Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Part III - Syntax
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 337 - 564Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bibliography
Åfarli, T. A. 1985. “Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8: 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustinus, L. 2015. Complement Raising and Cluster Formation in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Augustinus, L. and Dirix, P. 2013. “The IPP effect in Afrikaans: A corpus analysis,” Proceedings of the 19th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 85: 213–225.Google Scholar
Bech, G. 1957/1983.2 Studien über das Deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. First edition in: Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 35: 2 (1955) and 36: 6 (1957).Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. 2005. “What’s the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2: 153–188.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2006. “The universal base hypothesis: VO or OV?” In de Weijer, J. van and Los, B. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 28–39.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Thráinsson, H 1996. “VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic,” Linguistic Inquiry 27.3: 391–344.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2004. “On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions,” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 85–108.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2015. “Particle verbs in Germanic.” In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F (eds.), Word Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 369–427.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E., Andréasson, M., and Börjars, K. 2003. “Word order in the Swedish midfield – an OT approach.” in Butt, M. and Holloway-King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 03 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 43–58.Google Scholar
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G, de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M.. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst2. Groningen and Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff and Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2014. “The VO-OV split of Germanic languages – a T3 & V2 production,” Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 19.1: 57–79.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2015. “Head directionality – in syntax and morphology.” In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameter. London: Bloomsbury Academic: 73–97.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2019. “On absent, expletive and non-referential subjects.” In Wolfsgruber, A. C., Pöll, B., and Herbeck, P. (eds.), Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Impersonality. Linguistische Berichte (Sonderheft 26). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag: 11–46.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (in press). “The Left-Left Constraint – a structural constraint on adjuncts.” In Freywald, U. and Horst, S. (eds.), Headedness and / or Grammatical Anarchy? Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hauge, H. 2003. “Towards a unified representation of English and Norwegian auxiliaries,” Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, E. 1998. “Analysing linear asymmetries in the verb clusters of Dutch and Frisian and their dialects.” In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 153–169.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. 2016. Frisian syntax – control verbs. Taalportaal. The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans online: www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14127700752502220.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. and Mulder, R. 1990. “Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication,” The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.Google Scholar
Kerstens, J. G. 1975. Over afgeleide structuur en de interpretatie van zinnen. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. 2000. The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2014a. “The verb phrase: Argument structure and particle placement,” The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 107–109.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2014b. “Double object constructions: Active verbs,” The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 136–145.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Santorini, B. 2016. “Evidence for OV word order in Older French, Icelandic, and Yiddish.” Presentation, University of Pennsylvania. www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/handouts/fwav3.pdf (Feb. 3, 2017).Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994a. “Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon.” In Corver, N and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 387–430.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 2002. “Particle placement.” In Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., and Silke, U. (eds.), Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11.2: 137–189.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F. 1993. “The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 433–475.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. N. Leech, and J. Svartvik 1985.4 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1990. Um orðaröð og færslur í íslensku. Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. [1982 M.A. thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavík]Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1996. “The optionality of particle shift,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 47–75.Google Scholar
Thraínsson, H. 2010. “Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian,” Lingua 120: 1062–1088.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2007. “Object Shift.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell: 392–436.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. (2017). “Germanic verb particle variation.” In Aboh, E., Haeberli, E., Puskás, G., and Schönenberger, M. (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax – Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 371–398.Google Scholar
Whelpton, M. 2007. “Building resultatives in Icelandic.” In Bainbridge, E. and Agbayani, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics 17. Fresno, CA: California State University: 478–486.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. (2017). “Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
References
Alexiadou, A. and Fanselow, G. 2002. “On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I.” In Zwart, J-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 219–242.Google Scholar
Angantýsson, Á. 2011. The Syntax of Embedded Clauses in Icelandic and Related Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K., Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Hróarsdóttir, T., and Wiklund, A-L. 2007. “The Tromsø guide to the Force behind V2,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 93–118.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den 1983. “On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 47–131. Reprinted 1989 in H. den Besten (ed.), Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 14–100.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den 1986. “Decidability in the syntax of verbs of (not necessarily) West-Germanic languages,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 28: 232–256. Reprinted 1989 in H. den Besten (ed.), Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 137–160.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Walraven, C. Moed-van 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2010. “Subjects, tense and verb-movement.” In Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., and Sheehan, M (eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge University Press: 263–303.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. “Realising Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–16.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H 1998. “Two heads aren’t always better than one,” Syntax 1.1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, N. (ed.) 1971. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 369–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 1998. