Article published in:
Syntactic Variation and Change
Edited by David Håkansson, Ida Larsson and Erik Magnusson Petzell
[Linguistic Variation 17:1] 2017
► pp. 6897
References

References

Archangeli, Diana
1988Underspecification in phonology. Phonology 5(2). 183–207.
Avery, J. Peter & Keren Rice
1989Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6(2). 179–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
2008The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef
2006The syntax of modal auxiliaries. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 5, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts
2013Size matters: On diachronic stability and parameter size. Presented at GLOW 36, Lund, April 2013.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I.
1991Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Elizabeth Cowper
2013Inflectional shells and the syntax of causative have . In Shan Luo (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at http://​cla​-acl​.ca​/?p​=917.
2016Possession and necessity: From individuals to worlds. Lingua 182. 30–48. Crossref.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Höskuldur Thráinsson
1998Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1). 37–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia
1991Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1984Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi
2008The cartography of syntactic structures. CISCL Working Papers 2. 43–58.Google Scholar
Closs, Elizabeth
1965Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41(3). 402–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Alan Bale
2014The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd 41(1). 85–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 94 ]
Cowper, Elizabeth
1999Feature geometry and verbal inflection. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 79–96.Google Scholar
2005The geometry of interpretable features. Language 81(1). 10–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Finiteness and pseudofiniteness. In Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), Finite-ness matters: On finiteness related phenomena in natural languages Linguistik Aktuell, 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall
2003The role of register in the syntax – morphology interface. In Sophie Burelle & Stanca Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 40–49. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l’UQAM.Google Scholar
2007The morphosyntactic manifestations of modality. In Milica Radišić (ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at http://​cla​-acl​.ca​/?p​=312.
2013Syntactic change and the cartography of syntactic structures. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), NELS 42: Proceedings of the forty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 1, 129–140. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2014Reductiō ad discrīmen: Where features come from. Nordlyd 41(2). 145–164. Crossref.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, Daniel Currie Hall, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee
2015Investigating the past of the futurate present. Paper presented at DiGS 17, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Cutrer, L. Michelle
1994Time and tense in narrative and in everyday language. University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2009The contrastive hierarchy in phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd 41(2). 165–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes. In David Hart (ed.), English modality in context, 17–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff
2000The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
1993The rise of functional categories (Linguistik Aktuell 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Grammaticalization as economy (Linguistik Aktuell 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Allessandra & Fabio Pianesi
1997Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine
2006Aspects of modality: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie
2001The featural semantics of English modal verbs. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
2007The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
[ p. 95 ]
2011Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1). 1–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel & Christian Elsholtz
2012Feature geometry: Self-destructed. Ms., Queen Mary University of London and Technische Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
1994Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 289–320.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack
1995The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine
1990About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 551–577.Google Scholar
2000The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Lingustic Inquiry 31(2). 231–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans
1992Structural factors in the history of English modals. In Matti Rissa-nen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 287–309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2012Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S.
1989Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred
2000Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyriakaki, Maria
2006The geometry of tense, mood and aspect in Greek. University of Toronto MA thesis.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1971Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, 329–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1992Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith
2009Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1979Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1999The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara
2009Contrast and similarity in consonant harmony processes: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y.
1990The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(3). 1286–1298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
2006Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(4). 673–713.Google Scholar
Morris, Richard
(ed.) [1868] 1969Old English homilies and homiletic treatises of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. New York: Greenwood Press. Originally published in 1868 for the Early English Text Society.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F.
1960A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–442.Google Scholar
[ p. 96 ]
Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius
2008Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistik Aktuell 132), 219–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46(B). 152–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth
2014Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41(1). 103–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko
2009Varieties of INFL: Tense, location, and person. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 153–202. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The composition of INFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 1331–1386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1985Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(1). 21–58.Google Scholar
1993Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2007Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Phases, head movement and second-position effects. In Ángel J. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
2003Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Ščur, G. S.
1968On the non-finite forms of the verb can in Scottish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11(2). 211–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy
2007The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1996On the (non-) universality of functional categories. In Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework (Linguistik Aktuell 12), 253–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1992Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S.
1939Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8.Google Scholar
Vetter, David C.
1973Someone solves this problem tomorrow. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1). 104–108.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
1963–73An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony
1990Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65), 537–557. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
[ p. 97 ]
1993English auxiliaries: Structure and history (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
2009What’s in a determiner and how did it get there? In Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul & Martina Wiltschko (eds.), Determiners: Universals and variation (Linguistik Aktuell 147), 35–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse
2008 Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 29. 125–143.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Cowper, Elizabeth, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Daniel Currie Hall, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee
2019. Illusions of transitive expletives in Middle English. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:3  pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.