Article published in:
Inner-sentential Propositional Proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects
Edited by Werner Frey, André Meinunger and Kerstin Schwabe
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 232] 2016
► pp. 105146
References

References

Altmann, Hans
1981Formen der ‘Herausstellung’ im Deutschen. Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria
2006The 'separate performative' account of the German right dislocation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, Christian Ebert & Cornelia Endriss (eds), 15-28. Berlin: ZASPiL 44.Google Scholar
2009Rechte Satzperipherie im Diskurs. NP-Rechtsversetzung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
1986Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255-309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans
1986Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1971Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47: 257-281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972Stress and syntax: A reply. Language 48: 326-342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeto Kawamoto(eds), 52-91. Tokyo: T.E.C. Company.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce Theodore
1970Syntactic Structure and Phonological Phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Downing, Laura
2011The prosody of 'dislocation' in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121: 772-786. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1970Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Bloomington IN: IULC.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline
1993German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank
2008Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680-703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri
2006Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82: 131-150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner
2011Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41-77. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012On two types of adverbial clauses allowing root-phenomena. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 405-429. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner & Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2015Syntactic and prosodic integration and disintegration in peripheral adverbial clauses and in right dislocation/afterthought. In Syntactic Complexity across Interfaces, Andreas Trotzke & Josef Bayer (eds), 75-106. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin
2000Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97-141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann & Benzmuller, Ralf
2005German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed), 55-83. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Jagdfeld, Nils
2009Tonal association and derived nuclear accents – The case of downstepping contours in German. In Tone and Intonation in a Typological Perspective, Sabine Zerbian, Laura Downing & Frank Kügler (eds). Lingua 119(6): 881-905.Google Scholar
Günez, Güliz
2014Constraints on syntax-prosody correspondence: The case of clausal and subclausal parentheticals in Turkish. Lingua 150: 278-314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Deriving Prosodic Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Gussenhoven, Carlos
1983On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1992Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic Structure, its Role in Grammar, Iggy Roca (ed), 79-106. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
2004Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop , Claudia Maienborn, Werner Frey & Benjamin Shaer (eds), 157-192. Berlin: ZAS.
Haider, Hubert
1993Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina
2000Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
1995Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
2006Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174-209. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1992Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed), 112-141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holler, Anke
2005Weiterführende Relativsätze. Empirisiche und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
2008German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In ‘Subordination’ vs. ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text. A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 98], Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm(eds), 187-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1973On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-497.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S.
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
1993Integration. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed), 63-116. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth
2007Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1984Focus, Topic, syntaktische Struktur und semantische 98Interpretation. Ms, Universität München.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo
1978Danwa-no bunpoo (Grammar of Discourse). Tokyo: Taishuukan-shoten.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1983Even, focus, and normal stress. Journal of Semantics: 2: 257-270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1982Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91-106.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
1995On extraposition and successive cyclicity. In Extraction and Extraposition in German [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11], Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel (eds), 213-243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neijt, Anneke
1979Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene
1986Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1989On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6: 69-116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2009Die nicht flektierbaren Wortarten. In Duden. Die Grammatik, 567-633. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark
2012Thinking in the right direction: An ellipsis analysis of right-dislocation. Linguistics in the Netherlands 29: 123-133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014A biclausal analysis of right-dislocation. Proceedings of NELS 43, Vol. 2, 41-54.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pheby, John
1981Phonologie: Intonation. In Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik, Karl Erich Heidolph, Walter Flämig & Wolfgang Motsch (eds), 839-897. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge
1980The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Potts, Christopher
2005The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
2004Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, Herbert
1986Über die Syntax der Pronominalform 'es' im modernen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga
1997Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds), 121-144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2006Is German V-to-C movement really semantically motivated? Some empirical problems. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 369-380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken
1986Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663-689.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin
2012The German sentential proform es in all-focus sentences. In Discourse and Grammar (A Festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár), Johan Brandtler, David Hakansson, Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds), 459-474. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
2013Eine uniforme Analyse sententialer Proformen im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 41: 142-164.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141-177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1984Phonology and Syntax: The Relationship between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995aSentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed), 550-569. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995bThe prosodic structure of function words. In Papers in Optimality Theory [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18], Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), 439-469. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2005Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies. With Special Reference to Iberian Languages, Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds), 11-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Contrastive focus, givenness, and the unmarked status of ‘discourse new’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 331-346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds), 435-484. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2003Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate. Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: WVB.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu
2001Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551-579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher Damian
1992Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
1995Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2002Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19: 77-120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32: 313-348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203: 273-96.Google Scholar
2006Phrasal stress. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed), 572-579. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Upstep of edge tones and of nuclear accents. In Tones and Tunes, Vol. 2: Experimental Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, Carlos Gussenhoven & Tomas Riad (eds), 349-386. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aOn the prosody of German wh-questions. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 73-118. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012bEffects of indefinite pronouns and traces on verb stress in German. In Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Lisa Selkirk, Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya & Mariko Sugahara (eds), 487-513. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2013An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Intonation phrases and speech acts. In Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives, Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott & Mark de Vries (eds), 301-349. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
In press. Intonation in der Lautsprache: Prosodische Struktur. In Handbuch Sprachwissen: Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe, Ulrike Domahs & Beatrice Primus (eds) 106-124 Berlin De Gruyter
Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Darcy, Isabelle
2010Object clauses, movement, and phrasal stress. In The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Lisa Rochman (eds), 189-216. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Féry, Caroline
2015Hierarchical organization and tonal scaling. Phonology 32: 19-47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne
1991Fokusphonologie. Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael
2005Prosody and Recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2012Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds), 102-148. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Band 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Yael & Grosz, Barbara
1994Right dislocation and attentional state. In The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. Proceeding of the 9th Annual Conference and the Workshop on Discourse , Rhonna Buchalla & Anita Mittwoch (eds), 184-199. Jerusalem: Akademon.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2001Backgrounding ('right-dislocation') in Dutch. University of Groningen. http://​www​.let​.rug​.nl​/~zwart​/docs​/backgr​.pdf
2011The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Right Peripheral Fragments [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 258], Crossref logo
Neeleman, Ad
2017. PP-over-V meets Universal 20. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20:1  pp. 3 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.