@article{eec4b556-e4dc-4371-bcf8-75790aef8a5c,
author = {Steven  Franks},
title = {Binding and Phasehood in South Slavic Revisited},
journal = {Studies in Polish Linguistics},
volume = {Volume 14 (2019)},
number = {Vol. 14, Issue 2},
year = {2019},
issn = {1732-8160},
pages = {61-80},keywords = {South Slavic; DP; binding; phasehood; disjoint reference},
abstract = {In a series of works and using a variety of diagnostics, Bošković argues that languages can be divided into those in which nominals project to DP and those in which they do not. Since Bulgarian (and Macedonian) express definiteness morphologically, they would appear to differ from Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian (and Slovenian) in countenancing DP, but recent work argues that evidence for Bg as a DP-language is not so clear cut. In an attempt to set the record straight about the South Slavic data she describes, this paper addresses the criticisms specifically raised by LaTerza (2016), who explores Despić’s (2009, 2011, 2013) observations about binding and phasehood in BCMS. In revisiting her claims it will be shown that the relevant differences between the South Slavic languages do in fact lend support to the “parameterized DP” account of the different binding possibilities.},
doi = {10.4467/23005920SPL.19.014.11079},
url = {https://ejournals.eu/en/journal/studies-in-polish-linguistics/article/binding-and-phasehood-in-south-slavic-revisited}
}