Norwegian Discourse Ellipsis

Clausal architecture and licensing conditions

| Norwegian University of Science and Technology
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027200396 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264374 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
This book develops a grammar model which accounts for discourse ellipses in spoken Norwegian. This is a previously unexplored area, which has also been sparsely investigated internationally. The model takes an exoskeletal view, where lexical items are inserted late and where syntactic structure is generated independently of lexical items. Two major questions are addressed. Firstly, is there active syntactic structure in the ellipsis site? Secondly, how are discourse ellipses licensed? It is argued that both structural and semantic restrictions are required to account for the empirical patterns.

Discourse ellipses can be seen as a contextual adaptation. Ellipsis is only possible in certain contexts. The existence of ellipsis may lead to the impression that syntax is partly destroyed. However, the analysis shows that narrow syntax is not affected. The underlying structure stays intact, as the licensing restrictions concern only phonological realization. Hence, the grammar of discourse ellipses is best characterized as an interface phenomenon.
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 2]  2018.  xii, 245 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix
List of abbreviations
xi
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–26
Chapter 2. Null arguments in generative theory
28–49
Chapter 3. Foundations of a grammar model
52–73
Chapter 4. A G-SEMANTIC syntax with insertion slots
76–106
Chapter 5. Silent structure and feature construal
108–135
Chapter 6. Semantic licensing restrictions
138–164
Chapter 7. Structural licensing conditions
166–208
Chapter 8. Concluding remarks
210–215
References
217–230
Appendix
231–243
Index
245
References

References

Adger, David
2003Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor Anders
1995Seeds and functional projections. In Patxi Goenaga (ed.), De grammatica generativa, 139–150. Donostia: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A.
2001Separationism in the functional domain of the clause. In Arthur J. Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, volume 1, 179–189. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
2006Passive and argument structure. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 373–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Do verbs have argument structure? In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument Structure, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. & Kristin M. Eide
2000Subject requirement and predication. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23. 27–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Predication at the interface. In Niina Zhang (ed.), Syntax of predication, 1–25. ZASPIL – ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
2003Norsk generativ syntaks. Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. & Karumuri V. Subbarao
. (forthcoming). Models of grammar and the outcomes of long-term language contact. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU.
Aitchison, Jean
2003Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian & Frank Heny
1975An Introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Albrecht, Lobke
2010The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. L.
1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avrutin, Sergey
2006Weak syntax. In Yosef Grodzinsky & Katrin Amunts (eds.), Broca’s region, 49–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1964An introduction to transformational grammars. New York & London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1997Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barstad, Åse K.
2000Salmers syntaktiske struktur – En analyse av leddstillingen i norske salmevers. M.A. thesis NTNU.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen L.
1998The grammar of telegraphic structures. Sentential and nonsentential derivation. Journal of English Linguistics 26(1). 37–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaney, Michael
1997The Frege reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans
1983On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Werner Abraham (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1992Understanding utterances. An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
1997La notion de variation syntaxique dans la langue parlée. Langue française 115(1). 19–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2003Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanation: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In John C. Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 31–67. Chicago: CSLI publications and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2005aStructuring sense volume I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005bStructuring sense volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio
2006Coordinated adjectives and the interpretation of number features. In Laura Brugè (ed.), Studies in Spanish Syntax, 47–60. Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis
1995The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
2001Predication. In Baltin, Mark & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Margareta et al.
1992Satztyp, satzmodus und illokution. In Inger Rosengren (ed.), Satz und illokution 1, 1–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brazil, David
1995A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W.
1971Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47(2). 257–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bromberg, Hilary S. & Kenneth Wexler
1995Null subjects in wh-questions. In Carston T. Schütze et al. (eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition, 221–248. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brøseth, Heidi
2007A neo-constructional approach to computer-oriented talk. Ph.D. dissertation. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso
1996The brain’s dictionary. Nature 380. 485–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Alfonso
1990Subject/object asymmetries in German null-topic constructions and the status of spec CP . In Joan Mascarò & Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress, 75–84. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs McCarthy, Andrew
1999The origins of complex language: An inquiry into the evolutionary beginnings of sentences, syllables, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy
1995Grammar and spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2). 141–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 22–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz
1987Properties of spoken and written language. In Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language, 83–113. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Wynn
1987On ellipsis. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
2005Syntactic variation and spoken language. In Leonie Cornips and Karen Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1964Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
1981aLectures on government and binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1981bMarkedness and core grammar. In Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference,123–146. Pisa: Scuola normale superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
1986aKnowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport & London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
1986bBarriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000aNew horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000bMinimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000cThe architecture of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstovicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures & beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,133–166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Eve E. Clark
1977Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Suan E. Haviland
1977Comprehension and the givenness contract. In Roy Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
de Clercq, Karen
2009Fonologische deletie in ja-neevraagfragmenten. In Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, volume LXII. 5–14.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
1991Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Cecilia Poletto
2005On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115. 939–957. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Tim
1990The language of thought: No syntax without semantics. Mind & Language 5(3). 187–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
1976Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics, 153–166. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1987The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2008Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 6th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff
2005Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, & Fernando C.N. Pereira
1991Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Hanna et al.
1996A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380. 499–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2001“Pluringulars,” pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18. 19–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1989On the semantic content of the notion `thematic role'. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning Volume 2: Semantic issues, 69–130. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David, Robert Wall, & Stanley Peters
1981Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dyrland, Eyvind
1973Noen syntaktiske trekk i norske avisoverskrifter. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin M.
1998Som-Predicatives: Exploring the predication operator. In Timo Haukioja (ed.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian conference of linguistics, 64–74. Laskut: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Eide Kristin M. & Tor A. Åfarli
1999aSemantically charged syntax and the construction of meaning. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 6(1). 111–126.Google Scholar
1999bThe syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53. 153–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Flerspråklighet – en utfordring for det generative rammeverket? – Om dialektsyntaks og parallelle grammatikker. In Torben Arboe (ed.), Nordisk dialektologi og sosiolingvistikk. Foredrag på 8. Nordiske Dialektologikonference. Århus 15.-18. august 2006, 126–135. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
Elugardo, Reinaldo & Robert Stainton
2005Ellipsis and nonsentential speech: Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David
2010Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer
2001Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Distributed morphology and the syntax morphologyinterface. In Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet
2012Optional expletive subjects in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35. 99–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. & Daniel Seely
(eds.) 2002Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007Information structure : the syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam
2007Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3). 269–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Robert May
1994Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1988The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. BLS 14. 35–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. et al.
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin M.
2006Deletion through movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 399–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fjeldstad, Marte
2000Drept av krimliga. En syntaktisk og pragmatisk analyse av fragmentariske avisoverskrifter i norsk. Master’s thesis, INL, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry
1998Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry & Ernest Lepore
2002The compositionality papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Howard Lasnik
2003Successive cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 143–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2007Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ronald Hinterhölzl
2007Types of topics in German and Italian. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton
1998Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 499–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax 8:2. 121–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1879Begriffsschrift: eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle.Google Scholar
Freiermuth, Mark R.
2011Debating in an online world: A comparative analysis of speaking, writing and online chat. Text & Talk 31(2). 127–151 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert
1992Foundations of generative syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn
1967Comments on Stenius’s ‘mood and language-game’. Synthese 17. 275–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael et al.
2002Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2013Null subjects in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2). 271–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1983Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givón (ed.), Topic continuityin discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 343–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila
1990The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1. 3–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work – The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Patricia M. and Kaveri Subrahmanyam
2003Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 24(6). 713–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimstad, Maren B., Terje Lohndal & Tor A. Åfarli
2014Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: A case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. Nordlyd 41. 213–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimstad, Maren B. et al.
. (forthcoming) Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU.
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1974The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Gynnild, Astrid
1988Dagspressens visuelle kommunikasjon. En analyse av tekst, bilder og layout i Adresseavisen, Dagbladet, Ekstra Bladet og Politiken 1970 og 1987. Master’s thesis, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1987Register variation in English: some theoretical observations. Journal of English Linguistics 20. 230–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua 9. 157–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1994Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1997Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and French. English Language and Linguistics 1. 233–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In Marc-Ariel Friedemann & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics, 129–169. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2007Subject omission in present-day written English. On the theoretical relevance of peripheral data. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 32. 91–124.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron
1999English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Tabea Ihsane
1999Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(1). 117–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Adult null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9(4). 329–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Marjo van Koppen
2012Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T0 . Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 441–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken . & Samuel J. Keyser
1993On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris . & Alec Marantz
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1967Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanssen, Eskil et al.
1978 Oslomål. Prosjektbeskrivelse og syntaktisk analyse av oslomål med henblikk på sosiale skilnader. Talemålsundersøkelsen i Oslo (TAUS). Skrift nr. 6. Hovedrapport. Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
Hanssen, Eskil
1983Avbrutte setninger i talemål. Talemålsundersøkelsen i Oslo (TAUS). Skrift nr. 10. Oslo: Novus forlag As.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel
1993Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Ph.D. dissertation University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer
1999Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4(4). 3–9.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars
1988Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Petra & Jennifer Spenader
2005Why be silent? Some functions of ellipsis in natural language. In Jennifer Spenader & Petra Hendriks (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2005 workshop on Cross-Modular Approaches to Ellipsis, 29–36. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1991Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1961Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & René Mulder
1990Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic review 7. 1–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
1986Word order and syntactic features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack
1995The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1998Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language, 155–175. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes K. Grohmann
2005Understandin minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1984On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–574.Google Scholar
1989 Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
1995On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics 33. 1081–1123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Rebecca, Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy
1995Discourse context as a predictor of grammatical choice. In David Graddol & Stephen Thomas (eds.), Language in a changing Europe, 47–54. Clevedon: BAAL/Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1971Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D.
1985Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8. 437–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi
1996Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 661–676.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi & Fredrik Jørgensen
2006Annotating and parsing spoken language. In Peter J. Henrichsen & Peter R. Skadhauge (eds.), Treebanking for discourse and speech, 83–103. København: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle
2001What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög
2006Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish – independent but interacting dimensions. Lingua 116(9). 1346–1368.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie
2004Gestures as expletives: Multichannel syntax. In Gina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), WCCFL 23 Proceedings, 104–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel and James H. Martin
2000Speech and language processing : an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H. Martin
2009Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal
1964An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
2003Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structure, 29–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Anthony
1995Frege: An introduction to the founder of modern analytic philosophy. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha
2010The cartography of phases. Facts and inference in Meiteilon. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Virginia Hill (eds.), Edges, heads, and projections: Interface properties, 233–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin
1994Sentence structure and word order. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The Syntactic structure of Hungarian, 1–90. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu
1997Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo
2005One probe - two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan
1975Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1. 111–136.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelina
1996Severing the external argument from the verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
2000Syntactic structures revisited. Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005Review of Jason Merchant: The syntax of silence. Language 81. 259–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010On ellipsis: Is material that is phonetically absent but semantically present or absent syntactically? In Hans Götzche (ed.), Memory, mind and language, 221–242. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Tim Stowell
1991Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2000Same grammar or different grammar? Contrasting approaches to the grammar of spoken English discourse. In Srikant Sarangi & Malcolm Coulthard (eds.), Discourse and social life, 48–65. Cornwall: Longman.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
2005Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1976General semantics. In Barbara H. Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 1–50. New York, San Fransisco & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2008 Tur och ordning . Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
1988The impact of literacy on the conception of language: The case of linguistics. In Roger Saljö (ed.), The written world, 41–58. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005En dialogisk grammatik? In Jan Anward & Bengt Nordberg (eds.), Samtal Och grammatik. Studier i svenskt samtalsspråk, 231–328. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
1995Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje
2012Without specifiers: Phrase structure and events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje & Paul Pietroski
2011Interrogatives, instructions, and I-languages: An i-semantics for questions. Linguistic Analysis 37. 458–515.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1991Case and licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL’91) , 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
1997No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis et al.(eds.), Pennsylvanian Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael
1998Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James
1968The role of semantics in a grammar. In Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
McShane, Marjorie
2005A theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6). 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Three types of ellipsis. In Francois Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic & Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, 141–195. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2013Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman (eds), A Handbook of ellipsis, 1–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://​home​.uchicago​.edu​/~merchant​/pubs​/ellipsis​.revised​.pdf [Accessed August 2016]Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2005 VP anaphora and verb-second order in Danish. Journal of Linguistics 51. 595–643. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim
1995Does spoken language have sentences? In Frank R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning. Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 116–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Spoken and written English. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 670–691. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert
1998Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2010Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria
1991Das TOPIK im Deutschen und im Ungarischen [Topic in German and Hungarian]. (Lunder germanistische Forchungen 58). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
2009On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 35–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler
2014Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1/2). 89–112.Google Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria
2002V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna J.
1982Initial material deletion. Glossa 16. 85–111.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
1983Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
1995The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
2001Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 303–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011The copy theory. In Cédric Boeck (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic minimalism, 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nygård, Mari
2004Talespråkssyntaks. En analyse av elliptiske konstruksjoner i talespråk. MA thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).Google Scholar
2011Architecture of grammar and phi-feature valuing in clause-initial discourse ellipses. In Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska & Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk (eds.), On words and sounds. A selection of papers from the 40th PLM, 2009. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nygård, Mari, Kristin M. Eide & Tor A. Åfarli
2008Ellipsens syntaktiske struktur. In Janne Bondi Johannessen & Kristin Hagen (eds.), Språk i Oslo. Ny forskning omkring talespråk, 172–183. Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
Nygård, Mari and Tor A. Åfarli
2015On the structure of gender assignment. Indian Linguistics 76 (1–2). 2015: 67–76.Google Scholar
Palmer, Harold E.
1924A grammar of spoken English on a strictly phonetic basis. Cambridge: Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin
1996Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics & Philology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer
1996Germanic verb second languages – attract vs. repel: On optimaility, A-bar movement and the symmetrical/asymmetrical verb second hypothesis. In Ewald Lang & Gisela Zifonum (eds.), Deutsch–typologisch, 92–120. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1998aSvenskans inre grammatik – det minimalistiska programmet. En introduction till modern generativ grammatik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
1998bA visibility condition for the C-domain. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61. 53–97.Google Scholar
2000Multiple interfaces. In Emile van der Zee & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces: Constraints on linking cognitive information, 21–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010Den fantastiska grammatiken. En minimalistisk beskrivning av svenskan. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
2012Towards a minimal argument structure. Ms. Lund University. Available from: http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001409. [Accessed May 2012]Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Inger Rosengren
1998On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 177–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1981Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana et al.
2006 The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives [Linguistik Aktuell 93]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph et al.
1972A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1981Transformational syntax. A student’s guide to Chomsky’s extended standard theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004Minimalist syntax: exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C.
2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith & Charles Clifton
2009Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event related potential research. Biological Psychology 80(1). 4–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
2002The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric J.
2011Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D.
2007On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 563–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Arhonto Terzi
1995Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31(2). 301–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1986Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501–557.Google Scholar
1991Proper head government and the definition of A-positions. GLOW Newsletter 26. 46–47.Google Scholar
1994Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Teun Hoekstra & Bonnie D. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 151–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ian Roberts
1996Complex inversion in French. In Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, 91–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberge, Yves
1991On the Recoverability of Null Objects. InD. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds.) New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 299–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2007Introduction. In Ian Roberts (ed.), Comparative grammar: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol 2(The Null Subject Parameter). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roeper, Tom
1999Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism 2. 169–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik
1995Discourse identification of non-canonical empty categories. An inquiry into the typology of empty categories. Ms. University of Lund.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1968Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1982 Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur & Höskuldur Thráinsson
1990On Icelandic word order once more. In Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 3–40. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan
1976Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow
1999Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge
1994Talesyntaks og dialektsyntaks. In Helge Sandøy & Ivar Utne (eds.), Helsing til Lars Vassenden på 70-årsdagen, Johan Myking, 195–206. Nordisk Institutt: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Paul Elbourne
2002Total reconstruction, pf movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2). 283–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Peter A.M.
1998Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur
1994Agreement in comp . The Linguistic Review 11. 351–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurdsson, Halldór Ármann
1989Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
2004aMeaningful silence, meaningless sounds. In Pierre Pica et al.. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2004, 235–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
2004bThe syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16. 219–251.Google Scholar
2011Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 267–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. & Joan Maling
2010The empty left edge condition. In Michael Putnam (ed.), Exploring crash-proof grammars, 59–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1995Relevance. Communication & Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert J.
2006Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason
2000Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 391–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenius, Erik
1967Mood and language-game. Synthese 17. 254–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1995Underspecification and markedness. In John Goldsmith et al. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 114–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1981Origins of phrase structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Straumann, Heinrich
1935Newspaper headlines. A study in linguistic method. Woking: Unwin Brothers Ltd.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick
1964Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30. 96–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1971Identifying reference and truth-values. In Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovitz (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader, 86–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1974Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sullet-Nylander, Françoise
1998Le titre de presse. Analyses syntaxtique, pragmatique et rhétorique. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2004On the edge. In David Adger, Cécile de Cat & George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Spanning. Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø. Available from: http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001501 [Accessed July 2012]
Tallerman, Maggie
2006Challenging the syllabic model of ‘syntax-as-it-is’. Lingua 116 (5). 689–709.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
1986 Som and the binding theory. In Lars Hellan & Kirsti Koch-Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax, 149–184. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf
1983Har tal- och skriftspråk olika grammatiker. Nordlund 3, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lund University: 3–23.Google Scholar
Tesak, Jürgen & Jürgen Dittmann
1991Telegraphic style in normal and aphasics. Linguistics 29. 1111–1137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1996On the (non-)universality of functional categories. In Werner Abraham et al. (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework , 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence
1993A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa
1984Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1991Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 339–364. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsao, Feng-fu
1977A functional study of topic in Chinese: the first step towards discourse analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1999Multiple spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vinet, Marie Thérèse
1993L’aspect et la copule vide dans la grammaire des titres. Langue Francaise. 83–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatic
2003The many faces of agreement. The Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen
1992Null subjects in early grammars: Implications for parameter setting theory. In Jürgen Weissenborn, Helen Goodluck & Tom Roeper (eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition, 269–299. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit & Øystein A. Vangsnes
2005.WH-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8. 119–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiggen, Geirr
1986Utelatelse av setningsledd. In Eskil Hanssen et al.(eds.), Artikler 1–4. Talemålsundersøkelsen i Oslo (Taus). Skrift 1–4, 69–125. Oslo: Novus forlag As.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1980Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1922 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by R. Ogden. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
1953Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaela & Paul Portner
2003Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1). 39–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter
1997Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Empirical sources

BigBrother-korpuset (The BigBrother Corpus), Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
Bross, H. & Ilves, K.
2009Nye bestevenner. Oslo: Omnipax.Google Scholar
Fielding, H.
1996Bridget Jones’s Diary. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
1998Le journal de Bridget Jones. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Fielding, H.
2001Bridget Jones’ dagbok. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Nesbø, J.
2008Doktor Proktors tidsbadekar. Kanskje. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen (NoTa-Oslo: Norwegian Speech Corpus – the Oslo part), Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
Lindstad, Arne Martinus; Nøklestad, Anders; Johannessen, Janne Bondi; Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander
2009The Nordic Dialect Database: Mapping Microsyntactic Variation in the Scandinavian Languages. In Jokinen, Kristiina and Eckhard Bick (eds): NEALT Proceedings Series; Volum 4.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Norwegian Verb Particles [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 4], Crossref logo
Eide, Kristin Melum & Tor A. Åfarli
2020. Dialects, registers and intraindividual variation: Outside the scope of generative frameworks?. Nordic Journal of Linguistics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 december 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017055477 | Marc record