Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Manfred Krifka, for inviting me to comment on the target article of this issue, and Hans-Martin Gärtner, for his feedback and understanding. Any misconceptions and other shortcomings of these remarks are my responsibility.
References
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman. 2011. What is morphology? Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56.10.1007/s11050-005-4532-ySearch in Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 165–208.10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2Search in Google Scholar
Kılıçaslan, Yılmaz. 2004. Syntax and information structure in Turkish. Linguistics 42. 717–765.10.1515/ling.2004.024Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2006. Questions, focus, and intervention effects. Harvard studies in Korean linguistics 11. 520–533. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Search in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. In S. Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 125–155. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758403.ch6Search in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2018. Adjacency and (apparent) lack thereof in Turkish DOM. In L. Kalin, et al. (eds.), Heading in the right direction: Linguistic treats for Lisa Travis, 232–238. Montreal: McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2020. DOM and DSM in Turkish: Not only dependent case, but also dependent agree. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on differential object marking, 127–175. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110666137-004Search in Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.77Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
