---
title: "On agreement-drop in Singlish: topics never agree (2022)"
description: "The paper therefore proposes that agreement-drop clauses use an alternative clausal spine with an obligatory Topic projection… 75 references."
authors: ["Si Kai Lee"]
year: 2022
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/7679/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.7679"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lee-2022-agreement-drop-singlish-topics-never/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/lee-2022-agreement-drop-singlish-topics-never/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/8/) / On agreement-drop in Singlish: topics never agree

# On agreement-drop in Singlish: topics never agree

**Authors:** Si Kai Lee · **Year:** 2022 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2022/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.7679) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/7679/galley/22513/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.7679](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.7679) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4296272415)

**Citations:** 3 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
Singlish, the colloquial contact variety of English spoken in Singapore, often leaves third-person singular present-tense verbs without -s. Earlier accounts (Wee & Ansaldo 2004; Sato 2014) saw this as free variation in the post-syntax, where a zero allomorph is chosen instead of -s. On that view, dropping -s should have no syntactic or semantic consequences.

Lee tests this prediction with minimal pairs that differ only in whether -s appears, judged by seven native speakers. For most of them, the bare-verb clauses behave differently. They:
- disallow object topicalisation,
- block extraction of lower adjuncts,
- lose inverse scope,
- cannot be embedded under regret-type predicates,
- reject universally quantified "subjects",
- allow only D-linked readings of wh-"subjects".

These properties match topicalisation across languages. The paper therefore proposes that agreement-drop clauses use an alternative clausal spine with an obligatory Topic projection, so the overt "subject" is really a topic. This bundle of traits is traced to Sinitic syntax. The work matters because it shows that an apparently cosmetic missing morpheme can mark a distinct structure.

## Key points
- Of seven consultants, five showed every contrast between agreeing and agreement-drop clauses. Two showed none, which the author reads as a possible split in the speech community.
- Two prosodic and phonological explanations were tested and rejected for the topicalisation contrast:
  - adding a comma-style intonation break does not rescue a topicalised object with a bare verb;
  - adding material at the right edge (e.g. "well") does not rescue it either.
- Mismatched agreement between the matrix and embedded clause is itself acceptable, so the topicalisation contrast is not caused by the mismatch.
- Out of context, a bare simplex clause like "Mr. Wu know Mary" feels incomplete. Rich discourse context or the particles meh and one remove this effect, so it is pragmatic rather than structural.
- Agreement-drop "subjects" are read as specific. Existential ones can take exceptionally wide scope.

## Interesting ideas
- Vary exactly one morpheme and keep every other clause identical, even if that leaves somewhat marked agreement mismatches, so any effect can be pinned to the single change.
- Before claiming a structural effect, rule out prosodic and phonological explanations with targeted variants.
- A missing agreement suffix can signal that the preverbal noun is a specific topic rather than an ordinary subject.
- The paper separates "feels incomplete without context" from "ungrammatical", showing the former disappears once a question under discussion is supplied.
- Disagreement among judges is treated as possible evidence of distinct grammars, not as noise.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (learn): build evaluation pairs that flip one feature only, as negative controls showing which cue a parser or reader actually relies on.
- **I2** (learn): when a self-induced repair rule seems to fix errors, test simpler surface explanations (punctuation, token position) before accepting the rule.
- **I3** (frames): when processing nonstandard English, treat a bare verb with a third-person-singular noun as a hint of topic status and specificity, which helps coreference and the choice of frame roles.
- **I4** (answer): readers could mark such sentences as context-dependent and search the surrounding discourse for the open question, instead of judging them broken.
- **I5** (learn): when witness parsers systematically disagree on dialect input, keep the variants as separate dialect hypotheses rather than forcing a single silver label.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Connecticut](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-connecticut/) — University, Storrs, United States · 13 works · 357 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 523 works · [🧠 Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/) · 186 works · [🧠 Cognitive Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/cognitive-neuroscience/) · 185 works

## Cite

Cite as: Si Kai Lee. 2022. On agreement-drop in Singlish: topics never agree. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{lee2022agreement,
  title = {{On agreement-drop in Singlish: topics never agree}},
  author = {Si Kai Lee},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.7679},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.7679}
}
```

- [← previous MWE for Essay Scoring English as a Foreign Language](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/wilkens-2022-mwe-essay-scoring-english-as/)
- [next → On the feature (in)deficiency of dedicated impersonal pronouns: the view from Jordanian Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/alhailawani-2022-feature-deficiency-dedicated-impersonal-pronouns/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/8/)

## References

75 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Arends, Jacques & Muijsken, Pieter & Smith, Norval (eds.). 1994. Pidgins and creoles: An introduction. John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027299505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.15 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.15)
2. Bao, Zhiming. 2015. The making of vernacular singapore english: System, transfer, and filter (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135375 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139135375)
3. Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Belletti%2C+Adriana%2E+1990%2E+Generalized+verb+movement%3A+Aspects+of+verb+syntax%2E+Torino%3A+Rosenberg+%26+Sellier%2E)
4. Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2. 43–88. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bianchi%2C+Valentina+%26+Frascarelli%2C+Mara%2E+2010%2E+Is+topic+a+root+phenomenon%3F+Iberia+2%2E+43%E2%80%9388%2E)
5. Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of tp. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2). 195–236. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178934](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178934). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178934)
6. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bo%C5%A1kovi%C4%87%2C+%C5%BDeljko%2E+1997%2E+The+syntax+of+nonfinite+complementation%3A+An+economy+approach%2E)
7. Bošković, Željko. 2015. From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories. The Linguistic Review 32(4). 603–669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0006)
8. Bošković, Željko. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33(1). 17–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013)
9. Bošković, Željko. 2020. 6 on the coordinate structure constraint, across-the-board-movement, phases, and labeling, 133–182. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510199-006 Bošković, Željko. in press. The Comp-Trace Effect and Contextuality of the EPP. In Proceedings of wccfl 39. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510199-006)
10. Brandi, Luciana & Cordin, Patrizia. 1989. Two italian dialects and the null subject parameter, 111– 142. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_4)
11. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions, vol. 2 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cardinaletti%2C+Anna%2E+2004%2E+Toward+a+cartography+of+subject+positions%2C+vol%2E+2+115%E2%80%93165%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
12. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective . [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cinque%2C+Guglielmo%2E+1999%2E+Adverbs+and+functional+heads%3A+A+cross%2Dlinguistic+perspective+%2E)
13. Cohen, Ariel & Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2002. Topic, focus, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10(2). 125–165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23748702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016576614139 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016576614139)
14. Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2). 81–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x)
15. Davison, Alice. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language 60(4). 797–846. http://www.jstor.org/stable/413799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0012 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0012)
16. DeCamp, David. 1971. Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. Cambridge University Press. [https://books.google.com/books?id=4wXInQEACAAJ](https://books.google.com/books?id=4wXInQEACAAJ). [↗](https://books.google.com/books?id=4wXInQEACAAJ)
17. Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics : a scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2303-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2303-2)
18. Erlewine, Michael. 2020. Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079)
19. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. Anti-locality and kaqchikel agent focus. In Proceedings of the 31st west coast conference on formal linguistics, 150–159. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Erlewine%2C+Michael+Yoshitaka%2E+2014%2E+Anti%2Dlocality+and+kaqchikel+agent+focus%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+31st+west+coast+conference+on+formal+linguistics%2C+150%E2%80%93159%2E)
20. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 34(2). 429–479. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24772097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z)
21. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519949 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511519949)
22. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure : the syntax-discourse interface (Oxford linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Erteschik%2DShir%2C+Nomi%2E+2007%2E+Information+structure+%3A+the+syntax%2Ddiscourse+interface+%28Oxford+linguistics%29%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
23. Fodor, Janet Dean & Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3). 355–398. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001100. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00351459 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351459)
24. Giurgea, Ion. 2015. Bare quantifier fronting as contrastive topicalization. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XVII(2). 23–38. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Giurgea%2C+Ion%2E+2015%2E+Bare+quantifier+fronting+as+contrastive+topicalization%2E+Bucharest+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+XVII%282%29%2E+23%E2%80%9338%2E)
25. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. College Park, MD: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grohmann%2C+Kleanthes%2E+2000%2E+Prolific+peripheries%3A+A+radical+view+from+the+left%2E+College+Park%2C+MD%3A+dissertation%2E)
26. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2006. Top Issues in Questions: Topics–Topicalization– Topicalizability Kleanthes K. Grohmann. In WH-Movement: Moving On, The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7197.003.0017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7197.003.0017)
27. Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1989. Singapore Colloquial English and Standard English. Singapore Journal of Education 10(2). 33–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188798908547659 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/02188798908547659)
28. Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Constraints on deletion in syntax. New Haven, CT: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hankamer%2C+Jorge%2E+1971%2E+Constraints+on+deletion+in+syntax%2E+New+Haven%2C+CT%3A+dissertation%2E)
29. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heim%2C+Irene%2E+1982%2E+The+semantics+of+definite+and+indefinite+noun+phrases%2E+Amherst%2C+MA%3A+dissertation%2E)
30. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Portner, Paul & Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Formal semantics – the essential readings, 249–260. Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch10 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch10)
31. Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–497. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hooper%2C+Joan+B%2E+%26+Thompson%2C+Sandra+A%2E+1973%2E+On+the+applicability+of+root+transformations%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+4%2E+465%E2%80%93497%2E)
32. Huang, Z. Nick. 2015. On syntactic tense in mandarin chinese. In Lee, Yu-Hui & Su, Danjie & Tsurumi, Keiko & Wang, Wei & Yang, Ying & Tao, Hongyin (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th north american conference on chinese linguistics, 406–423. Los Angeles: UCLA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Huang%2C+Z%2E+Nick%2E+2015%2E+On+syntactic+tense+in+mandarin+chinese%2E+In+Lee%2C+Yu%2DHui+%26+Su%2C+Danjie+%26+Tsurumi%2C+Keiko+%26+Wang%2C+Wei+%26+Yang%2C+Ying+%26+Tao%2C+Hongyin+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+27th+north+american+confer)
33. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement, 85–103. Foris Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869255-005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869255-005)
34. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? 163–196. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8)
35. Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from japanese and english. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715)
36. Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move alpha: Conditions on its application and output (Current studies in linguistics series). MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lasnik%2C+Howard+%26+Saito%2C+Mamoru%2E+1992%2E+Move+alpha%3A+Conditions+on+its+application+and+output+%28Current+studies+in+linguistics+series%29%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
37. Lasnik, Howard & Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. A course in GB syntax : Lectures on binding and empty categories (Current studies in linguistics series ; [v. 17]). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lasnik%2C+Howard+%26+Uriagereka%2C+Juan%2E+1988%2E+A+course+in+GB+syntax+%3A+Lectures+on+binding+and+empty+categories+%28Current+studies+in+linguistics+series+%3B+%5Bv%2E+17%5D%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+Mass%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
38. Li, Nan. 2016. T(ense) in mandarin chinese: Form and meaning. Ithaca, NY: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Li%2C+Nan%2E+2016%2E+T%28ense%29+in+mandarin+chinese%3A+Form+and+meaning%2E+Ithaca%2C+NY%3A+dissertation%2E)
39. Lim, Lisa. 2007. Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes 26. 446–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00522.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.2007.00522.x)
40. Lin, Jo-Wang. 2005. Time in a Language Without Tense: The Case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23(1). 1–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh033 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh033)
41. Lin, Jo-Wang. 2010. A Tenseless Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Revisited: A Response to Sybesma 2007. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 305–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.305 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.305)
42. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=May%2C+Robert%2E+1977%2E+The+grammar+of+quantification%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
43. Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 77–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00120)
44. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric J. & Meulen, Alice G. B. ter (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pesetsky%2C+David%2E+1987%2E+Wh%2Din%2Dsitu%3A+Movement+and+unselective+binding%2E+In+Reuland%2C+Eric+J%2E+%26+Meulen%2C+Alice+G%2E+B%2E+ter+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+representation+of+%28in%29definiteness%2C+98%E2%80%93129%2E+Cambridge%2C+Massachusetts%3A+MIT)
45. Platt, John & Weber, Heidi. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: status, features, functions. Oxford University Press. [https://books.google.com/books?id=R8hZAAAAMAAJ](https://books.google.com/books?id=R8hZAAAAMAAJ). [↗](https://books.google.com/books?id=R8hZAAAAMAAJ)
46. Platt, John & Weber, Heidi & Ho, Mian Lian. 1983. Singapore and Malaysia. John Benjamins. [https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027280213](https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027280213). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ veaw.t4 [↗](https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027280213)
47. Platt, John T. 1975. The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘creoloid’. Anthropological Linguistics 17(7). 363–374. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Platt%2C+John+T%2E+1975%2E+The+Singapore+English+speech+continuum+and+its+basilect+%E2%80%98Singlish%E2%80%99+as+a+%E2%80%98creoloid%E2%80%99%2E+Anthropological+Linguistics+17%287%29%2E+363%E2%80%93374%2E)
48. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of ip. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178634](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178634). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178634)
49. Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46. 152–174. New Directions in Universal Grammar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2014.06.013 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
50. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606)
51. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between qr and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 335–397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005349801431 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005349801431)
52. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rizzi%2C+Luigi%2E+1990%2E+Relativized+minimality%2E+Cambridge%2C+Massachusetts%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
53. Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on east asian argument ellipsis. Language Research, 203–227. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Saito%2C+Mamoru%2E+2007%2E+Notes+on+east+asian+argument+ellipsis%2E+Language+Research%2C+203%E2%80%93227%2E)
54. Sato, Yosuke. 2014. Argument ellipsis in colloquial singapore english and the anti-agreement hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics 50(2). 365–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226713000303 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)
55. Sato, Yosuke. 2016. Remarks on the parameters of argument ellipsis: A new perspective from colloquial singapore english. Syntax 19(4). 392–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12127 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12127)
56. Sato, Yosuke & Kim, Chonghyuck. 2012. Radical pro drop and the role of syntactic agreement in colloquial singapore english. Lingua 122(8). 858–873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2012.02.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
57. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2000. Anti-agreement and the fine structure of the left periphery. University of California Irvine working papers in linguistics 6. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schneider%2DZioga%2C+Patricia%2E+2000%2E+Anti%2Dagreement+and+the+fine+structure+of+the+left+periphery%2E+University+of+California+Irvine+working+papers+in+linguistics+6%2E)
58. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality. the syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 403–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9014-5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9014-5)
59. Smith, Carlota S. & Erbaugh, Mary S. 2005. Temporal interpretation in mandarin chinese. Linguistics 43(4). 713–756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.713 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.713)
60. Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Stalnaker, Robert (ed.), Context and content, 47–62. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.003.0003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.003.0003)
61. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9. 315–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013)
62. Sun, Hongyuan. 2014. Temporal construals of bare predicates in mandarin chinese. Leiden, the Netherlands: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sun%2C+Hongyuan%2E+2014%2E+Temporal+construals+of+bare+predicates+in+mandarin+chinese%2E+Leiden%2C+the+Netherlands%3A+dissertation%2E)
63. Swart, Henriëtte De. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347– 385. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005916004600)
64. Sybesma, Rint. 2007. Whether we tense-agree overtly or not. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 580–587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.580 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.580)
65. Sybesma, Rint & Li, Boya. 2007. The dissection and structural mapping of cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua 117(10). 1739–1783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.10.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.10.003)
66. Tay, Mary W. J. 1979. In Richards (ed.), The uses, users and features of English in Singapore, 91–111. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tay%2C+Mary+W%2E+J%2E+1979%2E+In+Richards+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+uses%2C+users+and+features+of+English+in+Singapore%2C+91%E2%80%93111%2E)
67. Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tenny%2C+Carol%2E+1992%2E+The+aspectual+interface+hypothesis%2E+Stanford%3A+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+and+Information%2E)
68. Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Tense anchoring in chinese. Lingua 118(5). 675–686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.002)
69. Ward, Gregory L. & Prince, Ellen F. 1991. On the topicalization of indefinite nps. Journal of Pragmatics 16(2). 167–177. Special Issue: ‘Syntax and pragmatics’, edited by A. Machtelt Bolkestein. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90079-D [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90079-d)
70. Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Agr-based case theory and its interaction with the a’-system. Cambridge, MA: dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Watanabe%2C+Akira%2E+1993%2E+Agr%2Dbased+case+theory+and+its+interaction+with+the+a%E2%80%99%2Dsystem%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+dissertation%2E)
71. Wee, Lionel. 2004. 5. reduplication and discourse particles. In Singapore English, John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027294807-veaw.g33.07wee. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g33.07wee [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g33.07wee)
72. Wee, Lionel & Ansaldo, Umberto. 2004. Nouns and noun phrases. In Lim, Lisa (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description (Varieties of English around the world G33), 57–74. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g33.05wee [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g33.05wee)
73. Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 399–467. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001672. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1005354323136 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005354323136)
74. Xu, Liejiong & Langendoen, Donald. 1985. Topic structures in chinese. Language 61. 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/413419 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/413419)
75. Yeom, Jae-Il. 1998. A presuppositional analysis of specific indefinites (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yeom%2C+Jae%2DIl%2E+1998%2E+A+presuppositional+analysis+of+specific+indefinites+%28Outstanding+Dissertations+in+Linguistics%29%2E+Boca+Raton%2C+FL%3A+CRC+Press%2E)

*Updated 2 November 2026*