Cover not available
Part of
Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 1–44

Introduction

| Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Published online: 25 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.231.01eid
References (137)
References
Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2006. Complementation in Saramaccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type particles. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1-55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 23-58.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 1-23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela & Motapanyane, Virginia. 2000. The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapayane (ed.), 1-48. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. EPP without Spec, IP. In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett & George Tsoulas (eds), 93-109. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Raghavachari. 2014. Separating tense and finiteness: Anchoring in Dravidian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 283-306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209-274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et points de vue/Tense and Point of View, Jacqueline Guéron & Liliane Tasmovski (eds), 213-246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
. 1984. The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. The Behavioral andBrain Sciences 7: 173-188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1400–1413. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,Google Scholar
Blom, Elma. 2007. Modality, infinitives and finite bare verbs in Dutch and English child language. Language Acquisition 14(1): 75-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma & Baayen, Harald. 2013. The impact of verb form, sentence position, home language and L2 proficiency on subject-verb agreement in child L2 Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 34(4): 777-811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma, Paradis, Johanne & Sorenson-Duncan, Tamara. 2012. Effects of input properties, vocabulary size and L1 on the development of third person singulars in child L2 English. Language Learning 62(3): 965-994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma & Vasić, Nada. 2011. The production and processing of determiner-noun agreement in child L2 Dutch. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1-3: 265-290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma & Paradis, Johanne. 2013. Past tense production by English second language learners with and without language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 56: 281-294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boser, Katharina, Lust, Barbara, Santelmann, Lynn & Whitman, John. 1992. The syntax of V2 in early child German grammar: The Strong Continuity Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 22: 51-66.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis. 1987. Grammatical Relations in a Radical Creole. Verb Complementation in Saramaccan [Creole Language Library 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232-285. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1–46.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89-115. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald & Penke, Martina. 1992. The acquisition of agreement morphology andits syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone-corpus. In The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, Jürgen Meisel (ed.), 181-223. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George Nick. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology I, John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds), 283-333. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP. Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. The geometry of interpretable features: Infl in English and Spanish. Language 81(1): 10—46.Google Scholar
. 1986. Tense in indirect speech, Folia Linguistica 20: 265-296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Damonte, Federico. 2002. The complementizer layer in Saramaccan. In Current Issues in Generative Grammar. 10th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Selected Papers, Manuel Leonetti, Olga Fernandez Soriano & Victoria Escandell Vidal (eds), 31—50. Alcalá de Henares: University of Alcalá de Henares.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 157-186. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In The Syntax of Time [Current Studies in Linguistics 37], Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 143-179. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Annick. 1990. The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A case Study. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1977/1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. Ms, University of Amsterdam. Published 1981 in Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik 20, 1-78; republished in Werner Abraham (ed.). 1983. On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], 47-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Head-to-Head Merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality. In Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, María Luisa Rivero & Angela Ralli (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Tense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar. In Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-minimalism [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 144], Michael T. Putnam (ed.) 91-132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Finiteness: The haves and the have-nots. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger & Florian Schäfer (eds), 357–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Der Gedanke. Logische Untersuchungen, Günther Patzig (ed.). 1986(3), 30-53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
George, Leland M. & Cornfilt, Jaklin. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and Filtering, Frank Heny (ed.), 105-127. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gretsch, Petra & Perdue, Clive. 2007. Finiteness in first and second language acquisition. In Nikolaeva Nikolaeva (ed.), 432-484.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Null modals in Germanic (and Romance): Infinitival exclamatives. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 43-61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. INFL, COMP and nominative case assignment in Flemish infinitivals. In Features and Projections, Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 123-137. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax. A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. GenGenP. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482-526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, Belma & Schwartz, Bonnie D. 1997. Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (eds), 257–268. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars.1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier. 2003. The acquisition of subjects in Bilingual children: Pronoun use in Portuguese-German children. In (In)Vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 1], Natascha Müller (ed.), 107-137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55(2): 141-175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61(3): 212-236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31-50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Verb second. In Syntax –Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 342-382. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Nikanne, Urpo, Oraviita, Irmeli, Reime, Hannu & Trosterud, Trond. 1993. The structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, Anders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds), 177-206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 1988. On the role of inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 42: 25-42.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By—Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hulk, Aafke & Müller, Natascha. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 227-244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania & Wexler, Ken. 2002. Why is 'is' easier than 's'? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child L2-English learners. Second Language Research 18(2): 95-136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1999. Non-finite root clauses in Swedish child language. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 63: 105-150.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525-552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998. Assertion and finiteness. In Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn, Norbert Dittmar & Zvi Penner (eds), 225–245. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2006. On finiteness. In Semantics in Acquisition, Veerle van Geenhoven (ed.), 245—272. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Finiteness, Universal Grammar and the language faculty. In Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, Jiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura & Seyda Ozcaliskan (eds), 333-344. New York NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Bellugi [-Klima], Urula. 1966. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Psycholinguistic Papers, John Lyons & Roger J. Wales (eds), 183-208. Edinburgh: EUP. Also published in barbara lust & Claire Foley (eds). 2004. First Language Acquisition: The Essential Readings, 344-366. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1994. Finiteness. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Asher (ed.), 1245-1248. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia. 1990. Complementizer ‘pa’. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 5: 39-52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of SALT 23, Todd Snider (ed.), 1-18. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasser, Ingeborg. 1997. Finiteness in Adult and Child German [MPI Series in Psycholinguistics 8]. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. Variation in the Romance infinitive: The case of southern Calabrian inflected infinitive. Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 1-61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2007. Diachrony and finiteness: Subordination in the dialects of southern Italy. In Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 335-431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2009. Animacy and long distance binding in Norwegian. Nordic Journal ofLinguistics 32: 111–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2000. Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrizierung der Modus-phrase im Deutshen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2001. Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 27(2-3): 187—214. Special issue NP Interpretation and Information Structure, Klaus von Heusinger & Kerstin Schwabe (eds). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Bredel, Ursula. 2004. Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German. In Horst Lohstein & Susanne Trissler (eds), Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 235—264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2004. ‘Finite’ and ‘nonfinite’ from a typological perspective. Linguistics 42(2): 359—385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. Finiteness in South Asian languages:An introduction. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1-27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Meisel, Jürgen. 2001. The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Trends in Bilingual Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 1], Jasone Cenoz & Fred Genesee (eds), 11-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko & Dijkhoff, Marta. 1989. On the so-called ‘infinitive’ in Atlantic Creoles. Lingua 77: 297-330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Law, Paul. 2001. Creole studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide. Glot International 5 (2): 47–57.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.). 2007. Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Introduction. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 1-19.Google Scholar
. 2007c. Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 138-180.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355-426. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Tense, case, and syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 495-537. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262 – 294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1995. The loss of verb second in English and French. In Clause Structure and Language Change, Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds), 200-226. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2010. Den fantastiska grammatiken: En minimalistisk beskrivning av Svenskan. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Plunkett, Kim & Strömqvist, Sven. 1990. The acquisition of Scandinavian languages. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 59.Google Scholar
Polišenská, Daniela. 2010. Dutch children’s acquisition of verbal and adjectival inflection. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. <[URL]>
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.Google Scholar
Prévost, Philippe. 2003. Truncation and missing surface inflection in initial L2 German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 65-97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo P. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101-136.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 657-720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður. 1997. Long distance binding in Icelandic: Syntax or discourse? In Atomism in Binding, Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 323–334. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. Anchoring utterances without tense. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24, John Alderete, Chung-hye Han & Alexei Kochetov (eds), 345-351. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION and PERSON. In Alternatives to Cartography, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 153-201. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and linguistic Theory 32: 1331-1386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2: 27-42.Google Scholar
. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 63-90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Lai-shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridg, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Strategies 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
Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang. 1999. Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-drop [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1993. Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1980. Sur la notion de proposition finie: Gouvernement et inversion. Recherches Linguistiques 9: 76–140.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2009. In the mood for control. Lingua 119(12): 1811-1836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy. 1987. Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 53-75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds), 309–346. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219—251.Google Scholar
. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64:159–189.Google Scholar
. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43:191–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, Hanne G. & Bjerkan, Kirsten M. 1998. Testing past tense inflection in Norwegian: A diagnostic tool for identifying SLI children? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(2): 251-270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties and point-of-view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. I: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Scullio (ed.), 315-144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1995. What do the present and past tenses mean? In Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol.1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotham & Mario Squartini (eds), 381-396. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya & McFadden, Thomas. 2009. DP distribution and finiteness in Tamil and other languages: Selection vs case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2: 5-34.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 11: Papers from the 2007 NYU Conference, Marcel den Dikken & Robert M. Vago (eds), 251-276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3): 257-306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasić, Nada & Blom, Elma. 2011. Production and processing of determiners in Turkish-Dutch L2 children. In BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Conference on Language Acquisition and Development, Nick Danis, Kate Mesh & Hyunsuk Sung (eds), 616-627. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Verrips, Maaike & Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1992. Routes to verb placement in early German and French: The independence of finiteness and agreement. In The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, Jürgen Meisel (ed.), 283-331. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 Conspiracy. A Synchronic and a Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Weiss, Helmut. 2005. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72(2): 148-166.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1999. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. In Language Acquisition: Knowledge Representation and Processing, Antonella Sorace, Caroline Heycock & Richard Shillock (eds), special issue of Lingua , 23-79. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Yip, Virginia & Matthews, Stephen. 2007. The Bilingual Child: Early Development and Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen [Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 10].
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Reiner, Tabea
2019. Variation in non-finiteness and temporality from a canonical perspective. In Morphological Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 207], ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. 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.