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik I: Das Wort. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1978. “The verbal complex of V’-V in French,” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–175.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., and van der Wurff, W. 2001. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fourquet, J. 1938. L’Ordre des éléments de la phrase germanique ancien – Etudes de syntaxe de position. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. and Hinterhölzl, R. 2007. “Types of topics in German and Italian.” In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbacz, P. 2010. Word Order in Övdalian. A Study in Variation and Change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Geilfuß, J. 1991. “Jiddisch als SOV-Sprache,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9.1/2: 170–183. Also published in 1991 in Working Papers of Sonderforschungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen) 11: 3–17.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1990. “Verb-Bewegung und Negation im Deutschen,” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 20: 57–125.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2001. “Antisymmetry and verb-final order in West Flemish,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 207–232.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1997a. “Extraposition.” In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., and van Riemsdijk, H (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 115–151.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1997b. “Precedence among predicates,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1.1: 3–41.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2005. “How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the VO-OV contrasts,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 1–53.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2015. “Head directionality – in syntax and morphology.” In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Academic: 73–97.Google Scholar
Hall, B. 1979. “Accounting for Yiddish word order, or what’s a nice NP like you doing in a place like this?” In Meisel, J. and Pam, M. (eds.), Linear Order and Generative Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 253–287.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2016. “Parameters of poor pronoun systems,” Linguistic Inquiry 47.4: 706–722.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S., and Wilson, F. 2012. “Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese,” Language 88.3: 558–560.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Sundquist, J. 2017. “Don’t rush to rehabilitate: A remark on Koeneman and Zeijlstra 2014,” Linguistic Inquiry 48.1: 173–179.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. “How variational acquisition drives syntactic change – The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–157.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. “Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian,” Theoretical Linguistics 36.1: 1–48.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2015. “Verb second.” In Kiss, T. and Alexiadou, A. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Research, 2nd edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 343–384.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (in press). “On the bottleneck hypothesis of V2 in Swedish.” In Biberauer, T., Wolfe, S., and Woods, R. (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. and Wiklund, A-L., 2010. “AGR and V2,” Theoretical Linguistics 36: 57–68.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2015. “The force of V2 revisited,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18.2: 139–181.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. and Zeijlstra, H. 2014. “The rich agreement hypothesis rehabilitated,” Linguistic Inquiry 45.4: 571–615.Google Scholar
Levander, L. 1925. Dalmålet: Beskrivning och historia, Vol. 1. Uppsala, Sweden: Appelbergs noktryckeri.Google Scholar
Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., and Vikner, S. 2017. “CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/CP-analysis,” The Linguistic Review 34.3: 449–477.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1985. “A survey of generative analyses of the Verb Second phenomenon in Germanic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8.1: 49–73.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. and Holmberg, A. 1989. “The Role of AGR and finiteness,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 51–76.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20.3: 365–424.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. 1998. “A vestige of verb final syntax in Yiddish,” Monatshefte für deutschsprachige Literatur und Kultur 90: 220–226.Google Scholar
Santorini, B. 1993. “Jiddish als gemischte OV/VO-Sprache.” In Abraham, W., and, Bayer, J. (eds.), Dialektsyntax, Sonderheft 5, Linguistische Berichte. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag: 230–245.Google Scholar
Sprouse, R. 1998. “Some notes on the relationship between inflectional morphology and parameter setting in first and second languages acquisition.” In Beck, M-L. (ed.), Morphology and Its Interfaces in Second Language Knowledge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 41–67.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2010. “Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian,” Lingua 120: 1062–1088.Google Scholar
Trosterud, T. 1989. “The null subject parameter and the new mainland Scandinavian word order: A possible counter example from a Norwegian dialect.” In J. Niemi (ed.), Papers from the 11th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 1: 87–100.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1997. “V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman: 189–213. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn97b.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1999. “V°-til-I°Flytning og personfleksion i alle tempora,” Islenskt mál 19: 81–128. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99b.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2001a. “Predicative adjective agreement.” In Adamzik, K. and Christen, H. (eds.), Sprachkontakt, Sprachvergleich, Sprachvariation: Festschrift für Gottfried Kolde. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 399–414. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn01b.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 2001b. Verb Movement Variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, University of Tübingen. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/viknhabi.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2003. “Null objects under coordination in Yiddish and Scandinavian.” In Delsing, L-O., Falk, C., Josefsson, G., and Sigurðsson, H. Á., (eds.), Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, Vol. II. Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, University of Lund: 365–375. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn03a.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 2005. “Immobile complex verbs in Germanic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 83–115. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn05b.pdf.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung,” Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2017. “Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20: 49–81.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2009. Antisymmetry and the Conservation of C-Command: Scrambling and Phrase Structure in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2012. “Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish.” In Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F., and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change. Oxford University Press: 60–76.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2013. “Scrambling, LF, and phrase structure change in Yiddish,” Lingua 133: 289–318.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Bader, M. and Schmid, T. 2009. “Minimality in verb-cluster formation,” Lingua 119.10: 1458–1481.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. and Barrett, L. 2002. The Null Content of Null Case. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Broekhuis, H. 1992. “Verb projection raising in het Nederlands,” Spektator 21: 21–34.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Edmondson, J. A. 1983. “The verbal complex in continental West Germanic.” In Werner, A. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 155–216.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Rutten, J. 1989. “On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch.” In Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., and Seuren, P. (eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris: 41–56.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Wurmbrand, S. 2005. “The domain of agreement,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 4: 809–865.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Wurmbrand, S. 2008. “Case in GB / Minimalism.” In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Case. Oxford University Press: 44–58.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1996. “Selection and the categorial status of Infinitival Complements,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 269–304.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA:MIT.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 1992. Chain-Government: Issues in Dutch Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Corver, N. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 2. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2004. “A challenge to Null Case theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 35. 1: 141–149.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1993. “Principles and parameters theory.” In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 506–569.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1995. “Principles and parameters theory.” In Chomsky, N. (ed.), The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 13–127.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den and Hoekstra, E. 1997. “Parasitic participles,” Linguistics 35: 1057–1089.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 1975. The Transformational Cycle of Dutch and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J., and Van den Toorn, M. C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2002. “Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4.2: 85–128.Google Scholar
Horn, S. W. 2008. Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of Accusative-Quotative Constructions in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2003. “On control.” In Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell: 6–81.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. and Vikner, S. 1994. “The position of the verb in Scandinavian infinitives: In V˚ or C˚ but not in I˚,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 53: 61–84.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2002. “Infinitival complements in Norwegian and the form–function relation.” In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Online.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2008. “Raising to object in Norwegian and the derived object constraint,” Studia Linguistica 62.2: 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2014. “Long passives in Norwegian: Evidence for complex predicates,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37.3: 367–391.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A. 2001. “Null case and the distribution of PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 32.1: 141–166.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1992. “Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives.” Ms., Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1986. “The structure of infinitive clauses in Danish and Swedish,” Scandinavian Syntax: 123–137.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rutten, J. 1991. Infinitival Complements and Auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1991. “Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–364.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1993. “On the structure of infinitival complements.” In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S. D., and Kuno, S. (eds.), Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics: 181–213.Google Scholar
Urk, C. van 2013. “Visser’s Generalization: The syntax of control and the passive,” Linguistic Inquiry 44.1: 168–178.Google Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L. 2001. “Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: The parasitic supine,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.1: 199–228.Google Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L. 2005. The Syntax of Tenselessness: On Copying Constructions in Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University.Google Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L. 2007. The Syntax of Tenselessness: Tense / Mood / Aspect-Agreeing Infinitivals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2006. “Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. V. Oxford: Blackwell: 227–341.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2012. “Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters,” Taal en Tongval 64. 1: 129–156.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014a. “Restructuring across the world.” In Veselovská, L. and Janebová, M. (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Olomouc: Palacký University: 275–294.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014b. “Restructuring across the world – Data summary.” http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/RATW-data.pdf.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014c. “Tense and aspect in English infinitives,” Linguistic Inquiry 45.3: 403–447.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2015a. “Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation.” In Nash, L. and Samvelian, P. (eds.), Approaches to Complex Predicates. Leiden: Brill: 248–290.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2015b. “Restructuring cross-linguistically.” In Bui, T. and Özyıldız, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 45. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA: 227–240.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2016. “Restructuring as the Regulator of Clause Size.” Invited plenary talk at the workshop Shrinking trees, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2017a. Discoveries and Puzzles in Syntax: ECM and Restructuring. Lecture series given at the Institute of Linguistics, Cognition and Culture (NYI), St. Petersburg, Russia.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2017b. “Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. and Shimamura, K. 2017. “The features of the voice domain: Actives, passives, and restructuring.” In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. (eds.), The Verbal Domain. Oxford University Press: 179–204.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. H. 2007. “Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25.3: 615–653.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J-W. 1995. “A note on verb clusters in the Stellingwerf dialect.” In den Dikken, M. and Hengeveld, K. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 215–226.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J-W. 1996. “Verb clusters in continental West Germanic dialects.” In Black, J. and Motapanyane, V. (eds.), Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 229–258.Google Scholar
References
Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. 1997. Optimality Theory. An Overview. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Kornfilt, J. 1994. “Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 17–60.Google Scholar
Bergen, G. van and de Swart, P. 2010. “Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation,” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 267–295.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Walraven, C. Moed-van 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 1987. “Chain-government,” The Linguistic Review 4: 297–374. Published in 1991.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2000. “Against feature strength: the case of Scandinavian object shift,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 673–721.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2007. “Subject shift and object shift,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 109–141.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Cornips, L. 1994. “Undative constructions,” Linguistics 32: 173–190.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Cornips, L. 2012. “The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb,” Linguistics 50: 1205–1249.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Corver, N. 2016. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 3. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Chocano, G. 2007. Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Lfe in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. 2005. Interfaces. Negation – Syntax – Brain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1993. “A null theory of phrase and compound stress,” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. 1994. Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 369–427.Google Scholar
