Article published in:
Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 121168
References

References

Åfarli, Tor A. & Eide, Kristin Melum
2003Norsk Generativ Syntaks. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Raghavachari
2014Separating tense and finiteness: Anchoring in Dravidian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 283-306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Askedal, Jon Ole
1994Norwegian. In The Germanic Languages, Ekkehard König & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 219—270. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl Lee
1991The syntax of English not: The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 387-429.Google Scholar
Becker, Misha
2002English has two copulas. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Current Work in Linguistics, Vol. 7.2, Elsi Kaiser (ed.), 1-27. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina
2003On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et points de vue/Tense and Point of View, Jacqueline Guéron & Liliane Tasmovski (eds), 213-246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia
1991Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
1987Allomorphy in Inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1955The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms, Harvard University. Revised 1956 version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975; and University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1985.Google Scholar
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1985Tense. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cobbett, William
1919The English Grammar of William Cobbett. Carefully revised and annotated by Alfred Ayres. New York NY: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
Cormack, Anabel & Smith, Neil
1998Negation, polarity, and verb movement. In Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 285-322. London: Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London.Google Scholar
2000Head movement and negation in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 98(1): 49-85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
1993English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dresher, Bezalel Elan
1999Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27-68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Viv
1993The grammar of Southern British English. In Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, James Milroy & Lesley Milroy (eds), 214-235. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum
2002aNorwegian Modals. PhD dissertation, NTNU.
2002bAdjunction sites for negation in Norwegian: Modals and negation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 225-252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007Finiteness and inflection. (Draft) Lingbuzz.Google Scholar
2008Finiteness in Norwegian, English, ... and Chinese? In Comparative Grammar and Language Acquisition in the Age of Globalization: Norwegian and Chinese, Tor A. Åfarli & Fufen Jin (eds). Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
2009aTense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar. In Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-minimalism [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 144], Michael Putnam (ed.), 91-132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bFiniteness: The haves and the have-nots. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger & Florian Schäfer (eds), 357–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Mood in Norwegian. In Mood in the Languages of Europe [Studies in Language Companion Series 120], Björn Rothstein & Rolf Thieroff (eds), 56–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eiskovits, Edina
1987Variation in the lexical verb in inner-Sydney English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7: 1-24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
1997Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R.
1965Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260-293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, Esther, Håkansson, Gisela, Hammarberg, Bjørn, Holmen, Anne, Hvenekilde, Anne, & Lund, Karen
2001Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3): 389-416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gretsch, Petra & Perdue, Clive
2007Finiteness in first and second language acquisition. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.) 432-484.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa
2002Language Acquisition.The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun
1995The temporal interpretation of predication. In Small Clauses. Syntax and Semantics, Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 77-107. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagen, Jon Erik
2001Finittkategoriens kritiske karakter i norsk som andrespråk. In Andrespråk, tospråklighet, norsk, Anne Golden & Helene Uri (eds). Oslo: Unipub Forlag.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Guéron, Jacqueline
1999English Grammar. A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Moritz & Marantz, Alec
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111-176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1999Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4(4): 3-9.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig & Lysvåg, Per
1998English Grammar: Theory and Use. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer
1995The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2013The syntax-morphology relation. Lingua 130: 111-131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1975The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1990Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published as On the Syntax of Negation, 1994, New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1978The form and meaning of the English Auxiliary. Language 54: 853-882. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1981Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study. In Explanations in Linguistics, Norbert Hornstein & David Lightfoot (eds), 152-173. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1995Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, Héctor Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds), 251-275. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1999Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2000Syntactic Structures Revisited. Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Lasser, Ingeborg
1997Finiteness in Adult and Child German [MPI Series in Psycholinguistics 8]. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1999The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan
1999Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The Prosody Morphology Interface, René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds), 218–309. Cambridge:CUP. Downloaded ROA: http://​roa​.rutgers​.edu​/files​/216​-0997​/216​-0997MCCARTHY​-0​-0​.PDF> DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John
2005Defining Creole. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 13: 163-191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Law, Paul
2001Creole Studies. A theoretical linguist’s field guide. GLOT International 5(2): 47-57.Google Scholar
Næss, Stine M.
2006Kan han snakker norsk? En generativ analyse av ja/nei-spørsmål i norsk som andrespråk (Can he Speak Norwegian? A Generative Analysis of Polarity Questions in Norwegian as a Second Language). MA thesis, NTNU.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1994The Language Instinct. The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
2000Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Rosengren, Inger
1998On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Linguistics 1: 177-224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Reinhart, Tania
1995Pronouns, anaphors and case. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds), 241 269. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Curt
2003Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives. Nordlyd 31(2): 372-384.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina
2009Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION and PERSON. In Alternatives to Cartography, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 153-201. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and linguistic Theory 32: 1331-1386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1990On the anaphor agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2: 27-42.Google Scholar
1996Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 63-90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1985Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21-58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
1998Have/be raising, Move F, and procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113-125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang
1999Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-Drop [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Susanne
1993Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1969Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, William Todd (ed.), 77-102. Evanston IL: Great Expectations.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
2002Regional variation in the English verb qualifier system. English Language and Linguistics 6: 17–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli
1996The late insertion of Germanic inflection. Ms, second draft, MIT.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2003When is a verb not a verb? In Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics , Anne Dahl, Kristine Bentzen & Peter Svenonius (eds). Nordlyd 31(2): 400-415.Google Scholar
2004Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do. Lingua 114(4): 495-516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
2004The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219-251.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan
1982Universal and particular in the development of language. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Eric Wanner & Lila Gleitman (eds), 128-172. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Solà, Jaume
1996Morphology and word order in Germanic languages. In Minimal Ideas. Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson & C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 217-251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1999Standard English: What it isn’t. In Standard English: The Widening Debate, Tony Bex & Richard J. Watts (eds), 117-128. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000Sociolinguistics. An Introduction to Language and Society, 4th edn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Trudgill Peter & Chambers, Jack K.
(eds) 1991Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R.
1985The Structuring of English Auxiliaries: A Phrase Structure Grammar. Bloomington IN: IULC.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth
1998.Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23-79 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wik, Marte Aakre
2014Om tempus og finitthet i norsk som andrespråk (On Tense and Finiteness in Norwegian as a Second Language). MA thesis, NTNU.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
1999More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 257-287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
1995Minimalist morphology: The role of paradigms. In Yearbook of Morphology, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 93-114. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter & Fabri, Ray
1994Minimalist morphology. Ms, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella
1996On the relevance of tense for sentential negation. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 181-207. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
1982On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], Crossref logo
Eide, Kristin Melum
2020.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics,  pp. 591 ff. Crossref logo
Johannessen, Janne Bondi
2016. Prescriptive infinitives in the modern North Germanic languages: An ancient phenomenon in child-directed speech. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39:3  pp. 231 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.