Chapter in:
The Perfect Volume: Papers on the perfect
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide and Marc Fryd
[Studies in Language Companion Series 217] 2021
► pp. 262289
References

References

Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian
1989Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, van der Auwera, Johan, Bennis, Hans, Boef, Eefje, De Vogelaer, Gunther & van de Ham, Margreet
2008Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects), Vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans
1985The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 23–65. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in den Besten, Hans 1989 Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2002The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993The syntax of predication. The Linguistic Review 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
van Bree, C.
1981Hebben-constructies en datiefconstructies binnen het Nederlands taalgebied: Een taalgeografisch onderzoek. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
1992Chain-government: Issues in Dutch Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam/HIL.Google Scholar
2007Subject shift and object shift. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 109–141.Google Scholar
2008Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Cornips, Leonie
1994Undative constructions. Linguistics 32: 173–190.Google Scholar
2012The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb. Linguistics 50: 1205–1249.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Corver, Norbert
2015Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert & Vos, Riet
2015Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & van Dijk, Kees
1995The syntactic function of the auxiliary of time. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995, Marcel den Dikken & Kees Hengeveld (eds), 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1981Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie
1994Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie
2008Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. PhD dissertation, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
2013The grammaticalization of the have perfect in Dutch – A corpus study of contextual extension and semantic generalization. Language Sciences 36: 103–112.Google Scholar
2014Lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica 31: 159–191.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duinhoven, A. M.
1985De deelwoorden vroeger en nu. Voortgang 6: 97–138.Google Scholar
1997Middel-Nederlandse syntaxis: Synchroon en diachroon 2. De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Kees
1996Perfect tense and the IPP-effect in early middle Dutch. In Language Change and Generative Grammar, Ellen Brandner & Gisella Ferraresi (eds). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975Logic and conversation. In Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
de Haas, Wim & Trommelen, Mieke
1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, de Rooij, Jaap & van den Toorn, Maarten C.
1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst, 2nd rev. edn. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel
1993On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun
1984Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in Government-binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop
1998Over de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse hulpwerkwoorden. In Eerste Amsterdams colloquium Nederlandse Taalkunde, Wim Klooster, Hans Broekhuis, Els Elffers-Van Ketel & Jan Stroop (eds). Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde.Google Scholar
2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis, Vols. 1 & 2. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1993Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31. Reprinted in Kayne, Richard S. 2000, Parameters and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kern, Johan H.
1912De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ’t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf, Lekakou, Marika & Barbiers, Sjef
2011Perfect doubling. Linguistic Variation 11: 35–75.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1989Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Linguistic Variation and Change 1: 199–244.Google Scholar
Larsson, Ida
2009Participles in Time. The Development of the Perfect Tense in Swedish. PhD dissertation, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen
1977Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 5. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Alexiadou, Artemis
2005Counterfactuals and BE in the history of English. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics 12(1): 272–280.Google Scholar
2006Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English. In Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 97], Jutta Hartmann & László Molnárfi (eds), 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Perfects, resultatives and auxiliaries in earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry: 389–425.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf
1923Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des urnordischen, 4th rev. edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer. archive​.org​/details​/altislndischeu00noreuoft> (2 November 2020).
Paul, Hermann
1902Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein [Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 22, Abt.1]. München: Abhandlungen der Philosophisch-Philologischen Klasse der Königl.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David & Postal, Paul
1977Toward a universal characterization of passivization. Berkeley Linguistics Society 3: 395–417.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1986Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1983The case of the German adjectives. In Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1, Frank Heny & Barry Richards, 223–252. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke
1986Passiefproblemen in oudere taalfasen. Middelnederlands sijn/werden + participium praeteriti en de pendanten in het Gotisch, het Engels en het Duits. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar