Article published in:
Discourse-oriented Syntax
Edited by Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl and Andreas Trotzke
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226] 2015
► pp. 175210
References

References

Authier, Jean-Marc
2013Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 345-89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, de Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet
2005Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Vol. I: Commentary. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
1997Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2004Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1993A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1]. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer
2010Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86: 85-132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Schutter, Georges & Taeldeman, Johan
1986Assimilatie van stem in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialekten. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 91-133. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Auwera, Johan
2010When typological rara generate rarissima: Analogical extension of verbal agreement in Dutch dialects. In: Rara & Rarissima. Collecting and Interpreting Unusual Characteristics of Human Language, Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds), 47-73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda
1986Het persoonlijk voornaamwoord 2e pers enk in het Westvlaams. Geografie en historiek. In Vruchten van z’n akker: opstellen van (oud-) medewerkers en oud-studenten voor Prof. V. F. Vanacker, Magda Devos & Johan Taeldeman (eds), 167-189. Ghent: Seminaire voor Nederlands Taalkunde.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild
2005Taal in Stad en Land. West-vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B.
2010On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81-118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera
2014Discourse-driven head movement, VSO and ellipsis in Russian. Presentation at NELS 45 , MIT, October 31.
Haegeman, Liliane
1991Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333-364.Google Scholar
1996Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001059Google Scholar
2002West Flemish negation and the derivation of SOV order in West Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 154-189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Daniel
1993Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2006Hij zei van niet, maar knikte van ja: Distributie en diachronie van bijwoorden van polariteit ingeleid door van . Tabu 35: 135-158.Google Scholar
2008 Van + bijwoord van polariteit: Een geval van verplichte PP extrapositie? Tabu 37: 69-74.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2001The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212-236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle
2011Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39, Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, & Brian Smith (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2013Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1990Negation in English: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
1995Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2003Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 55-77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661-738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2013Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 79-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
1982Parameterizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57-75.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & van Riemsdijk, Henk
1986Projecting features and featuring projections. In Features and Projections, Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 1-30. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Piet C.
1993Jaak/neenik enz. Tabu 23: 143-173.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana
1993Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 149-180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
2006Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Hans-Martin Gärtner & Uli Sauerland (eds), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Servidio, Emilio
2014Polarity Particles in Italian: Focus, Fragments, Tags. PhD dissertation, University of Siena.Google Scholar
Simon, Ellen
2010Phonological transfer of voicing and devoicing rules: Evidence from L1 Dutch and L2 English conversational speech. Language Sciences 32: 63–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans
1995Morfo-syntaxis van het Westvlaamse bè-jaa-k-gie . Tabu 25: 45-60.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald
2001Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 163-182. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2002 Van as a marker of dissociation: Microvariation in Dutch. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 41-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane
2007The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 167-178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar