If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix)

The subject moves overtly to the matrix subject position to check features with T. At LF, the lower copy must be chosen to achieve a bound variable interpretation of the pronoun embedded in the subject. At PF, however, there is no choice in English: a ScoT-satisfying PF where the lower copy of the subject is pronounced is excluded since the resulting PF would violate the EPP for the derivations involving there -insertion, see section 3.

For the derivation to converge, the higher copy must be pronounced, even though this PF ordering violates ScoT. To conclude, in this section, we argued that the ScoT account, together with the possibility of semantic reconstruction and certain independently motivated constraints the EPP, a constraint that disfavors expletive insertion, and a language-specific setting for scramblingderives the basic distribution of reconstruction in A-movement contexts in English, German, and Japanese.

At first, ScoT seems to make the wrong prediction here; as in the case of A-scrambling, syntactic reconstruction should be unavailable, given the existence of a more economical matching PF. We are now in a position to put the insights gained in sections 3. The derivation of 46 is given in To end up with a wide scope reading of the object, overt QR has to apply as in 47b. That special case is a context in which the intended IS and the intended LF yield the opposite orders, exactly as in 47c.

Since neither PF order is better or worse than the other, both orders are licensed. Assuming again that ScoT aims at aligning word order with LF scope on the one hand and with IS on the other, examples such as 48 create a ScoT conflict: there is no word order that will perfectly match both LF and IS, and as a result, both PFs are licensed. ACC i son every. There are two pieces of evidence showing that this prediction is on the right track. Initial testing with a number of German speakers confirms this prediction.

The questions in 50 are intended to set up such a context. While judgments are subtle for these If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix), and better ways need to be developed to ensure that they have the relevant information structure properties, there is clearly a contrast between the orders in 50a and 50bwhich confirms the initial plausibility of the analysis proposed here. Wen glaubst du liebt jede Mutter?

NOM father] [his. ACC son] loves. Although there are various accounts of this distinction in the literature, the main difference in the reconstruction behavior has typically been stipulated. The difference between 38a and 49as well as the difference between 48 and 50shows that a simple syntactic i.

Rather, the possibility versus impossibility of syntactic reconstruction needs to be closely tied to information structure properties. The ScoT approach, on the other hand, provides a uniform answer to all of these questions. If the moved element is interpreted as a topic, syntactic reconstruction is possible; if the moved element is not interpreted as a topic, syntactic reconstruction is impossible.

This concludes our discussion of the main properties of the system we propose, and the account of the possible and impossible correlations between PF orders and aspects of meaning IS, binding, and scope.

Crucial to our account is the assumption that competition is LF-privileging, in the sense that alternative word orders compete to realize a given LF or LF-IS pairing. In the next section, we engage a related, alternative framework that takes the opposite view: namely, that economy competitions begin with a specific PF representation and regulate the range of possible meanings assignable to that PF.

Table 2 summarizes the key assumptions we have made in this section and how they are relevant to the constructions and properties discussed above. Above, we have presented a case for recognizing a signature pattern reflecting the interaction of two economy conditions. The distinctive pattern consists of paradigms in which three of four logical possibilities are grammatical.

Crucial to our account of these patterns is the assumption that the choice of PF is relative to a particular LF. We turn now to a comparison with that approach, and an attempt to defeat the arguments Reinhart presents in favor of a PF-first approach to economy computations. Reinhart discusses two operations in particular: QR and focus projection in English.

We examine these in turn, arguing that neither provides a compelling motivation If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix) taking the reference set to include varying LFs—the results can be directly implemented in a framework with our general architectural commitments. Reinhartdrawing on work by Fox, presents an economy model intended to account for some restrictions on QR in English.

Closer inspection, though, reveals the apparent conflict here to be an artifact of the presentation. It is a condition that applies locally during the course of a derivation and determines whether or not a particular operation may apply at that point in the derivation.

To the extent that the determination of PF from surface structure is trivial, this amounts to a reference set with a shared PF and divergent LFs. By invoking the copy theory approach to covert movement, we can carry the Scope Economy If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix) over without change into the general architecture we propose here.

While this simplifies exposition, there is no compelling reason to incorporate this assumption into the theory. Without it, there is no conflict. In what follows, we spell out some details of this topic and then note a real point of variation between our approach and the Fox-Reinhart approach, presenting preliminary results that we believe indeed go our way.

Paradigm cases illustrating Scope Economy are examples like these see Fox :. Example 51a is a typical case of QR in English where an inverse scope reading is available. The first is a n inviolable Parallelism constraint, requiring that the scope relations in the two conjuncts track one another. This is independently necessary, as 52 shows. This sentence is ambiguous, but only in two of four possible ways. If the universal takes scope over the existential in the first conjunct, then the universal must also be interpreted as taking scope over the existential in the second conjunct.

Conversely, surface scope in the first conjunct entails surface scope in the second conjunct. Mismatches are disallowed. In addition to Parallelism, Fox proposes an economy condition: Scope Economy. This condition permits QR only if it generates an interpretation the sentence or conjunct would not otherwise have.

In a sentence like 53there is only one scope-bearing element, the object, and so QR of every patient across the subject will generate no distinct interpretation. Scope Economy excludes QR in this sentence. These two assumptions thus serve to derive the pattern in In 51aQR of the object across the subject derives a logically distinct interpretation and is therefore permitted the same holds for However, in 51bQR is blocked in the second conjunct, since the subject is not quantificational see While QR would otherwise be available in the first conjunct, in this particular circumstance applying QR in the first conjunct but not in the second would violate Parallelism.

Specifically, Reinhart holds that the calculation involves competition among the members of a reference set consisting of derivations LF-PF pairs with a common PF but different LFs.

This is the opposite of what we maintain: our interface economy condition ScoT regulates competitions with a common LF and chooses among competing PFs to express that LF.

However, as Fox argues, all of the effects of Scope Economy can be calculated locally i. Scope Economy compares two derivations sharing the same numeration and differing only in the presence or absence of QR. It may thus be stated purely as a syntactic economy condition, with only limited knowledge about the interpretation of syntactic structures.

By way of illustration, consider the representation in 54an intermediate stage in a syntactic derivation. At this point in the derivation, since an IP node has been introduced that is a possible landing site for QR, it must be determined whether QR does or does not apply. Scope Economy may apply at this stage and must make one calculation. It must check whether the quantifier in the object position the one to undergo QR is scopally noncommutative with the subject DP. At this point, there is a fork, and two distinct derivations will continue, one in which QR applied and one in which it did not, yielding distinct LFs.

For this reason, together with whatever accounts for the lack of scrambling in English, the inverse and surface LFs QR and no QR will receive identical pronunciations see 6. Representations that violate Scope Economy by containing illicit applications of the syntactic operation QR are simply not part of the input to ScoT.

There is one point on which our model does differ from the implementation of Scope Economy as put forward by Fox and Reinhartand which should yield a testable prediction. Testing this prediction has proven to be extremely delicate, but we believe that the contrasts we have looked at support our proposals. Fox and Reinhart explicitly propose that Scope Economy only restricts covert operations see in particular Fox — However, in light of the preceding discussion, it should be clear that we make no such prediction.

For us, Scope Economy is a constraint applying in the syntactic derivation which culminates in an LF representation and applies before that representation is matched to PF. To the extent that overt scrambling in German and Japanese is a proper analogue of QR, Scope Economy should constrain overt application of quantifier movement, just as much as it will restrict covert application thereof.

However, this prediction is qualified, in that Scope Economy should only constrain movement whose sole effect or motivation is to establish a new scope relation. The following examples constitute an attempt to test this prediction for German; the preliminary results appear to go our way, but as noted above see also footnote 28 the judgments are delicate see Wurmbrand for related paradigms and discussion. As a baseline example, consider 36arepeated here.

This example shows that movement is permitted even where it makes the topic»focus isomorphism worse, but where as predicted this order more transparently reflects the scope relations. It is precisely in this type of context where we expect the effects of Scope Economy to appear. That is, since the object movement in 36a is permitted solely for the purpose of establishing a quantifier scope distinct from the base order subject»objectsuch movement should be prohibited in a context that is otherwise analogous to 36abut in which the subject is nonquantificational.

This appears to be correct: 55b is less felicitous in this context than the unscrambled version. Was hat er gelesen? The key contrast here is between 55b and 36a. Both show overt movement of a quantified focus across an in-situ topic; the contrast in acceptability arises since it is only in 36a that this movement finds a motivation from establishing a quantifier scope relationship that is logically distinct from the unmoved counterpart. Note that if our initial assessment of the rather subtle judgments is correct, we can push this prediction one step further.

As Fox shows, Scope Economy blocks QR of a quantifier across another quantifier in case the two are scopally commutative. In other words, Scope Economy is not simply a ban on movement of a quantifier across a nonquantificational NP; rather, the logical properties of the quantifiers come into play.

If we are right, then this should happen in the overt movement cases as well. Replacing the in-situ subject in examples like those just considered with a universally quantified DP, for example, should pattern with 55b and not 36a and fail to license the movement. This prediction appears to be correct, as the minimal pair in 57 and 58 illustrates. Was haben die gelesen? Note that it is this latter contrast, between 57b and 58bthat provides the strongest evidence that we are dealing with Scope Economy as a condition distinct from ScoT.

Although we attribute the deviance of 55b to Scope Economy, that example could in principle also be accounted for just with ScoT, or a similar constraint. For example, if one assumed that ScoT only enforced PF reflection of the hierarchical relation among scope-bearing elements and ignored all othersthen ScoT LF would be irrelevant in 55as it contains only one quantified NP.

Only ScoT IS would come into play, and it would yield the right result in that example. Evidently, what matters is something more subtle, namely, the non commutativity of the quantifiers.

By incorporating Scope Economy into our framework, we make precisely the right cut here: in 57bmovement of a universal across another universal fails to derive a distinct interpretation and is thus blocked.

The derivation is thus excluded from the ScoT competition, but only, and interestingly contra Foxif Scope Economy constrains overt movement of the relevant kind, as well as covert movement.

In sum, we contend that it is clear that the Scope Economy facts do not challenge the basic architecture we propose, so long as Scope Economy can be construed as a derivational economy constraint, precisely as Fox argues. In this section, we have, rather more tenuously, suggested that incorporating Scope Economy into our model in this way does yield a prediction that other approaches do not make, and we have suggested that the initial evidence seems to bear this prediction out.

Reinhart proposes that semantic focus at LF is determined from the PF representation, via an economy condition that selects an optimal LF from among a reference set of competing LFs, matched to a single PF.

We argue that the specific phenomena she considers find an equivalent and arguably simpler account in a model in which PF is projected from LF, and thus there is no compelling argument here against our general approach. There is a rich literature on the relationship between prosodic prominence and semantic focus. Here, we argue that the same facts may be captured by running the system the other way, by allowing focus interpretation to determine the placement of prosodic prominence—an argument consistent with our general architecture in which LF including LFIS precedes PF.

Continuing to use question-answer pairs as above as a diagnostic for focus, we note that 59a may answer any of the questions in 59b —dillustrating DP-focus, VP-focus, and IP-focus all-focusrespectively. Focus thus appears to project upward from the most prominent constituent. However, stress on the subject fails to license focus projection to IP; 60a is felicitous as an instance of subject focus, but not in an all-focus context as in 60c.

Reinhart argues that this subject-object asymmetry is a special case of an economy condition regulating the possible semantic focus for a given intonational prominence. Following a long tradition, she argues that 59a is derived by the default stress rules of English—namely, some version of a Nuclear Stress Rule NSR assigning metrical prominence to the most deeply embedded constituent—and that 60a involves an operation of Main Stress Shift, which assigns stress to the subject, overwriting the previously assigned metrical structure.

The IP is not a part of the focus set of If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix) i. Stress shift is possible when the subject is in focus, since the subject does not contain the target of the NSR, and thus the subject DP is not in the focus set of the unshifted sentences.

For the same reason, limited focus projection within the subject DP is permitted, as seen in footnote We give her formalism here for concreteness: Generalized Nuclear Stress Rule.

Assign a Strong label to the node that is syntactically more embedded at every level of the metrical tree. Reinhart Main stress falls on the terminal node that is connected to the root node by a path that does not contain any Weak nodes. For the sentence My neighbor is building a desk in both 59 and 60the first phase of the derivation will yield In any such representation, there will be exactly one terminal node dominated by an unbroken sequence of strong S nodes; this is the bearer of main stress desk in This is the set of all S nodes connected to the root by an unbroken sequence of S nodes.

The focus set constitutes the set of admissible semantic foci, given the locus of main stress. If the intended focus is not in the focus set, then the rule of Main Stress Shift 63 applies, assigning a new main stress and overwriting parts of the original stress contour as needed.

For example, if the intended focus is the subject which is not in the focus set of 62Main Stress Shift applies, as illustrated in 64where the shift rule marks the circled node S and accordingly changes its sister from S to W. In the resulting representation, neighbor now bears main stress, and desk bears a secondary stress if anything.

IP is in the focus set of Hence, it is only semantic focus on the subject that licenses stress on the subject. Although this is cast as a PF-first calculation, in which the PF locus of main stress determines the possible semantic focus and licenses marked operationsnote that for the system to work, the intended i.

In other words, the final PF representation is not fixed until the semantic focus is independently established. In our view, this aspect of the proposal undermines the argument for starting with the PF representation. In other words, we contend that the machinery Reinhart posits by starting from the PF representation in fact serves to mask a simpler LF-to-PF account, consistent with the view we have espoused throughout.

Indeed, once this is recognized, there is also in our view no compelling argument for an economy computation in this domain. Only subject focus not IP-focus will yield The effect of focus projection arises because distinct derivations with distinct foci may converge on identical PF representations. Such convergence occurs when the constituent in focus marked S by 63 is one that would be marked S by the default rule in any event. The outputs of the two derivations are indistinguishable.

There is no meaningful notion of competition internal to the grammar of semantic prosody mapping of focus, from our perspective. The derivation from LF focus to PF is deterministic; it just happens that the semantics has more distinctions available to it than the phonology does.

Focus is or may be a property of nonterminals, and primary stress is typically manifested on a single terminal node. Since the terminals constitute a proper subset of the nodes that may semantically be in focus, it follows that there will necessarily be neutralization of meaningful semantic distinctions in the PF representation.

We conclude, therefore, that the facts of focus projection and the connection between focus and stress in English provide no argument in favor of a system in which LF is projected from PF, and in particular, no hurdle to our view that information flows in the opposite direction. These constraints are unidirectional: LF broadly construed is calculated first and determines PF surface word order.

Scope rigidity the apparent absence of QR is a property not of languages but of specific configurations, and the distribution of rigidity effects is largely predictable from independent variation in the syntactic resources of various languages e.

We have focused in particular on the interplay between points 1 and 2. We have argued that there is a possibly universal constraint favoring transparent reflection of LF properties scope, information structure in PF precedence relationships, but that this constraint may be overridden when it is at odds with other economy conditions. A number of emoji illocutionary markers draw their function by analogy with illocutionary gestures. It is used as a marker of ambivalence that "can effortlessly oscillate between […] seemingly disparate emotions in one compact symbol" Solomon,n.

It is worth noting that while both gestures and emoji can have illocutionary functions, many other resources can also be used to If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix) the intent of the speaker, in both the written and spoken domains. Although 'backchanneling' is not usually discussed as a distinct category of gesture, gestures can perform this function most notably the affirmative head-nod while someone else is talkingalong with gaze, posture, and auditory feedback.

Just as a nod or thumbs up can signal that the addressee is listening and understanding in spoken communication, or has nothing further to add to the conversation Sherzer,emoji can serve as a backchannelling or terminating move in online interaction. More than just a read receipt in a text program, emoji can acknowledge the topic or the feeling of a particular message.

Such results are common in searches for strings of several emoji sent as replies on Twitter, with object emoji tending to indicate acknowledgement of a topic and body emoji tending to indicate acknowledgement of a feeling.

One promising direction for future research is to examine how backchannelling emoji are used in private chat conversations as well. This article has provided an initial exploration of the parallels between emoji and gesture, an exciting new avenue of theoretical exploration to better understand the role of emoji in computer-mediated interaction.

The use of emoji alongside text demonstrates similar properties of meaning to gesture: They do not decompose into smaller morphological units, they do not show predictable syntax, their meaning is shaped by context-specific use, and there is accepted variation in form. Finally, the different functions of gestures documented in the literature of that field show similarities to different uses of text-accompanying emoji, which provides a new way of considering the different communicative functions of emoji.

One limitation of this study has been the predominantly qualitative analysis of individual examples. Quantitative studies may show that some functions we describe are more or less frequently used in particular genres or on particular platforms, or that certain emoji are acquiring emblem status in particular internet communities.

We have also focused specifically on emoji, but there is no reason to assume that this kind of analysis could not be used to elucidate the function of emoticons, GIFs, or other features of the online communicative environment. When the environment permits, language wants to be multimodal, whether that be via speech and gesture, text and illustrations, or text and graphicons.

We are also aware that this study has focused on a single, commonly used gesture classification schema. We deliberately focused on the tradition that centres on the work of McNeilland Kendonas this is a dominant paradigm in gesture studies, and it takes into account both formal and functional features of gestural communication. This is not to say that other approaches to gesture might not also yield novel and illuminating insights into the use of emoji. This analysis has also focused specifically on the use of emoji in English.

Just as there is cross-cultural variation in gesture, we also anticipate cross-cultural variation in emoji. There is some promising work on this in Chinese; de Seta argues that emoji are just part of a larger set of resources including stickers, GIFs, and custom images that people remix, while Ge and Herring argue that Chinese use of emoji sequences is moving further towards the 'language' end of the properties we see in analogy to McNeill's gesture continuum.

Just as the hands and the body can be employed for more than gesturing, we look forward to the ever-expanding range of functions for which people will deploy emoji. Although emoji are more constrained than gesture, we do not see this as a limitation of our theory, but rather as an acknowledgement that different domains have different constraints, and even within those constraints speakers find creative ways to return multimodality to communication.

Emoji use is constrained by the limits of what is included in the character set sanctioned by Unicode or a specific platform although these do not have the flexibility and stability of the standard emoji set. The paradigm of emoji as digital gesture has potentially important ramifications for the Unicode Consortium's emoji proposal and approval process. The Consortium has a dedicated Emoji Subcommittee, [ 5 ] which has been responsible for expanding the number of emoji in Unicode from the original set of in to 2, in Unicode v.

The Unicode 1. Unicode The analysis of emoji as gesture can help inform future emoji encoding by incorporating evidence from names for emblem gestures and even typological surveys of common gestures across cultures. The parallels between emoji and gesture furthermore provide a new argument against the media hyperbole about emoji criticized by Schnoebelen ; that is, the idea that emoji are becoming or replacing language. This article not only illustrates the ways in which the majority of current uses of emoji are more like gesture than verbal language, but also provides clear criteria for how emoji would have to be used to move towards being more language-like, thanks to McNeill'scriteria for how gesture are different from language.

Finally, the intersection of emoji studies with gesture studies points towards an interesting framework for analyzing other aspects of CMC. It is natural to extend the digital gesture analogy to other graphical additions to text, including plain-text emoticons, platform-specific stickers, and animated GIFs, which are already readily compared with emoji see, e.

But gestures act in concert with two other aspects of speech: individual sounds phonemic or segmental information and broader tone of voice prosodic, intonational, or supersegmental information. It would be interesting to see future internet linguistic research continue bringing together various subfields of linguistics, such as an acoustic analysis of specifically what is involved when informal internet punctuation is interpreted as tone of voice or intonation e.

We look forward to seeing further work on how particular informal written features have specific communicative effects within the broad domain of tone, gesture, and intention. We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback on this paper and Susan Herring for her attentive editorial hand.

Thanks to the folks at SwiftKey for data used in this paper and Jeffrey Lamontagne for discussion regarding the beat gesture section. This work was funded by patrons of Lingthusiasm and by La Trobe University.

Austin, J. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ayers, J. Don't quote me: Reverse identification of research participants in social media studies.

Azhar, H. Top emojis of World Emoji Day. Emojipedia Blog. Bavelas, J. Gestures as part of speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction27 3 Breckinridge Church, R. Temporal synchrony between speech, action and gesture during language production.

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience29 3 Bressem, J. The family of AWAY-gestures. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. Bressem Eds. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter: Mouton. Brown, K. Your Twitter trend analysis is not deep, and it's probably wrong.

Burge, J. Correcting the record on the first emoji set. Cassell, J. Riskin Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chalabi, M. The most-used emojis. Cohen, A. Intentionality in the use of hand illustrators in face-to-face communication situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 2 Cooperrider, K. Reference in action: Links between pointing and language.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. The palm-up puzzle: Meanings and origins of a widespread form in gesture and sign. Frontiers in Communication, 3. The preference for pointing with the hand is not universal. Cognitive Science, 42 4 Crystal, D. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danesi, M. The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Davies, M. Davis, M. The 14 billion word iWeb Corpus. Debras, C. The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture16 1 Biaoqing: The circulation of emoticons, emoji, stickers, and custom images on Chinese digital media platforms. First Monday, 23 9. Donato, G. Investigating redundancy in emoji use: Study on a Twitter based corpus. Dresner, E. Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force.

Communication Theory, 20 3 Jenseits des Alphabets—Kommunikation mit Emojis. Efron, D. Gesture, race and culture; A tentative study of the spatio-temporal and "linguistic" aspects of the gestural behavior of eastern Jews and southern Italians in New York City, living under similar as well as different environmental conditions.

The Hague: Mouton. Emogi Research Team Enfield, N. Gesture1 2 Evans, V. The emoji code: How smiley faces, love hearts and thumbs up are changing the way we communicate. London: Michael O'Mara Books. Farnell, B. Ethno-graphics and the moving body. Man29 4 Feyereisen, P. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought Review.

The American Journal of Psychology1 Fischer, S. Language70 2 Fricke, E. Towards a unified grammar of gesture and speech: A multimodal approach. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction pp. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Furlan, J. Gawne, L. Emoji deixis: When emoji don't face the way you want them to. Accessed 15 August, from www. Ge, J. Communicative functions of emoji sequences on Sina Weibo.

First Monday, 23 Goldin-Meadow, S. Getting a handle on language creation. Malle Eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goodwin, C. Environmentally coupled gestures. Duncan, J. Cassell, E. Levy Eds. Gesture and the dynamic dimensions of language : Essays in honor of David McNeill pp. Graham, J. The effects of elimination of hand gestures and of verbal codability on speech performance.

Gareth Emery - Metropolis. Rex Mundi feat. Susana Lise - Nothing At All. Sander van Doorn pres. Purple Haze - Bliksem. Ohmna feat. Andy Moor vs Ashley Wallbridge - Faces.

Nitrous Oxide - Magenta. Lange vs Andy Moor - Stadium Four. Dash Berlin feat. Emma Hewitt - Waiting Vocal Mix. Claudia Cazacu feat. Audrey Gallagher - Free Falling. Aruna - Ashley Main Mix. Arnej feat. Michael Tsukerman - Sivan Original Mix. Mike Koglin feat. Roger Shah pres. M6 - Opus Sectrum. Gaia - Tuvan. Philippe El Sisi feat. Ben Preston feat. Gareth Emery - Exposure. Ummet Ozcan - TimeWave Zero. Ilya Soloviev - Universal Universe. Heatbeat - Vergatron. Maria Nayler - We Belong.

TyDi feat. Sander van Doorn - Bastillon. ATB pres. Vast Vision feat. Sean Tyas - Melbourne. Med vs. OceanLab vs. Oliver Smith - Pacific. Paul Webster feat. Ben Gold - Sunstroke. Masoud feat. Ali Wilson - Boombox. Midway - What If. Will Holland feat. Mark Burton - The Fifth Element. Arnej vs. Leon Bolier - Lunar Diamond.

James Horner feat. Nitrous Oxide feat. Aneym - Far Away Club Mix. Sebastian Brandt - Leon Bolier - Shimamoto Original Mix. Glensk - Polish Pierogi Juventa Remix. Jay B - Eleven Thirty. Laurie - Blinded Sebastian Brandt Remix. EnMass feat. Fast Distance - Nuit Blanche. Shogun feat. Emma Lock - Imprisoned. Ana Criado - Down To Love.

Astronauts feat. Susana Lise feat. Luigi Lusini - Who We Are. Mat Zo - Near The End. Yuri Kane - Right Back. Aruna pres. Orjan Nilsen - Lovers Lane. Yuri Kane feat. Melissa Loretta - Daylight. Audrey Gallagher - Calling. Tania Zygar - Vanilla. Orjan Nilsen - So Long Radio. Ali Wilson - Pandora. Zara Taylor - Found Album Version. Tritonal feat. Mike Shiver feat.

Susana Lise - Give Me Faith. George Acosta feat. Fisher - True Love Original Mix. Mike Foyle pres. Statica - Deadly Nightshade Phynn Remix. JayB - Signals Original Mix. DNS Project feat. Glenn Morrison feat. Carrie Skipper - She Moves. Leon Bolier feat. Ronski Speed pres. Sun Decade feat. Johanna - Timestep Vocal mix.

Roger Shah feat. Sunlounger - Son Of A Beach. Gaia - Orbion. Gaia - Aisha Intro Remix. Oceanlab feat. Johanna - Mindful Ronski Speed Mix. Gareth Emery feat. Lucy Saunders - Sanctuary Club Mix. Markus Schulz - Rain. Jochen Miller - Humanoid. Gareth Emery vs Markus Schulz feat.

M6 - Silverback. Simon Patterson - Miss You. Armin van Buuren - Coming Home. BT - These Silent Hearts. Daniel Kandi pres. Timmus - Symphonica. Gaia - Full Focus. Faith - Angel Vandit Night Mix. Bobina feat. Estigma feat. Ellie Lawson - Safe From Harm. Fabio XB feat. Ben Gold - Profile. Colonial One - Elements.

Sophie Sugar vs Sunlounger feat. Heatbeat - Shawarma. Richard Durand feat. Brute Force - Arrival. Akira Yamaoka feat. Lucy Saunders - Fight The Sunrise. Flash Brothers feat. Sultan feat. Jessy Greene - Junkie Heatbeat Remix. Tania Zygar - Half Light. Signum feat. Onova - Archipelago. Tiff Lacey - Arctic Kiss. Temple One - Feel For You.

Arty - Zara. Mat Zo - Back In Time. Tenishia feat. Aneym - Man In Denial. Sarah Howells - Fireworks Club Mix. Andrew Rayel - Aether. Ummet Ozcan - Indigo. Craving - Our Tribe. Orjan Nilsen - Between The Rays. Bjorn Akesson feat. Ameera Ali - Painting Pyramids. Sonic Element - Change. John O'Callaghan vs. Allure feat. Icone - Sorrow SoundLift Remix. I feat. Irena Love - Memories Original Mix. Musa by Andrew Rayel. Cherry Blossom by Marcel Woods. Elise by Gareth Emery ft. Victory by Ahmed Romel.

Tranceland by Giuseppe Ottaviani. Alone by Armin van Buuren ft. Lauren Evans. Time To Rest by Andy Blueman. Fiji ReOrder Remix by Atlantis vs. Miriam Stockley. You Belong To Me by Bobina ft. Betsie Larkin. Miles Away by Armin van Buuren ft. Sam Martin. Angie Mirams. The Descent by Protoculture. Song I Sing by Armin van Buuren ft. Clear Blue Moon by Rising Star. Fine Without You by Armin van Buuren ft. Offshore by Chicane. My Heaven by Alex M. Bonnie McKee.

Simulated by Marco V. Laura Jansen. Don't Give Up by Chicane ft. Bryan Adams. Spiral by Robert Nickson. Nothing At All by Rex Mundi ft. Kate Walsh. Magitek by Andrew Bayer. Taxi by Simon Patterson. Gamemaster by Lost Tribe. Visions by MaRLo.

Sea Tides by Andy Blueman. Rush Hour by Armin van Buuren. Netherworld Oliver Prime Remix by L. Awakening by Rank 1. Remember Love by DJ's United. Stellar by Gaia. That Girl. Never Say Never by Armin van Buuren ft. Jacqueline Govaert. Punk by Ferry Corsten. Disarm Yourself by Dash Berlin ft. Opposite The Other. Unforgivable by Armin van Buuren ft.

Is It Love? No Man's Land by M. Symphonica by Daniel Kandi pres. Wherever You Are by Ferry Corsten ft. Jessica Lawrence. Yet Another Day by Armin van Buuren ft. Ray Wilson. Without You Dogzilla Dub by Dogzilla.

Tierra by KhoMha. Suddenly Summer by Armin van Buuren ft. Closer by Susana ft. Drop by Sean Tyas. Who's Afraid Of ?! Photographer Remix by Armin van Buuren. Breathing Airwave Breaks Dub by Rank 1 ft. Aino Laos. Destiny by Markus Schulz ft. Crashing Over by Factor B ft. Cat Martin. Olaf Blackwood. Sub Teal. Lights by Paul van Dyk ft. Beautiful Life by Armin van Buuren ft. Cindy Alma. Alexandra Badoi. Julie Rugaard. Perfect Blue by Bjorn Akesson.

Humming The Lights by Gaia. Johnny McDaid. Such If We Begin (Jarrods 667 Remix) Life by Rank 1 ft. Ocean Drive Boulevard by Leon Bolier. Halcyon Adam Ellis Remix by Goldenscan. Runaway by Armin van Buuren ft. Candace Sosa. The Legacy Club Mix by Push. Helsinki Scorchin Alex M.

Drowning Avicii Remix by Armin van Buuren ft. Laura V. Rapture Armin van Buuren Remix by iiO. Love You More by Armin van Buuren ft. Turn It Up by Armin van Buuren. Winter by Bobina. Escape by Airbase.

Youniverse Grotesque Anthem by Alex M. Vega 4. Saint Vitus by Gaia. Tears Aurosonic Progressive Mix by Headstrong. Ana Diaz. My Religion by Pulser. Exhale by System F ft.

Armin van Buuren. Wonder Where You Are? Carmen Mimosa. Miss You by Simon Patterson. Xpander by Sasha. Pulsar by Armin van Buuren. Wayward Daughter. Kalopsia by The Blizzard. Jordan Shaw. Find Andy Moor Remix by Ridgewalkers ft. Haley Gibby.

Full Focus by Armin van Buuren. Come With Me by Cosmic Gate. Christian Burns. Kate Louise Smith. Forever Is Ours by Armin van Buuren ft. Aisha by Gaia. Chris Jones. Deep Blue by Darren Porter. Numb The Pain by Will Atkinson. Embrace by Armin van Buuren ft.

Eric Vloeimans. I'll Listen by Armin van Buuren ft. Marty Longstaff. Safe Inside You by Rising Star ft. Ping Pong by Armin van Buuren.

Heliopause by Robert Nickson. Massive by Ralphie B. Cosmos by Rising Star ft. Mila Josef. Josh Cumbee. Will We Remain? Lift by Sean Tyas. Tenshi by Gouryella. Zoe Lowe.

These Silent Hearts by Armin van Buuren ft. Skyfire by Shogun ft. Melissa Loretta. Sandstorm by Darude. Walhalla by Gouryella. Strobe by deadmau5. Opus by Eric Prydz. Panama by Giuseppe Ottaviani. Imagine by Armin van Buuren. Skylarking by BT. Alex Vargas. Dark Warrior by Andrew Rayel. Solarcoaster by Solarstone. Rendezvous by Salt Lake. Arizona by Allen Watts.

Aeon Of Revenge by Andrew Rayel.

Suzanne - Graeme Allwright - A LOlympia (Vinyl, LP, Album), The Wonderful Soup Stone, Unknown Artist - Ali Baba Und Die 40 Räuber (Ein Hörspiel Aus 1001 Nacht) (Vinyl, LP), I Get Open - DJ Seiji - Underground Railroad 10 (Return Of The Straight Underground) (CD), Shufu Abe, Poetry Singer* - Japanese Poetry Chant (Vinyl, LP, Album), Did You Ever See A Dream Walking - Antoine "Fats" Domino* - "They Call Me The Fat Man, On The Road - The Forced Oscillations - Garlics (File, MP3), La Maison Des Cellettes - Various - Sur Les Traces Du Jazz Français (CD), 2 My Question - Dressy Bessy - You Stand Here (CD), Up And Down (Jumping Mix), Bloom (Jamie xx Rework) - Radiohead - TKOL RMX 1234567 (CD), Les Trompettes De La Renommée - Georges Brassens - N° 9 (Vinyl, Album)