Cover not available
Part of
Norwegian Discourse Ellipsis: Clausal architecture and licensing conditions
Mari Nygård
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 2] 2018
► pp. 217–230

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor Anders. 1995. Seeds and functional projections. In Patxi Goenaga (ed.), De grammatica generativa, 139–150. Donostia: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. 2001. Separationism 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
2006. Passive and argument structure. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 373–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Do verbs have argument structure? In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument Structure, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. & Kristin M. Eide. 2000. Subject requirement and predication. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23. 27–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Predication at the interface. In Niina Zhang (ed.), Syntax of predication, 1–25. ZASPIL – ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
. 2003. Norsk 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. 2003. Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian & Frank Heny. 1975. An Introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Albrecht, Lobke. 2010. The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avrutin, Sergey. 2006. Weak syntax. In Yosef Grodzinsky & Katrin Amunts (eds.), Broca’s region, 49–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1964. An introduction to transformational grammars. New York & London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barstad, Åse K. 2000. Salmers syntaktiske struktur – En analyse av leddstillingen i norske salmevers. M.A. thesis NTNU.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen L. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures. Sentential and nonsentential derivation. Journal of English Linguistics 26(1). 37–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaney, Michael. 1997. The Frege reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 1992. Understanding utterances. An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1997. La notion de variation syntaxique dans la langue parlée. Langue française 115(1). 19–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-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
. 2005a. Structuring sense volume I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring sense volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 2006. Coordinated 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. 1995. The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
. 2001. Predication. In Baltin, Mark & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Margareta et al.. 1992. Satztyp, satzmodus und illokution. In Inger Rosengren (ed.), Satz und illokution 1, 1–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47(2). 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromberg, Hilary S. & Kenneth Wexler. 1995. Null 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 2007. A neo-constructional approach to computer-oriented talk. Ph.D. dissertation. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso. 1996. The brain’s dictionary. Nature 380. 485–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Alfonso. 1990. Subject/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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs McCarthy, Andrew. 1999. The origins of complex language: An inquiry into the evolutionary beginnings of sentences, syllables, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 1995. Grammar and spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2). 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 22–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz. 1987. Properties 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. 1987. On ellipsis. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
. 1981a. Lectures on government and binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1981b. Markedness 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
. 1986a. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport & London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000a. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Minimalist 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
. 2000c. The architecture of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstovicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures & beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Eve E. Clark. 1977. Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Suan E. Haviland. 1977. Comprehension and the givenness contract. In Roy Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
de Clercq, Karen. 2009. Fonologische 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. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Cecilia Poletto. 2005. On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115. 939–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crane, Tim. 1990. The language of thought: No syntax without semantics. Mind & Language 5(3). 187–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1976. Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics, 153–166. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 6th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, & Fernando C.N. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Hanna et al.. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380. 499–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. “Pluringulars,” pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18. 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1989. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David, Robert Wall, & Stanley Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dyrland, Eyvind. 1973. Noen syntaktiske trekk i norske avisoverskrifter. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin M. 1998. Som-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. 1999a. Semantically charged syntax and the construction of meaning. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 6(1). 111–126.Google Scholar
. 1999b. The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53. 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Flerspråklighet – 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. 2005. Ellipsis and nonsentential speech: Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Distributed 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. 2012. Optional expletive subjects in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35. 99–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. & Daniel Seely. (eds.). 2002. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure : the syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2007. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3). 269–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. BLS 14. 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. et al.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin M. 2006. Deletion through movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 399–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fjeldstad, Marte. 2000. Drept 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. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry & Ernest Lepore. 2002. The compositionality papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Howard Lasnik. 2003. Successive cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 143–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ronald Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton. 1998. Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 499–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax 8:2. 121–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1879. Begriffsschrift: eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle.Google Scholar
Freiermuth, Mark R. 2011. Debating in an online world: A comparative analysis of speaking, writing and online chat. Text & Talk 31(2). 127–151 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1992. Foundations of generative syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn. 1967. Comments on Stenius’s ‘mood and language-game’. Synthese 17. 275–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael et al.. 2002. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2013. Null subjects in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2). 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givón (ed.), Topic continuityin discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 343–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1. 3–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work – The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Patricia M. and Kaveri Subrahmanyam. 2003. Online 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimstad, Maren B., Terje Lohndal & Tor A. Åfarli. 2014. Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: A case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. Nordlyd 41. 213–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimstad, Maren B. et al.. (forthcoming) Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU.DOI logo
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Gynnild, Astrid. 1988. Dagspressens 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. 1987. Register variation in English: some theoretical observations. Journal of English Linguistics 20. 230–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua 9. 157–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1997. Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and French. English Language and Linguistics 1. 233–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Adult 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
. 2007. Subject 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. 1999. English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Tabea Ihsane. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(1). 117–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Adult null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9(4). 329–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Marjo van Koppen. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T0 . Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 441–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken. & Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On 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
. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed 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. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Spoken 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. 1983. Avbrutte setninger i talemål. Talemålsundersøkelsen i Oslo (TAUS). Skrift nr. 10. Oslo: Novus forlag As.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Ph.D. dissertation University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4(4). 3–9.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Petra & Jennifer Spenader. 2005. Why 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. 1991. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic review 7. 1–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent 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. 2005. Understandin minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James 1984. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1995. On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics 33. 1081–1123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Rebecca, Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy. 1995. Discourse 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. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8. 437–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 661–676.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi & Fredrik Jørgensen. 2006. Annotating 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. 2001. What 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2006. Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish – independent but interacting dimensions. Lingua 116(9). 1346–1368.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2004. Gestures 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. 2000. Speech 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. 2009. Speech 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. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2003. Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structure, 29–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. 1995. Frege: An introduction to the founder of modern analytic philosophy. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2010. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Sentence 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. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe - two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1. 111–136.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelina. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2000. Syntactic structures revisited. Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Review of Jason Merchant: The syntax of silence. Language 81. 259–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. On 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. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Same 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. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1976. General semantics. In Barbara H. Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 1–50. New York, San Fransisco & London: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning . Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 1988. The impact of literacy on the conception of language: The case of linguistics. In Roger Saljö (ed.), The written world, 41–58. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. En dialogisk grammatik? In Jan Anward & Bengt Nordberg (eds.), Samtal Och grammatik. Studier i svenskt samtalsspråk, 231–328. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2012. Without specifiers: Phrase structure and events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje & Paul Pietroski. 2011. Interrogatives, instructions, and I-languages: An i-semantics for questions. Linguistic Analysis 37. 458–515.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case 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
. 1997. No 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. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. The 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. 2005. A theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6). 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Three types of ellipsis. In Francois Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic & Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, 141–195. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman (eds), A Handbook of ellipsis, 1–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL] [Accessed August 2016]Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. VP anaphora and verb-second order in Danish. Journal of Linguistics 51. 595–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1995. Does 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Spoken and written English. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 670–691. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1991. Das TOPIK im Deutschen und im Ungarischen [Topic in German and Hungarian]. (Lunder germanistische Forchungen 58). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2009. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 35–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1/2). 89–112.Google Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria. 2002. V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna J. 1982. Initial material deletion. Glossa 16. 85–111.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1983. Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 303–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. The copy theory. In Cédric Boeck (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic minimalism, 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nygård, Mari. 2004. Talespråkssyntaks. En analyse av elliptiske konstruksjoner i talespråk. MA thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).Google Scholar
. 2011. Architecture 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. 2008. Ellipsens 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. 2015. On the structure of gender assignment. Indian Linguistics 76 (1–2). 2015: 67–76.Google Scholar
Palmer, Harold E. 1924. A grammar of spoken English on a strictly phonetic basis. Cambridge: Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics & Philology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1996. Germanic 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
. 1998a. Svenskans inre grammatik – det minimalistiska programmet. En introduction till modern generativ grammatik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
. 1998b. A visibility condition for the C-domain. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61. 53–97.Google Scholar
. 2000. Multiple interfaces. In Emile van der Zee & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces: Constraints on linking cognitive information, 21–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Den fantastiska grammatiken. En minimalistisk beskrivning av svenskan. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
. 2012. Towards a minimal argument structure. Ms. Lund University. Available from: [URL]. [Accessed May 2012]Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Inger Rosengren. 1998. On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 177–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph et al.. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational syntax. A student’s guide to Chomsky’s extended standard theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Minimalist syntax: exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith & Charles Clifton. 2009. Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event related potential research. Biological Psychology 80(1). 4–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric J. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Arhonto Terzi. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31(2). 301–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501–557.Google Scholar
. 1991. Proper head government and the definition of A-positions. GLOW Newsletter 26. 46–47.Google Scholar
. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Teun Hoekstra & Bonnie D. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 151–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ian Roberts. 1996. Complex 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. 1991. On the Recoverability of Null Objects. InD. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds.) New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 299–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Introduction. In Ian Roberts (ed.), Comparative grammar: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol 2(The Null Subject Parameter). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roeper, Tom. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism 2. 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik. 1995. Discourse identification of non-canonical empty categories. An inquiry into the typology of empty categories. Ms. University of Lund.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1968. Constraints 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. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 3–40. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 1994. Talesyntaks 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. 2002. Total reconstruction, pf movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2). 283–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Peter A.M. 1998. Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in comp . The Linguistic Review 11. 351–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurdsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004a. Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. In Pierre Pica et al.. (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2004, 235–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2004b. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16. 219–251.Google Scholar
2011. Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 267–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. & Joan Maling. 2010. The empty left edge condition. In Michael Putnam (ed.), Exploring crash-proof grammars, 59–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication & Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert J. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenius, Erik. 1967. Mood and language-game. Synthese 17. 254–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In John Goldsmith et al. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 114–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Straumann, Heinrich. 1935. Newspaper headlines. A study in linguistic method. Woking: Unwin Brothers Ltd.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30. 96–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. Identifying reference and truth-values. In Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovitz (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader, 86–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1974. Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sullet-Nylander, Françoise. 1998. Le titre de presse. Analyses syntaxtique, pragmatique et rhétorique. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In David Adger, Cécile de Cat & George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Spanning. Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø. Available from: [URL] [Accessed July 2012]
Tallerman, Maggie. 2006. Challenging the syllabic model of ‘syntax-as-it-is’. Lingua 116 (5). 689–709.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1983. Har tal- och skriftspråk olika grammatiker. Nordlund 3, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lund University: 3–23.Google Scholar
Tesak, Jürgen & Jürgen Dittmann. 1991. Telegraphic style in normal and aphasics. Linguistics 29. 1111–1137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1993. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1991. Parameters 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 1977. A functional study of topic in Chinese: the first step towards discourse analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vinet, Marie Thérèse. 1993. L’aspect et la copule vide dans la grammaire des titres. Langue Francaise. 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatic. 2003. The many faces of agreement. The Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1992. Null 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggen, Geirr. 1986. Utelatelse 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. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by R. Ogden. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaela & Paul Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1). 39–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Empirical sources
BigBrother-korpuset (The BigBrother Corpus), Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. [URL]
Bross, H. & Ilves, K. 2009. Nye bestevenner. Oslo: Omnipax.Google Scholar
Fielding, H. 1996. Bridget Jones’s Diary. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le journal de Bridget Jones. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Fielding, H. 2001. Bridget Jones’ dagbok. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Nesbø, J. 2008. Doktor Proktors tidsbadekar. Kanskje. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen (NoTa-Oslo: Norwegian Speech Corpus – the Oslo part), Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. [URL]
Lindstad, Arne Martinus; Nøklestad, Anders; Johannessen, Janne Bondi; Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2009. The Nordic Dialect Database: Mapping Microsyntactic Variation in the Scandinavian Languages. In Jokinen, Kristiina and Eckhard Bick (eds): NEALT Proceedings Series; Volum 4.Google Scholar