Article published In:
The locus of linguistic variation
Edited by Constantine Lignos, Laurel MacKenzie and Meredith Tamminga
[Linguistic Variation 16:2] 2016
► pp. 267299
References (79)
Abeillé, A. & D. Godard. 1996. La complémentation des auxiliaires en français. Langages 1221. 32–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The syntax of French negative adverbs. In D. Forget (ed.), Negation and polarity: syntax and semantics, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 781. 404–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2014. Variability and grammatical architecture. In C. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. & J. Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 1201. 1109–1134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. & R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language semantics. Journal of Semantics 171. 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R., P. Hendriks & de H. Hoop. 2003. A new hypothesis on compositionality. Proceedings of ICCS 2003, 53–57.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 1998. Functional Phonology. Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & B. Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 45–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & D. Weenik. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.80, retrieved 29 June 2014. from [URL].Google Scholar
Borsley, R. & B. Jones. 2005. Welsh negation and grammatical theory. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2000. Optimal syntax. In F. v. d. L. Joost Dekkers & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, 334–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 111. 297–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina & H. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., S. Dingare & C. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In M. Butt & T. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Burnett, H., M. Tremblay & H. Blondeau. 2015. The variable grammar of Montréal French negative concord. In S. Fisher (ed.), Penn working papers in linguistics, volume 211. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In B. Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 127–145. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comeau, P. 2011. A window on the past, a move towards the future: Sociolinguistic and formal perspectives on variation in Acadian French. Ph.D. thesis, York University.Google Scholar
Corblin, F. & L. Tovena. 2003. L’expression de la négation dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, 279–242. Paris: CNRS Publications.Google Scholar
Daoust-Blais, D. 1975. L’influence de la négation sur certains indéfinis en français québécois. Ph.D. thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
de Hoop, H. & H. de Swart. 2000. Adjunct clauses in optimality theory. Revista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 121. 107–127.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation: An OT Typology. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. & I. Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics & Philosophy 251. 373–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Besten, H. 1986. Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans. In P. Muysken & N. Smith (eds.), Substrata versus universals in Creole languages, 185–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V. 2002. Concordance négative, syntaxe des mots-N et variation dialectale. Cahiers de linguistique française 251. 97–117.Google Scholar
Déprez, V. & F. Martineau. 2004. Pour use analyse microparametrique de la concordance négative. In F. Corblin, S. Ferrando, & L. Kupferman (eds.), Indéfinis et prédications. Presses Universitaires Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Deshaies, D. & E. Laforge. 1981. Le futur simple et le futur proche dans le français parlé dans la ville de québec. Langues et Linguistique 71. 21–37.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics 121. 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2006. N-words and negative concord. In M. Everaert (ed.), Blackwell companion to syntax (Volume 31), 327–391. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., E. Holliman & J. McDaniel. 1992. Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing , 517–520, San Francisco. DOI logo
Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic inquiry 281. 373–422.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, P. & de H. Hoop. 2001. Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and philosophy 241. 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. 1989. A natural history of negation. California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. 2002. Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional Optimality Theory. Journal of logic, language and information 111. 427–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Learning constraint sub-hierarchies: the bidirectional gradual learning algorithm. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics, 217–242. Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. & R. Demers. 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International journal of american linguistics 491. 167–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Horst, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81. 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & S. Hawkins. 1987. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan (ed.), Universal grammar: 15 essays. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 91. 253–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & D. Westerstahl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In van J. Benthem & ter A. Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 837–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. Approximate interpretation of number words: A case for strategic communication. In G. Bouma, I. Kräer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Creative foundations of interpretation, 111–126. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2000. Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. 2010. Negative words and negation in french. In Larrivée, P. & R. Ingham (eds.), The evolution of negation: Beyond the jespersen cycle. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 191. 273–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Larrivée, P. 2014. The continuity of the vernacular. In M.-B Mosegaard Hansen & J. Visconti (eds.), The Diachrony of negation, 253–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, M. 1985. Pas rien. In M. Lemieux & H. Cedegren (eds.), Les tendances dynamiques du français parlé à Montréal, 91–140. Office de la langue française.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and philosophy 271. 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. 1970. English as a formal language. In B. Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella societa e nella tecnica, 189–224. Milan: Edizioni di Communita.Google Scholar
Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français. Droz, Geneva.Google Scholar
Penka, D. & H. Zeijlstra. 2010. Negation and polarity: an introduction. Natural language and linguistic theory 281. 771–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. & D. Westerstahl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic inquiry 201. 365–424.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. & N. Dion. 2009. Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 851. 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. & D. Turpin. 1999. Does the futur have a future in (canadian) french? Probus 111. 133–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University center for cognitive science technical report, 21.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 811. 613–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. & D. Vincent. 1977. L’emploi productif de ne dans le français parlé à montréal. Le Français moderne 451. 243–256.Google Scholar
Sciullo, A.-M.D. & M. Tremblay. 1996. Configurations et interprétations: les morphèmes de la négation. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 251. 27–52.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & F. Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 1151. 1497–1524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stabler, E. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Trends in cognitive science 51. 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. 2011. Variation as a window on universals. In P. Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation. In Torres-Cacoullos, R., N. Dion & A. Lapierre (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory. Routledge, London and New York (to appear).Google Scholar
Thibault, P. & D. Vincent. 1990. Un corpus de français parlé: Montréal 84. Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
Thullier, J. 2012. Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Diderot.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., W. Labov & M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. A Comparative study of romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. 2001. The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of semantics 171. 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Labelle, Marie
2017. Negative concord in Quebec French. Probus 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.