Article published in:
Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 211254
References

References

Adger, David
2007Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Finiteness Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. , Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 23-58. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc
2013Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 345-89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, De Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet
2005Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Vol. I: Commentary. Amsterdam: AUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
1997Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2004Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2], Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth
This volume. Finiteness and pseudofiniteness.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2002 Van as a marker of dissociation: Microvariation in Dutch. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 41-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane
2007The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1):167-178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer
2010Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1):85-132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Schutter, Georges & Taeldeman, Johan
1986Assimilatie van stem in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialekten. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V.F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 91–133. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther
2005Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese Dialecten. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
De Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Auwera, Johan
2010When typological rara generate rarissima: Analogical extension of verbal agreement in Dutch dialects. In Rara & Rarissima. Collecting and Interpreting Unusual Characteristics of Human Language, Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds), 47-73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda
1986Het persoonlijk voornaamwoord 2e pers enk in het Westvlaams. Geografie en historiek. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V.F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 167-189. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild
2005Taal in stad en land. West-vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum
2009Finiteness: 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), 357-90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1990Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7(4): 333-364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001059
Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo
2012Complementizer agreement and the relation between C° and T°. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 441–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Weir, Andrew
2015The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish. In Discourse-oriented Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226], Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds), 175-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: Distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door van . Tabu 35(3-4):135-158.Google Scholar
2008Van + bijwoord van polariteit: Een geval van verplichte PP extrapositie? Tabu 37(1-2):69-74.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2001The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55(2):141-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61(3):212-236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle
2011Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39, Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2013Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan
2004The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
1995Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mensching, Guido
2000Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2004Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6):661-738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
1982Parameterizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & van Riemsdijk, Henk
1986Projecting features and featuring projections. In Features and Projections, Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 1-30. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Piet C.
1993Jaak/neenik enz. Tabu 23(3):143-173.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365-424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Lai-shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
2006Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-semantics, Hans-Martin Gärtner & Uli Sauerland (eds), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
(2012/1996) Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5:1-69. Originally published in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in semantics , Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds). Columbus OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2004The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In The structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 297-328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Servidio, Emilio
2014Polarity Particles in Italian: Focus, Fragments, Tags. PhD dissertation, University of Siena.
Simon, Ellen
2010Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: Evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences 32(1): 63–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans
1995Morfo-syntaxis van het Westvlaamse bè-jaa-k-gie . Tabu 25(1):45-60.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
2005Overt infinitival subjects (if that’s what they are). Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds), 618-25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
2001Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 163-182. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa
(1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Wurmbrand, Susi
2014Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 403-447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar