.-H. T. Yang and T.-H. J. Lin)

this work.8
Japanese is also a language that permits multiple subjects in a sentence. (See Kuno 1973;
also see Kishimoto 2017.) See the following examples, where the subjects are marked with thenominative case marker -ga.
(15) a.

Zoo-gahana-ganaka-i.
elephant-NOM trunk-NOM long-PRES‘As for the elephant, its trunk is long.’b.

Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga
civilized.country-NOM man-NOM

heikinzyumyoo-ga
average.life.span-NOM

mizika-i.
short.PRES‘It is in the civilized countries that males’ average life span is short.’
Saito (2016) argues that case in Japanese is an “anti-labeling device,” in the sense that an XP
that is marked by a case is invisible to the search of LA. That is, when α and β are merged toform γ, if α is marked with case, this makes α invisible for labeling and β provides the label forγ (Saito 2016: 131).
γ = {α-Case, β}

(16)

8

There are actually occasions in which a numeral subject in Mandarin can take a quantity reading. In
the following example, the subject of the answering sentence denotes a quantity rather than two specificstudents.
(i)a.

Duoshaohow.many

xuesheng lai
le?
student
come PERF‘How many students have come?’b.

le.
Liangge xuesheng lai
come PERF
two.CL student‘Two students have come.’

This reminds us of Li’s (1996) proposal, that number expressions should be divided into two groups
with respect to two different interpretations: (i) a quantity interpretation or (ii) a non-quantity indefinite
individual-denoting interpretation. According to Li, quantity-denoting number expressions can occur inthe topic and subject positions, whereas individual-denoting number expressions cannot. This explains
why when having a quantity reading, a numeral subject as shown in (ib) is allowed.
In such sentences, however, the subject is still not an indefinite. Note that the quantity reading of
the subject in (ib) comes as an answer to the preceding question sentence, which inquiries about the
number of students that have come. Thus, the quantity reading of the subject of (ib) should be understoodas a focus expression that excludes other possible quantities. In the focus reading, the subject numeralis not an indefinite (because a focus nominal is a strong quantifier), even though it denotes a quantity.
Tran, N. Phan (personal communication) points out that numeral subjects in Vietnamese exhibits thesame phenomenon.

-73-

Nanzan Linguistics15: Research and Activities 2019

Saito analyzes the multiple subject construction in Japanese in the following way. He
adopts Bošković’s (2007) theory that a DP can probe a head for case valuation. In Japanese, amultiple-subject sentence has the following structure (Saito 2016: 135):

(17)
 






ǯ

ȏǣ̴̴Ȑ 




ǯ

ȏǣ̴̴Ȑ




ǯ

ȏǣ̴̴Ȑ





Since case is an anti-labeling device, the DP subjects in the structure are not visible to LA; thesyntactic object created by the merger of each DP is recursively labeled as T’ or TP. The DP
subjects then probe the case value provider T and have their case features valued as nominative.
To conclude, we suggest that languages may use features that are available to them forlabeling purposes, which may be different from language to language. In English, φ-features
are available for T and the subject DP, so it is used as the criterial feature for the labeling of TP.
Mandarin has no φ-feature agreement; however, the feature of specificity is available, andtherefore it is employed for the labeling of TP in Mandarin. Some languages, nevertheless,might fall outside of the scope. Same as Mandarin, Japanese is also a language that lacks φfeature agreement. As proposed by Saito, it is likely that Japanese labels its TP via anothermechanism, namely the anti-labeling device. There are many interesting questions that bear on
this issue; we will leave them for future studies.

References
Alexiadou, A. (2005) “Possessors and (in)definiteness,” Lingua 115, 787-819.
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. (1998) “Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and
EPP-checking,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491-539.
Bošković, Ž. (2007) “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: an even more minimal theory,”
Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problems of projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, N. (2015) “Problems of projection: extensions.” In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, and S.
Matterini, eds. Structures, Strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3-16,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

-74-

Specificity and the Licensing of Subjects (T.-H. T. Yang and T.-H. J. Lin)

Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham. (1981) “Opacity in NP,” Linguistic Analysis 7, 395-421.
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kishimoto, H. (2017) “Case marking.” In M. Shibatani, S. Miyagawa, and H. Noda, eds. Handbook ofJapanese syntax, 447-496, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Kuno, S. (1973) The structure of the Japanese language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1986) “Whether we agree or not: Rough Ideas about the comparative syntax of English
and Japanese,” Ms., UCSD.
Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson. (1981) Mandarin Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley and
Los Angeles.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1996) “A number projection,” Ms., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1998) “Argument determiner phrases and number phrases,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 693702.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2011) “Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in Mandarin Chinese,” Syntax 14,
48-73.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2013) “QR and finiteness.” In Y. Miyamoto, D. Takahashi, H. Maki, M. Ochi, K. Sugisaki,
and A. Uchibori, eds. Deep insights, broad perspectives: Essays in honor of Mamoru Saito, 275291, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2015) “Tense in Mandarin Chinese sentences,” Syntax 18, 320-342.
MacDonald, J. E. (2008) “Domain of aspectual interpretation,” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 128-147.
Manzini, W. R. (1992) Locality: a theory and some of its empirical consequences, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Markman, V. G. (2009) “On the parametric variation of case and agreement,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 27, 379-426.
May, R. (1985) Logical form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Moro, A. (2000) Dynamic antisymmetry, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. (2010) “On some properties of criterial freezing.” In E. P. Panagiotidis ed. The complementizer
phase: subjects and operators, 17-32, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rizzi, L. (2016) “EPP and ECP revisited: the role of labeling.” In E. Carrilho, A. Fieis, M. Lobo, and S.
Pereira, eds. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going
Romance’ 28, Lisbon, 211-232, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Saito, M. (2016) “(A) case for labeling: labeling in languages without φ-feature agreement,” The
Linguistic Review 33, 129-175.
Sybesma, R. (2007) “Whether we tense-agree overtly or not,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 580-587.
Thompson, E. (2006) “The structure of bounded events,” Linguistic Inquiry 37, 211-228.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2001) “On subject specificity and theory of syntax-semantics interface,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 10, 129-168.

-75-