Engels, E. and Vikner, S. 2013. “Derivation of Scandinavian object shift and remnant VP-topicalization.” In Broekhuis, H. and Vogel, R. (eds.), Linguistic Derivations and Filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory. Sheffield, UK, and Bristol, USA: Equinox Publishing: 193–220.Google Scholar
Engels, E. and Vikner, S. 2014. Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2001. “Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2003. “Free constituent order: A minimalist interface account,” Folia Linguistica 37: 191–231.Google Scholar
Fox, D. and Pesetsky, D. 2005. “Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure,” Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.) 1990. Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press: 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. “Projection, heads and optimality,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. “Scrambling – What’s the state of the art?” In Powers, S. M. and Hamann, C. (eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Springer: Dordrecht: 19–40.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2006. “Mittelfield phenomena.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell: 204–274.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1991. “The distribution of Scandinavian weak pronouns.” In van Riemsdijk, H. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Clitics and Their Hosts (Eurotyp Working Papers 8). Tilburg University: 155–173.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1999. “Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization,” Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.Google Scholar
Hoop, H. de and Kosmeijer, W. 1995. “Case and scrambling: D-structure versus S-structure.” In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 139–158.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts: GLSA.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. 1994. “Toward a unified theory of scrambling.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 301–330.Google Scholar
Matthews, K. 2000. The Syntax of Object Shift in Icelandic. Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Molnárfi, L. 2003. “On optional movement and feature checking in West Germanic,” Folia Linguistica 28: 129–162.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting. A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2000. “Shape conservation and remnant movement.” In Hirotani, A., Coetzee, N. Hall, and Kim, J.-Y. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 30. Amherst, MA: GLSA: 525–539.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2001. “Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked.” In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 113–142.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2007. “Towards a relativized concept of cyclic linearization.” In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H-M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 61–114.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994a. “Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon.” In Corver, N. and Riemsdijk, van H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 387–429.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 137–189.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. 2007. Scrambling and the Survive Principle. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rustick, S. M. 1991. Verb Second and Object Shift in Germanic. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J. 2000. The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling and Clitic Placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 2001. Structure Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2001. “Object shift and scrambling.” In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden: Blackwell: 148–202.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 1986. Linguistic Theory and the Function of Word Order in Dutch: A Study on Interpretive Aspects of the Order of Adverbials and Noun Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1989. “Object shift and double objects in Danish,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 141–155.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1994. “Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 487–517.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2006. “Object shift.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell: 392–436.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Andersson, S-G. and Kvam, S. 1984. Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Eine syntaktische und funktionale Studie unter Berücksichtigung alternativer Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2010. “The nonreality of doubly filled comps,” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 331–335.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., Devos, M., Vogelaer, G. de, and Ham, M. van der 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND), Vol 1. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M. 2010. “Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains,” Journal of Linguistics 46: 1–46.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Brandner, E. 2008. “On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter.” In Chang, C. B. and Haynie, H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 87–95.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Salzmann, M. 2013. “That-trace effects and resumption – how Improper Movement can be repaired.” In Brandt, P. and Fuss, E (eds.), Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 275–334.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2015. “Relative clauses and correlatives.” In Alexiadou, A. and Kiss, T. (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin, Munich, and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 708–749.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2012. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Dekkers, J. 2000. “The minimalist program and optimality theory: Derivations and evaluations.” In Dekkers, J., der Leeuw, F. van, and van der Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford University Press: 386–422.Google Scholar
Chao, W. and Sells, P. 1983. “On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns,” Proceedings of NELS 13: 47–61.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 2000. “Moving just the feature.” In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 77–99.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. “On wh-movement.” In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press: 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1977. “Filters and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. and Nyvad, A. M. 2014. “On the nature of escapable relative islands,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 29–45.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den 2007. Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: Stimuli and results. Ms., CUNY.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2016. The Syntactic Structures of Relativisation. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1982. “Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish.” In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International: 151–174.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1985. “Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions,” Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 23: 3–44.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent Questions: The Syntax and Semantics of Questions with Special Reference to Swedish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1992. “Resumptive pronouns in islands.” In Goodluck, H and Rochemont, M. (eds.), Island Constraints. Theory, Acquisition and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 89–108.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2017. “Partial wh-movement.” In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. van (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. doi: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom088.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Mahajan, A. 2000. “Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity.” In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 195–230.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Cavar, D. 2001. “Remarks on the economy of pronunciation.” In Muller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Competition in Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107–150.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Weskott, T. 2010. “A short note on long movement in German,” Linguistische Berichte 222: 129–140.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. 2004. “Bridge verbs and V2 verbs – the same thing in spades?” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23: 181–209.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2001. “Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement reconsidered,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13: 5–38.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2004. “Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity,” Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 114: 543–574.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J. 2004. “A typology of relative clauses in German dialects.” In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 211–243.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 1999. “Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2006. “Contrast and movement to the German prefield.” In Molnar, V. and Winkler, S. (eds.), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 235–264.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H-M. 2000. “Are there V2 relative clauses in German?” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97–141.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. “Projection, heads, and optimality,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1983. “Connectedness effects in German,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23: 83–119.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G., and Frazier, L. 2015. “Superiority in English and German: cross-language grammatical differences?” Syntax 18: 235–265.Google Scholar
Heinat, F. and Wiklund, A-L. 2015. “Scandinavian relative clause extractions: Apparent restrictions,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 94: 36–50.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Bentzen, K., and Wiklund, A-L. 2010. “Observations on extraction from V2 clauses in Scandinavian,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 299–309.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2010. “Why isn’t this a complementizer?” In Kayne, R., Comparison and Contrasts. Oxford University Press: 190–227.Google Scholar
Kiziak, T. 2010. Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Omaki, A., and Hornstein, N. 2013. “Microvariation in islands?” In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge University Press: 239–264.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J. 2017. “Investigating variation in island effects,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 743–779. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/13111.Google Scholar
Larsson, I. 2014. “Double complementizers,” Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2009. “Comp-t effects: variation in the position and features of C*,” Studia Linguistica 63: 204–232.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. 1988. “Zur Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 29: 74–87.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017. “Resumption.” In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom105.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. 1989. “Partial and multiple wh-movement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604.Google Scholar
Müller, C. 2015. “Against the small clause hypothesis: evidence from Swedish relative clause extractions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 67–92.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2010. “Movement from verb-second clauses revisited.” In Hanneforth, T. and Fanselow, G. (eds.), Language and Logos. A Festschrift for Peter Staudacher. Berlin: Akademieverlag: 97–128.Google Scholar
Müller, G. and Sternefeld, W. 1993. “Improper movement and unambiguous binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., and Vikner, S. 2017. “CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/CP-analysis,” The Linguistic Review 34: 449–477.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2017. “Complementizer-trace effects.” In M. Everaert and H. C. Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1990. “Syntax and Discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns,” BLS 16: 482–497.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1995. “Extractions from verb-second clauses in German?” In Lutz, U. and Pafel, J. (eds.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 45–88.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1989. “Swiss relatives.” In Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., and Seuren, P (eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Berlin: Foris: 343–354.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 2008. “Identity avoidance: OCP effects in Swiss relatives.” In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT: 227–250.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 281–337.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006. Resumptive Prolepsis: A study in Indirect A′-Dependencies. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2017. Reconstruction and Resumption in Indirect A′-Dependencies: On the Syntax of Prolepsis and Relativization in (Swiss) German and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bader, M., and Bayer, J. 2013. “That-trace effects without traces: An experimental investigation,” Proceedings of NELS: 149–162.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. 2013. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2006. “Strong and weak islands.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1st edn. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Blackwell, 479–531.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weise, O. 1916. “Die Relativpronomina in den deutschen Mundarten,” Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten 12: 64–71.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Engdahl, E., and Maling, J. M. 1981. “Resumptive pronouns can be syntactically bound,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 679–682.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 2000. “A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch.” In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 348–385.Google Scholar
References
Abraham, W. 1986. “Unaccusatives in German,” GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 28: 1–72.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. and Schoorlemmer, M. 2006. “Middles.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Oxford: Blackwell: 131–203.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. and Sorace, A. 2017. “Auxiliary Selection.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom072.Google Scholar
Å̊farli, T. A. 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Å̊farli, T. A. 2009. “Passive participle agreement in Norwegian dialects,” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 167–181.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2012. “Non-canonical passives revisited: Parameters of non-active voice,” Linguistics 50: 1079–1110.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Sevdali, C. 2014a. “Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 1–34.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B., and Schäfer, F. 2014b. “The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited,” Lingua 149: 118–138.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Schäfer, F. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., and Schäfer, F. 2018. “Passive.” In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., and Yang, C. (eds.), ‘Syntactic Structures’ 60 Years On. The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Schafer, F. 2013 “Non-canonical passives.” In Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Non-canonical Passives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 1–19.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I. 1989. “Passive arguments raised,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–252.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den 1985. “The Ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German.” In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris: 23–64.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., and Vos, R. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2014. “Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. 2001. Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 2006. “Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives.” In Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Demoting the Agent – Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 21–46.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, T. 2008. “The New Passive in Icelandic really is a passive. In Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 173–219.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, T. and Thráinsson, H. 2017. “Variation in oblique subject constructions in Insular Scandinavian.” In Thráinsson, H., Heycock, C., Petersen, H., and Hansen, Z. (eds.), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 54–90.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. and Putnam, M. T. 2014. “The emergence of middle voice readings with and without agents,” The Linguistic Review 31: 193–240.Google Scholar
Fagan, S. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the Middle Construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fox, D. and Grodzinsky, Y. 1998. “Children’s passive: A view from the by phrase,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 311–332.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. 1982. “Indefinite agent, passive and impersonal passive. A functional study,” Lingua 58: 267–290.Google Scholar
Haddican, W. and Holmberg, A. 2012. “Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 189–212.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions: Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2016. The canonical goal passive in Dutch and its dialects. Ms., lingbuzz/003105.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2001. “How to stay accusative in insular Germanic,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2001. “Expletives and Agreement in Scandinavian Passives,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 85–128.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2009. “The new impersonal as a true passive.” In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J., McFadden, T., Nuger, J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 281–306.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2006. “On argument displacement in English and Scandinavian,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 1–69.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2007. “On the relation between morphology and syntax.” In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press: 209–238.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2007. “Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 770–780.Google Scholar
Klingvall, E. 2007. (De)composing the middle: A Minimalist Approach to Middles in English and Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the external argument from its verb.” In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 109–137.Google Scholar
Laanemets, A. 2009. “The passive voice in written and spoken Scandinavian.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 144–166.Google Scholar
Lekakou, M. 2005. In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated: The Semantics of Middles and Its Cross-linguistic Realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 1996. “The theory of complex predicates and the Norwegian få ‘get’,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 76–91.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2016. “The role of tense-copying and syncretism in the licensing of morphological passives in the Nordic Languages,” Studia Linguistica 70: 180–220.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B., Corley, M., Tungseth, M., Sorace, A., and Ramchand, G. 2016. “Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian but not in English,” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. 2006. “Perspectives on demotion: Introduction to the volume.” In Lyngfelt, B. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Demoting the Agent – Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–20.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 2001. “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles,” Lingua 111: 419–464.Google Scholar
Maling, J. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 2002. “The ‘New Impersonal’ construction in Icelandic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2012. “The become = cause hypothesis and the polysemy of get,” Linguistics 50: 1251–1281.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2013. “Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English.” In Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Non-canonical Passives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 21–42.Google Scholar
Nath, H. 2009. “The passive in Soviet Yiddish.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 182–199.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, M. 2014. Non-canonical lassen-middles. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, M. 2015. “Non-canonical middles: A study of personal let-middles in German,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 1–64.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2005. “Cross-Germanic Promotion to Subject in Ditransitive Passives – a Feature-Driven Account.” In Vulchanova, M. and Å̊farli, T. A. (eds.), Grammar and Beyond. Essays in honour of Lars Hellan. Oslo: Novus Forlag: 135–161.Google Scholar
Primus, B. 2011. “Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives,” Lingua 121: 80–99.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti‐)Causatives: External Arguments in Change‐of‐State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2009. “The Causative Alternation,” Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 641–681.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2012. “The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. and Vivanco, M. 2016. “Anticausatives are weak scalar expressions, not reflexive expressions,” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1.18: 1–36.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B. 2009. “Passive in German and Dutch: The sein / zijn + past participle construction.” In Fryd, M. (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49: 96–124.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. “Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 61–103.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2006. “The nom/acc alternation in Germanic.” In Hartmann, J. and Molnárfi, L. (eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 13–50.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2006. Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. Ms., University of Tromsø, available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000124.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 2010. “Unintentionality out of control.” In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 283–302.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2017. “On quantity and quality in syntactic variation studies.” In Thráinsson, H., Heycock, C., Petersen, H. P., and Hansen, Z. S. (eds.), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 20–52.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J., and Hansen, Z. 2004. Faroese: A Handbook and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Faroe University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, J. and Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2014. “Get-passives and Case alternations: The view from Icelandic,” Proceedings of WCFFL 31: 494–503.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. and Maling, J. 1990. “Unaccusative, passive and quirky case.” In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax. San Diego: Academic Press: 137–153.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thráinsson, H. 1985. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar
References
Bergeton, U. 2004. The Independence of Binding and Intensification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford: Center for the Studies of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Gast, V. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. 1991. “Subjectless binding domains,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.3: 455–496.Google Scholar
Holmes, P. and Hinchliffe, I. 1994. Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 1990. “The development of ‘long-distance anaphora’: A cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic,” Language Acquisition 1.1: 57–93.Google Scholar
Kiparski, P. 2002. “Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns.” In Kaufmann, I. and Stiebels, B. (eds.), More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 179–226.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2004. “Binding by phase: (Non-)complementarity in German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16.2: 111–171.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2007. Beyond Coherence: The Syntax of Opacity in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shetter, W. Z. and Van der Cruysse-Van Antwerpen, I. 2004. Dutch: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2014. On Complementation in Icelandic. London: Routledge. Reprint of 1979 dissertation originally published by Garland.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1985. “Parameters of binder and of binding category in Danish,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 23: 1–61.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2002. “Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding.” In Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Malden: Blackwell: 269–304.Google Scholar
References
Åfarli, T. 1985. “Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8: 75–98.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A., Dalrymple, M., and Toivonen, I. 2013. “Constructions with Lexical Integrity,” Journal of Language Modelling 1.1: 1–54.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., and Sveen, A. 2011. “West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ Construction,” Linguistics 49.1: 53–104.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. 2012. “Resultative Constructions,” In Binnick, R. I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press: 908–933.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. 1991. “Theoretische aspekten van partikelvooropplaatsing II.” In TABU 21: 89–95.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and van Walraven, C. M. 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Blom, C. 2005. Complex Predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and Diachrony. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1990. “The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Dutch.” In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J. (eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Foris: 45–63.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2005. Particle Patterns in English: A Comprehensive Coverage. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Christie, E. 2015. The English Resultative. Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Christie, L. 2011. “Investigating the differences between the English way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction.” In Armstrong, L. (ed.), CLA Conference Proceedings, Canadian Linguistic Association: 1–14.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure and Intonation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2015. “Particle verbs in Germanic.” In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F., eds., Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dehé, N., Urban, S., McIntyre, A., and Jackendoff, R. (eds.) 2002. Explorations in Verb-Particle Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Construction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egmond, M-E. 2006. Two Way-Constructions in Dutch. Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, M. 2007. The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-Particle Combination. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1972. “Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule,” Foundations of Language 8: 546–561.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 2003. “Verbal clusters and cluster creepers.” In Seuren, P. and Kempen, G. (eds.), Verb Constructions in German and Dutch, Vol. 242. Current Issues in Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 43–89.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. and Jackendoff, R. 2004. “The English resultative as a family of constructions,” Language 80.3: 532–568.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. “English particle constructions, the lexicon and the autonomy of syntax.” In Dehé et al. 2002, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Larsen, D. 2014. Particles and Particle-Verb Combinations in English and Other Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.Google Scholar
Le Roux, C. 1988. On the Interface of Morphology and Syntax: Evidence from Verb-Particle Combinations in Afrikaans. Master’s thesis, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Hovav, M. Rappaport 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., and van Kemenade, A. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A. 2001. On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. 2007. “Mellan polerna. Reflexiv- och deponenskonstruktioner i svenskan,” Språk och stil 17: 86–134.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van 2002. “Dutch separable compound verbs: Words rather than phrases?” In Dehé et al. 2002, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2001. German Double Particles as Preverbs: Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2003. “Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles.” In Booij, G. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer: 119–144.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2004. “Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells,” Linguistics 42: 523–571.Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. 2011. “Variation and change in English resultative constructions,” Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Weerman, F. 1993. “The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 433–475.Google Scholar
Norén, K. 1996. Svenska partikelverbs semantik. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Oya, T. 1999. “Er bettelt sich durchs Land: Eine ‘one’s way’ Konstruktion im Deutschen?” Deutsche Sprache 27: 356–369.Google Scholar
Johan, P. 2013. “The Way-Construction and Cross-Linguistic Variation in Syntax: Implications for Typological Theory.” In Paradis, C., Hudson, J., and Magnusson, U. (eds.), The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space. Oxford University Press: 236–262.Google Scholar
Perek, F. and Hilpert, M. 2014. “Constructional tolerance: Are argument structure constructions equally powerful across languages?” Constructions and Frames 6.2: 266–304.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1998. Svenskans inre grammatik: Det minimalistiska programmet. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Seland, G. 2001. The Norwegian Reflexive Caused Motion Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach. Cand. Philol. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. 1983. “Resultatives.” In Levin, L. S., Rappaport, M., and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club: 143–157.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. (ed.) 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. and Wunderlich, D. 1994. “Morphology feeds syntax,” Linguistics 36: 1–39.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. Dependent Nexus. Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1996. “The optionality of particle shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 47–75.Google Scholar
Thim, S. 2012. Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and its History. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 1999. “Swedish place expressions.” In Tamanji, P., Hirotani, M., and Hall, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press: 367–379.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2001. The Phrase Structure of Non-Projecting Words. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2002. “The directed motion construction in Swedish,” Journal of Linguistics 38.2: 313–345.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2003. The Phrase Structure of Non-projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Particles. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2003. “The Dutch way.” In Verhagen, A. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT: 27–57.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2007. “English constructions from a Dutch perspective: Where are the differences?” In Hannay, M. and Steen, G. J. (eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 257–274.Google Scholar
Verspoor, C. M. 1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Walková, M. 2013. The Aspectual Function of Particles in Phrasal Verbs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 1997. “Resultative predicates and control,” Texas Linguistics Forum 38: 307–321.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. 1999. Particle Verbs, Local Domains, and a Theory of Lexical Licensing. Ph.D. thesis, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2015. “Out of phase: Form-meaning mismatches in the prepositional phrase.” In Toivonen, I., Csúri, P., and van der Zee, E. (eds.), Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 63–78.Google Scholar
References
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O., Corver, N., Dyakonova, M., and van Koppen, M 2010. “DP internal information structure: some introductory remarks,” Lingua 120: 782–801.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2003. “Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors.” In Coene, M. and D’hulst, Y. (eds.), From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 167–188.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2013. “Adverbial and adjectival modification.” In Dikken, M. den (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press: 458–484.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. 1998. “Adjectival modification and multiple determiners.” In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 303–332.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Bader, M., and Meng, M. 2001. “Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German,” Lingua 111: 465–514.Google Scholar
Bennis, H., Corver, N., and den Dikken, M. 1998. “Predication in nominal phrases,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85–117.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. B. 1993. Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2004. “Be careful where you float your quantifiers,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005. “On the locality of left-branch extraction and the structure of NP,” Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2016. “Getting really edgy: On the edge of the edge,” Linguistic Inquiry 47: 1–33.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Keizer, E. 2012. Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and Noun Phrases, Vol. 1. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Giusti, G. 2006. “The syntax of quantified phrases and quantitative clitics.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. V. Oxford: Blackwell: 23–93.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe. New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 145–233.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cirillo, R. 2016. “Why all John’s friends are Dutch, not German: On the determiner-like characteristics of the inflection on the universal quantifier in West Germanic,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28: 179–218.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1997. “The internal structure of the Dutch extended adjectival projection,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 289–368.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1998. “Predicate movement in pseudopartitive constructions.” In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 215–257.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and van Koppen, M. 2011. “NP-ellipsis with adjectival remnants: a micro-comparative perspective,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 371–421.Google Scholar
Danon, G. 2012. “Two structures for numeral–noun constructions,” Lingua 122: 1282–1307.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R-M. and Wiltschko, M. 2002. “Decomposing pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.Google Scholar
Delsing, L-O. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Delsing, L-O. 1998. “Possession in Germanic.” In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 87–108.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Esau, H. 1973. “Form and function of German adjective endings,” Folia Linguistica 6: 136–145.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. van. 2007. “The definiteness cycle in Germanic,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19: 275–308.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. and Haegeman, L. 2003. “Resuming reflexives,” Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian conference on linguistics. Nordlyd 31: 46–62.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2005a. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2005b. “Possessor licensing, definiteness and case in Scandinavian.” In den Dikken, M. and Tortora, C. (eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 217–249.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. 1990. “D and Q als funtionale Kategorien in der Nominalphrase,” Linguistische Berichte 127: 232–264.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. “Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form,” Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2014. A Theory of Nominal Concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Payne, J. and Huddleston, R. 2002. “Nouns and noun phrases.” In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press: 323–523.Google Scholar
Pfaff, A. 2015. Adjectival and Genitival Modification in Definite Noun Phrases in Icelandic: A Tale of Outsiders and Inside Jobs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1966. “On the so-called pronouns in English.” In Dinneen, F. (ed.), Nineteenth Monograph on Language and Linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press: 177–206.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1998. “Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. “Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew.” In Rothstein, S. D. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. San Diego: Academic Press: 37–62.Google Scholar
Roehrs, D. 2008. “Something inner- and cross-linguistically different,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 1–42.Google Scholar
Roehrs, D. 2010. “Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 225–268.Google Scholar
Roehrs, D. 2013. “The inner makeup of definite determiners: The case of Germanic,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25: 295–411.Google Scholar
Roehrs, D. 2015. “Inflections on pre-nominal adjectives in Germanic: main types, subtypes, and subset Relations,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 213–271.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, E. 2009. Agreement, Dominance and Doubling: The Morphosyntax of DP. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, E. 2012. “Definiteness marking in Germanic: Morphological variations on the same syntactic theme,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 107–156.Google Scholar
Scott, G.-J. 2002. “Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases.” In Cinque, G. (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. I. Oxford University Press: 91–120.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. and Shih, C. 1991. “The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions.” In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 565–593.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. “The structural location of the attributive adjective.” In Duncan, E., Farkas, D., and Spaelti, P. (eds.), The Proceedings of the Twelfth WCCFL, Stanford Linguistics Association: 439–454.Google Scholar
Wood, J. L. and Vikner, S. 2011. “Noun phrase structure and movement: A cross-linguistic comparison of such/sådan/solch and so/så/so.” In Sleeman, P. and Perridon, H. (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar