Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 16 June 2021

(p. 692) (p. 693) References

(p. 692) (p. 693) References

Aarts, Bas (1998). ‘English binominal noun phrases.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 117–58.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2001). ‘Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments’, in Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt (eds), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 5–13.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2005). ‘Subordination’, in Keith Brown (ed), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. (vol. 12). Oxford: Elsevier, 248–55.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2007a). Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2007b). ‘In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft.’ Studies in Language. 31: 431–43.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2012). ‘The subjunctive conundrum in English.’ Folia Linguistica 46(1): 1–20.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas (2018). English Syntax and Argumentation, 5th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas, and Liliane Haegeman (2006). ‘English word classes and phrases’, in Bas Aarts and April MacMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 117–45.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas, and Sean Wallis (2014). ‘Noun phrase simplicity in spoken English’, in Ludmila Veselovská and Markéta Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There (Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure). Olomouc: Palacký University, 501–11.

Aarts, Bas, Sylvia Chalker, and Edmund Weiner (2014). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close, and Sean Wallis (2013). ‘Choices over time: Methodological issues in current change’, in Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, and Sean Wallis (eds), The Verb Phrase in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–45.Find this resource:

Aarts, Bas, David Denison, Evelien Keizer, and Gergana Popova (eds) (2004). Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aarts, Flor, and Jan Aarts (1988). English Syntactic Structures. New York/Leiden: Prentice Hall and Martinus Nijhoff (First published in 1982 by Pergamon Press).Find this resource:

Abney, Steven P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis.Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch (2004). ‘Topic and Focus within D’, in Linguistics in the Netherlands 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–12.Find this resource:

Abraham, Werner (1998). ‘The aspectual source of the epistemic-root distinction of modal verbs’, in Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, and Wolfgang Wildgen (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Becher [Band 2: Beiträge zur Empirischen Sprachwissenschaft]. Tübingen: G. Narr, 231–49.Find this resource:

Abraham, Werner, and Elisabeth Leiss (eds) (2008). Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

(p. 694) Achard, Michel (2001). ‘The syntax of French raising verbs’, in Alan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka, and Michael B. Smith (eds), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–26.Find this resource:

Achard, Michel (2007). ‘Complementation’, in Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 782–802.Find this resource:

Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer (1994). ‘The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface.’ Lingua, 93: 59–90.Find this resource:

Ackerman, Farrell, Gregory T. Stump, and Gert Webelhuth (2011). ‘Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology’, in Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars (eds), Nontransformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 325–58.Find this resource:

Acquaviva, Paolo, and Phoevos Panagiotidis (2012). ‘Lexical decomposition meets conceptual atomism.’ Lingue e Linguaggio 11: 105–20.Find this resource:

Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos (1996). The Puzzle of Apposition: On So-called Appositive Structures in English. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Find this resource:

Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos (2009). ‘Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase.’ English Language and Linguistics 13(3): 453–81.Find this resource:

Ades, Anthony E., and Mark Steedman (1982). ‘On the order of words.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4): 517–58.Find this resource:

Adger, David (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Adger, David (2013). A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Åfarli, Tor A. (2007). ‘Do verbs have argument structure?’, in Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Giorgos Spathas (eds), Argument Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–16.Find this resource:

Ágel, Vilmos (2000). Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Find this resource:

Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2003). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Find this resource:

Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2006). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 2. Halbband/Volume 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Find this resource:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and R. M. W. Dixon (eds) (2006). Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Ainsworth-Darnell, Kim, Harvey G. Shulman, and Julie E. Boland (1998). ‘Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: Evidence from event-related potentials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 38: 112–30.Find this resource:

Aitchison, Jean (1991). Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1935). ‘Die syntaktische Konnexität.’ Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27. Translated as Ajdukiewicz (1967).Find this resource:

Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1967). ‘Syntactic connexion’, in McCall Storrs (ed), Polish Logic, 1920–1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 207–231. Translation of Ajdukiewicz (1935).Find this resource:

(p. 695) Akmajian, Adrian, and Adrienne Lehrer (1976). ‘NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP.’ Linguistic Analysis 2(4): 395–413.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis (2010a). ‘Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar. Part I: the nominalization puzzle.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 496–511.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis (2010b). ‘Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar. Part II: the aspectual properties of nominalizations, and the lexicon vs. syntax debate.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 512–23.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis (2015). ‘Syntax and the lexicon’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Verlag, 1089–1127.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Monika Rathert, and Arnim von Stechow (eds) (2003). Perfect Explorations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Allan, Keith (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Allan, Keith, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Allen, Margaret Rees (1978). Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. thesis. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Find this resource:

Allerton, D. J. (1978). ‘The notion of “givenness” and its relation to presupposition and to theme.’ Lingua 44: 133–68.Find this resource:

Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English Verb. London/New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Allott, Stephen (1991). Lindley Murray 1745–1826. York: Sessions Book Trust.Find this resource:

Allwood, Jens, Lars-Gunnar Andersson, and Östen Dahl (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Al-Mutairi, Fahad Rashed (2014). The Minimalist Program: The Nature and Plausibility of Chomsky’s Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria, and Paul Dekker (eds) (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Alston, R. C. (1965). A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800. Vol. 1. English Grammars Written in English. Leeds: E. J. Arnold.Find this resource:

Alston, William (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Find this resource:

Anderson, John. M. (2006). ‘Structural analogy and universal grammar.’ Lingua, 116: 601–33.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. (2015). ‘The morpheme: Its nature and use’, in Matthew Baerman (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–34.Find this resource:

Anderwald, Lieselotte (2002). Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Anderwald, Lieselotte (2004). ‘The varieties of English spoken in the Southeast of England: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 175–95.Find this resource:

Anderwald, Lieselotte (2012). ‘Negation in Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, 299–328.Find this resource:

(p. 696) Anderwald, Lieselotte, and Bernd Kortmann (2013). ‘Typological methods in dialectology’, in Manfred Krug and Julia Schlüter (eds), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313–33.Find this resource:

Andreou, Marios, and Angela Ralli (2012). ‘Revisiting exocentricity in compounding’, in Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi, and Péter Siptár (eds), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 65–82.Find this resource:

Andrews, Avery D. (1988). ‘Lexical structure’, in Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60–88.Find this resource:

Andrews, Avery D. (2010). ‘Propositional glue and the architecture of LFG.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 33(3): 141–70.Find this resource:

Anonymous (1785). The Art of Teaching in Sport. London: John Marshall.Find this resource:

Anthony, Laurence (2005). ‘AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom’, in: Proceedings of IPCC 2005, 729–37.Find this resource:

Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Yu Cho (1998). ‘Variation and change in optimality theory.’ Lingua, 104, 31–56.Find this resource:

Arbini, Ronald (1969). ‘Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English.’ Journal of Linguistics 5: 205–14.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2009). ‘Discourse, grammar, discourse.’ Discourse Studies 11(1): 5–36.Find this resource:

Arnauld, Antoine, and Claude Lancelot (1660). Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée. Paris: Pierre le Petit.Find this resource:

Arnold, Doug, and Andrew Spencer (2015). ‘A constructional analysis for the skeptical’, in Stefan Müller (ed), Proceedings of the HPSG22 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 41–60.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E., Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom (2000). ‘Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering.’ Language 76: 28–55.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark, and Mark Lindsay (2014). ‘Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash (2004). Resumption as Resource Management. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash (2005a). ‘Control and semantic resource sensitivity.’ Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash (2005b). ‘Relational nouns, pronouns, and resumption.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 28(4): 375–446.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash (2006). ‘Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG’, in Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 363–87.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash, and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012). ‘Flexible composition for optional and derived arguments’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 64–84.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘With lexical integrity.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 175–86.Find this resource:

(p. 697) Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2013). ‘Constructions with lexical integrity.’ Journal of Language Modelling 1(1): 1–54.Find this resource:

Asudeh, Ash, Gianluca Giorgolo, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘Meaning and valency’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornillie (eds) (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Find this resource:

Atkinson, Dwight (1992). ‘The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal.’ Applied Linguistics 13: 337–74.Find this resource:

Atkinson, Dwight (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay David (2004). ‘Presupposition’, in Horn and Ward (2004), 29–52.Find this resource:

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bach, Emmon (1976). ‘An extension of classical transformational grammar’, in Problems of Linguistic Metatheory, 183–224. Michigan State University. Proceedings of the 1976 Conference.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1994). ‘Conversational impliciture.’ Mind and Language 9(2): 124–62.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2000). ‘Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 262–83.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2010). ‘Impliciture vs. explicature: What’s the difference?’, in Belén Soria and Esther Romero (eds), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 126–37.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent, and Robert M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett (2005). The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baeskow, Heike (2015). ‘Semantic restrictions on word-formation: The English sufffix -ee’, in Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of the World, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 932–44.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. (2003). Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Paul, and Erez Levon (2015). ‘Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpus-based and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity.’ Discourse and Communication 9(2): 221–36.Find this resource:

Baker, Robert G., and Philip T. Smith (1976). ‘A psycholinguistic study of English stress assignment rules.’ Language and Speech, 19: 9–27.Find this resource:

Barber, Charles (1993). The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bard, Ellen Gurman, Dan Robertson, and Antonella Sorace (1996). ‘Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability.’ Language 72: 32–68.Find this resource:

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1953). ‘A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description.’ Language 29(1): 47–58.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (1992). ‘The dynamics of vagueness.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1–36.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (1998). ‘Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on a new word formation.’ Language, 74: 695–727.Find this resource:

(p. 698) Barker, Chris, and Pauline Jacobson (eds) (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Baron, Dennis (1989). Declining Grammar. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Find this resource:

Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bartels, Christine (1999). The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (2002). ‘On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization?’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 345–61.Find this resource:

Bary, Corien, and Dag Haug (2011). ‘Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(8): 1–56.Find this resource:

Bastiaansen, Marcel, Ali Mazaheri, and Ole Jensen (2011). ‘Beyond ERPs: Oscillatory neuronal dynamics’, in Emily S. Kappenman and Steven J. Luck (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–49.Find this resource:

Bates, Elizabeth, and Brian MacWhinney (1987). ‘Competition, variation, and language learning’, in Brian MacWhinney (ed), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 157–94.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (1978). The Grammar of Nominal Compounding. Odense: Odense University Press.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (1990). ‘Be-heading the word.’ Journal of Linguistics, 26: 1–31.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (1997). ‘Derivational paradigms’, in Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 243–56.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (1998). ‘Is there a class of neoclassical compounds and is it productive?’ Linguistics, 36: 403–22.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2000). ‘Word’, in Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds), Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 247–57.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2001a). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2001b). ‘Compounds’, in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, andWolfgang Raible (eds), Language Universals and Language Typology. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 695–707.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2003). Introducing Linguistic Morphology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2016a). ‘Classical morphemics: Assumptions, extensions and alternatives’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 331–55.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie (2016b). ‘Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation’, in Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley (eds), Morphological Metatheory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 461–77.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie, and Rodney Huddleston (2002). ‘Lexical word-formation’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–721.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie, and Antoinette Renouf (2001). ‘A corpus-based study of compounding in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 29: 101–23.Find this resource:

Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 699) Baumgärtner, Klaus (1970). ‘Konstituenz und Dependenz’, in Hugo Steger (ed), Vorschläge für eine Strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 57−77.Find this resource:

Bazerman, Charles (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Find this resource:

Bazerman, Charles (1997). ‘The life of genre, the life in the classroom’, in Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostrom (eds), Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 19–26.Find this resource:

Beal, Joan (1993). ‘The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 187–213.Find this resource:

Beal, Joan (2004). ‘English dialects in the North of England: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 114–41.Find this resource:

Beal, Joan (2009). ‘300 years of prescriptivism (and counting)’. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Wim van der Wurff (eds) (2009) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Berlin: Peter Lang, 35–55.Find this resource:

Beard, Robert (1988). ‘On the separation of derivation from affixation: Toward a lexeme/morpheme based morphology’. Quaderni di semantica, 9: 3–59.Find this resource:

Beard, Robert (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Stony Brook, NY: SUNY Press.Find this resource:

Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Beaver, David I. (1997). ‘Presupposition’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 939–1008.Find this resource:

Beaver, David I., and Bart Geurts (2014). ‘Presupposition’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2014 edn.Find this resource:

Bell, Melanie J. (2012). ‘The English noun-noun construct: A morphological and syntactic object’, in Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise, and Athanasios Karasimos (eds), Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar, 59–91. https://geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm8_proceedings.pdf (last accessed 5 April 2019).Find this resource:

Bell, Melanie J., and Ingo Plag (2012). ‘Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English.’ Journal of Linguistics 48: 485–520.Find this resource:

Bemis, Douglas K., and Liina Pylkkänen (2011). ‘Simple composition: A magnetoencephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases.’ Journal of Neuroscience 31: 2801–14.Find this resource:

Benczes, Réka (2006). Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam/Philadephia: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bender, Emily M., and Ivan A. Sag (2000). ‘Incorporating contracted auxiliaries in English’. In Ronnie Cann, Claire Grover and Philip H. Miller (eds), Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, number 8 in Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, 17–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Ben-Shachar, Michal, Dafna Palti, and Yosef Grodzinsky (2004). ‘Neural correlates of syntactic movement: Converging evidence from two fMRI experiments.’ Neuroimage 21: 1320–36.Find this resource:

Ben-Shachar, Michal, Talma Hendler, Itamar Kahn, Dafna Ben-Bashat, and Yosef Grodzinsky (2003). ‘The neural reality of syntactic transformations: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging.’ Psychological Science 14: 433–440.Find this resource:

Berg, Thomas (2000). ‘The position of adjectives on the noun–verb continuum.’ English Language and Linguistics, 4, 269–93.Find this resource:

(p. 700) Berko, Jean (1958). ‘The child’s learning of English morphology.’ Word 14: 150–77.Find this resource:

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2008). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Kersti Borjars (2006). ‘Markedness in phonology and in syntax: The problem of grounding.’ Lingua, 116: 710–56.Find this resource:

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Patrick Honeybone (2006). ‘Phonology and syntax: A shifting relationship.’ Lingua, 116: 543–61.Find this resource:

Berwick, Robert C., Paul Pietroski, Beracah Yankama, and Noam Chomsky (2011). ‘Poverty of the stimulus revisited.’ Cognitive Science 35: 1207–42.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Valentina (2000). ‘The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley.’ Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123–40.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (2004). ‘Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107–36.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (2006a). ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2): 97–116.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (2006b). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (2012). ‘Register as a predictor of linguistic variation.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2010). ‘Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2011). ‘Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use.’ English Language and Linguistics 15: 223–50.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, and Randy Reppen (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Find this resource:

Bieswanger, Markus (2016). ‘Aviation English: Two distinct specialized registers?, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 67–86.Find this resource:

Billig, Michael (2008). ‘The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization.’ Discourse and Society, 19(6): 783–800.Find this resource:

Binnick, Robert (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Binnick, Robert (2005). ‘The markers of habitual aspect in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 33: 339–69.Find this resource:

Binnick, Robert (2006). ‘Used to and habitual aspect in English.’ Style, 40: 33–45.Find this resource:

Binnick, Robert (ed) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 701) Birner, Betty J. (1994). ‘Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion.’ Language 70(2): 233–59.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (1996). ‘Form and function in English by-phrase passives.’ Chicago Linguistic Society 32: 23–31.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (2006). ‘Inferential relations and noncanonical word order’, in Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–51.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward (2006). ‘Information structure’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 291–317.Find this resource:

Blevins, James P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Blevins, James P., and Ivan A. Sag (2013). ‘Phrase structure grammar’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–25.Find this resource:

Bloch, B. (1947). ‘English verb inflection.’ Language, 23: 399–418.Find this resource:

Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Find this resource:

Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. Berlin: De Gruyter.Find this resource:

BNC = The British National Corpus. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (last accessed 6 June 2019). Also available through other interfaces, e.g. Davies (2004?).

Boas, Hans C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Boas, Hans C. (2011). ‘Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen’, in Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler, and Kristel Proost (eds), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–69.Find this resource:

Boas, Hans C. (2013). ‘Cognitive construction grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 233–52.Find this resource:

Boas, Hans C. (2014). ‘Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 89–112.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2012). Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2015). ‘Distributed Morphology’, MS accessed at: http://bobaljik.uconn.edu/papers/DM_ORE.pdf on 5 April, 2019.

Bodomo, Adams (2005). ‘Joan Bresnan’, in Philipp Strazny (ed), Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 153–5.Find this resource:

Boeckx, Cedric (2006). Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes (2010). Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Boehm, Barry (1986). ‘A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement’. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 11:4, 14–24.Find this resource:

Boersma, Paul, and. D. Weenink (1992–2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.40) [http://www.praat.org].

Bolinger, Dwight (1972). ‘Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader).’ Language, 48: 633–44.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Find this resource:

(p. 702) Bolinger, Dwight (1978a). ‘Intonation across languages’, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed), Universals of Human Language. Volume 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1978b). ‘A semantic view of syntax: Some verbs that govern infinitives’, in Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter (eds), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. The Hague: Mouton, 9–19.Find this resource:

Bonami, Olivier, and Gilles Boyé (2003). ‘Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français.’ Langages, 152: 102–26.Find this resource:

Bonami, Olivier, and Gregory Stump (2016). ‘Paradigm function morphology’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 449–481.Find this resource:

Booij, Geert (2007). The Grammar of Words. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Booij, Geert (2011). ‘Morpheme structure constraints’, in Marc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Booij, Geert (2013). ‘Morphology in construction grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 255–73.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit (1994). ‘The projection of arguments’, in Elena Benedicto and Jeffrey Runner (eds), Functional Projections, vol. 17 of University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 19–47.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit (2005a). In Name Only, vol. 1 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit (2005b). The Normal Course of Events, vol. 2 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit (2013). Taking Form, vol. 3 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borge, Steffen (2013). ‘Questions’, in Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner (eds), Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 411–43.Find this resource:

Borik, Olga (2006). Aspect and Reference Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2006). ‘The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages.’ Psychological Review 113: 787–821.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina, Stefan Zysset, Angela D. Friederici, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2005). ‘Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.’ Neuroimage 26: 221–33.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2008). ‘An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension.’ Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and D. Yves von Cramon (2009). ‘Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective.’ Brain and Language 111: 125–39.Find this resource:

Borsley, Robert D. (1997). ‘Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47.Find this resource:

Borsley, Robert D. (2005). ‘Against ConjP.’ Lingua 115: 461–82.Find this resource:

Borsley, Robert D. (2011). ‘Constructions, functional heads and comparative correlatives’, in Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, 7–26.Find this resource:

Borsley, Robert D. (2012). ‘Don’t move!’ IBERIA 4: 110–39.Find this resource:

(p. 703) Bošković, Željko (2011). ‘Last resort with move and agree in derivations and representations’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–53.Find this resource:

Bouma, Gosse, Robert Malouf, and Ivan A. Sag (2001). ‘Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 1–65.Find this resource:

Bowerman, Sean (2004). ‘White South African English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 948–61.Find this resource:

Bowers, John (1993). ‘The syntax of predication.’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Find this resource:

Bowie, Jill, and Bas Aarts (2016). ‘Clause fragments in English dialogue’, in María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, and Ignacio M. Palacios-Martínez (eds), Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English Through Corpora (Language and Computers: Studies in Digital Linguistics, 79). Leiden/Boston: Brill Rodopi, 259–88.Find this resource:

Bowie, Jill, and Sean Wallis (2016). ‘The to-infinitival perfect: A study of decline’, in Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane, and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), Re-assessing the Present Perfect. Topics in English Linguistics (TiEL) 91. Berlin: De Gruyter, 43–94.Find this resource:

Bowie, Jill, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts (2013). ‘Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: Mapping the impact of “genre”’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 57–94.Find this resource:

Boyé, Gilles, and Gauvain Schalchli (2016). ‘The status of paradigms’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 206–34.Find this resource:

Boye, Kasper, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds) (2010). Language Usage and Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Find this resource:

Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder (2014). ‘(Inter)subjectification in a functional theory of grammaticalization.’ Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46: 7–24.Find this resource:

Brazil, David (1995). A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Breban, Tine, and Caroline Gentens (2016). ‘Multiple pathways: New views on pathways and mechanisms of grammaticalization in the English noun phrase.’ Functions of Language 23(1): 62–81.Find this resource:

Breivik, Leiv Egil (1981). ‘On the interpretation of existential there.’ Language 57(1): 1–25.Find this resource:

Brekle, Herbert E. (1970). Generative Satzsemantik und Transformationelle Syntax im System der Englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: Fink.Find this resource:

Brems, Lieselotte (2011). Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Brems, Lieselotte, and Kristin Davidse (2010). ‘The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change.’ English Studies 91: 180–202.Find this resource:

Brennan, Jonathan, and Liina Pylkkänen (2017). ‘MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe.’ Cognitive Science 41(S6): 1515–31.Find this resource:

Brennan, Jonathan, Yuval Nir, Uri Hasson, Rafael Malach, David J. Heeger, and Liina Pylkkänen (2010). ‘Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening.’ Brain and Language 120: 163–73.Find this resource:

Brentari, Diane (2011). ‘Sign language phonology’, in John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 691–721.Find this resource:

(p. 704) Bresnan, Joan (1976). ‘Nonarguments for raising.’ Linguistic Inquiry 7: 485–501.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (1978). ‘A realistic transformational grammar’, in Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A. Miller (eds), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–59.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (ed) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (2007). ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation.’ Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base (Studies in Generative Grammar 96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–96.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan, and J. Grimshaw (1978). ‘The syntax of free relatives in English.’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331–91.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay (2008). ‘Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English.’ Lingua 118(2): 245–59.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan, and Ronald M. Kaplan (1982). ‘Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language’, in Joan Bresnan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, xvii–lii.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan W., Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, and Stephen Wechsler (2016). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Second edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan W., Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen (2007). ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Gerlof Bourne, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts (eds), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Find this resource:

Brezina, Vaclav, and Miriam Meyerhoff (2014). ‘Significant or random?: A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1): 1–28.Find this resource:

Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Brisard, Frank (2002). ‘Introduction: The epistemic basis of deixis and reference’, in Frank Brisard (ed), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, xi–xxxiv.Find this resource:

Briscoe, Ted (1997). ‘Robust Parsing’, in Ronald Cole, Joseph Mariani, Hans Uszkoreit, Annie Zaenen, and Victor Zue (eds), Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–2.Find this resource:

Broccias, Cristiano (2012). ‘The syntax-lexicon continuum’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 735–47.Find this resource:

Broccias, Cristiano, and Willem B. Hollmann (2007). ‘Do we need summary and sequential scanning in (Cognitive) grammar?’ Cognitive Linguistics 18: 487–522.Find this resource:

Bromberger, Sylvain, and Morris Halle (1989). ‘Why phonology is different.’ Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 51–70.Find this resource:

Brown, Dunstan, and Andrew Hippisley (2012). Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Brown, Gillian, and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Brown, Goold (1851). The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: Samuel S. and William Wood.Find this resource:

(p. 705) Brown, Roger (1957). ‘Linguistic determinism and the part of speech.’ The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55: 1.Find this resource:

Bruening, Benjamin (2018). ‘The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous.’ Language 94(1): 1–42.Find this resource:

Bullokar, William (1586). William Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar. London: Edmund Bollifant.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2016). ‘(Contrastive) Topic’, in Caroline Féry and Shin Ishihara (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Burridge, Kate (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the Pacific and Australasia’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1116–31.Find this resource:

Burridge, Kate (2014). ‘Cos – a new discourse marker for Australian English?’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 524–48.Find this resource:

Burrows, John (1987). Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Burton-Roberts, Noel (1975). ‘Nominal apposition.’ Foundations of Language 13: 391–419.Find this resource:

Burton-Roberts, Noel, and Geoffrey Poole (2006). ‘Syntax vs. phonology: A representational approach to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic.’ Lingua, 116: 562–600.Find this resource:

Butler, Charles (1634). English Grammar. Oxford: Turner.Find this resource:

Butler, Christopher S. (2003). Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. 2 volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Butler, Christopher S., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (1988). ‘The diachronic dimension in explanation’, in John A. Hawkins (ed), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 350–79.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (1998). ‘A Functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution.’ Evolution of Communication 2(2): 249–78.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2003). ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency’, in Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2006). ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.’ Language 82(4): 711–33.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L. (2013). ‘Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., and Suzanne Fleischman (eds) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

(p. 706) Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (2001). ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure’, in Joan Bybee L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–24.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (eds) (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1985). ‘Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning’, in Jacek Fisiak (ed), Historical Semantics and Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59–83.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1987). ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini (eds), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 109–22.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1991). ‘Back to the future’, in Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–58.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Campbell, Lyle (2006). ‘Areal linguistics’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. I, 454–60. Oxford: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Lutz Marten (2005). The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction (Syntax and Semantics, 35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert, and Gloria Waters (1999). ‘PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation.’ Neuroimage 9: 343–51.Find this resource:

Cappelle, Bert, and Ilse Depraetere (2016). ‘Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons.’ Constructions and Frames, 8(1): 7–39.Find this resource:

Cardinaletti, Anna (2004). ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–65.Find this resource:

Carnap, Rudolf (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Carnie, Andrew (2013). Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Carpenter, Bob (1997). Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Carr, Philip, and Patrick Honeybone (2007). ‘English phonology and linguistic theory: An introduction to issues, and to “Issues in English Phonology”.’ Language Sciences, 29: 117–53.Find this resource:

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2002). An Introduction to English Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1988). ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’, in Ruth M. Kempson (ed), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–81.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2000). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. London: University College London, 1–44.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2004). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in Davis and Gillon (2004), 817–45. Revision of Carston (2000).Find this resource:

(p. 707) Carter, Ron (2003). ‘The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom’, in Qualifications and Currriculum Authority (ed), New Perspectives on English in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 5–13.Find this resource:

Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Carter, Ronald, and Walter Nash (1990). Seeing Through Language: A Guide to Styles of English Writing. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (1991). ‘Phonological information for grammatical category assignments.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 348–69.Find this resource:

Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (2001). ‘Children’s use of phonology to infer grammatical class in vocabulary learning.’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8: 519–23.Find this resource:

Cattell, Ray (1973). ‘Negative transportation and tag questions.’ Language 49: 612–39.Find this resource:

Cauthen, John V. (2012). Chasing the Wind. Exlibris (ebook), 29.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 22–55.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1987). ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow’, in Russell S. Tomlin (ed), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–51.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1991). ‘Grammatical subjects in speaking and writing.’ Text 11: 45–72.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (2002). ‘Searching for meaning in language: A memoir.’ Historiographia Linguistica 29: 245–61.Find this resource:

Chapin, Paul (1972). Review of Integration of Transformational Theories of English Syntax. Language 48: 645–67.Find this resource:

Chapman, Siobhan (2011). Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Chaves, Russell S. (2008). ‘Linearization-based word-part ellipsis.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 261–307.Find this resource:

Chemla, Emmanuel (2009). ‘Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33.Find this resource:

Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector (2011). ‘Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures.’ Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400.Find this resource:

Chen, Danqi, and Christopher D. Manning (2014). ‘A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks’, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Doha, Qatar: ACL, 740–50. Available at: https://cs.stanford.edu/~danqi/papers/emnlp2014.pdf.Find this resource:

Chen, Evan, W. Caroline West, Gloria Waters, and David Caplan (2006). ‘Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses.’ Cortex 42: 591–604.Find this resource:

Chen, Rong (2003). English Inversion: A Ground-Before-Figure Construction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Cheshire, Jenny, Viv Edwards, and Pamela Whittle (1993). ‘Non-standard English and dialect levelling’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London/New York: Longman, 53–96.Find this resource:

Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, Sue Fox, and Eivind Torgersen (2011). ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15: 151–96.Find this resource:

(p. 708) Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface’, in Adriana Belletti (ed), Structures and Beyond, vol. 3 of The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector (2012). ‘The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2012), 2297–332.Find this resource:

Chilton, Paul (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Chilton, Paul (2005). ‘Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct’, in Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton (eds), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1964a). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1964b). ‘Formal discussion’, in Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown (eds), The Acquisition of Language. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press, 35–9.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1970). ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184–221.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–216.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1973). ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 232–86.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1974). The Amherst lectures. Unpublished lecture notes distributed by Documents Linguistiques. Paris: University of Paris VII.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1977). ‘On wh-movement’, in Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian (eds), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71–132.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1982). The Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1993). ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2004). ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, in Adriana Belletti (ed), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31.Find this resource:

(p. 709) Chomsky, Noam (2013). ‘Problems of projection.’ Lingua 130: 33–49.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2015). ‘Problems of projection: Extensions’, in Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini (eds), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–16.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Find this resource:

Christian, Donna (1991). ‘The personal dative in Appalachian speech’, in Peter Trudgill and Jack K. Chambers (eds), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman, 11–17.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra (2013). ‘Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why.’ Linguistic Inquiry 44: 1–44.Find this resource:

Church, Kenneth (2000). ‘Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two Noriega’s is closer to p/2 than p2.’ Proceedings of COLING 2000, 173–9.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress.’ Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 239–97.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). ‘Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 85–110.Find this resource:

Cinque, Gugliemo, and Luigi Rizzi (2008). ‘The cartography of syntactic structures.’ Studies in Linguistics, University of Siena CISCL Working Papers, 2: 42–58.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Haviland (1977). ‘Comprehension and the given-new contract’, in Roy O. Freedle (ed), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–40.Find this resource:

Clarke, Sandra (2004). ‘Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 303–18.Find this resource:

Close, Joanne, and Bas Aarts (2010). ‘Current change in the modal system of English. A case study of must, have to and have got to’, in Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber, and Robert Mailhammer (eds), The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Volume 1 of English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165–82.Find this resource:

Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croon Helm.Find this resource:

Coates, Jennifer (1995). ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English’, in Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 55–66.Find this resource:

COCA = Mark Davies (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (last accessed 25 May 2019).

Coene, Martina, and Yves D’hulst (2003). ‘Theoretical background’, in Martina Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), From NP to DP. Vol. 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–33.Find this resource:

Coffin, Caroline, Theresa Lillis and Kieran O’Halloran (2010). Applied Linguistics Methods: A Reader: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis and Ethnography. London/Milton Keynes: Routledge and The Open University.Find this resource:

Cohen, Mike X. (2014). Analyzing Neural Time Series Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Collins, Chris (2005). ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English.’ Syntax 8: 81–120.Find this resource:

Collins, Peter (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London/New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

(p. 710) Collins, Peter (1994). ‘Extraposition in English.’ Functions of Language 1(1): 7–24.Find this resource:

Collins, Peter (1995). ‘The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach.’ Linguistics 33(1): 35–49.Find this resource:

Collins, Peter (2009). Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Find this resource:

Collins, Peter, and Pam Peters (2004). ‘Australian English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds), (2004), 593–610.Find this resource:

Collins COBUILD English Grammar (1990). Editor-in-chief John Sinclair. London/Glasgow: Collins.Find this resource:

Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987). Editor-in-chief John Sinclair. London/Glasgow: Collins.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard (1989). ‘On identifying future tenses’, in Werner Abraham and Theo Janssen (eds), Tempus-Aspekt-Modus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 51–63.Find this resource:

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Stefan Kaufmann (eds) (2005). Special issue on Modality and Temporality. Journal of Semantics 22. 2.Find this resource:

Conrad, Joseph (1993). Heart of Darkness. New York: Random House.Find this resource:

Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cook, Walter A. (1969). Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Find this resource:

Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag (2005). ‘Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction.’ Research on Language and Computation 3(4): 281–332.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville G. (2010). ‘Canonical derivational morphology.’ Word Structure, 2: 141–55.Find this resource:

Corver, Norbert (1998). ‘Predicate movement in pseudopartitives constructions’, in Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215–58.Find this resource:

Coseriu, Eugene (1977). ‘Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs Coupe-papier)’, in Herbert E. Brekle and Dieter Kastovsky (eds), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Bonn: Grundmann, 46–61.Find this resource:

Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley (2005). ‘Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics.’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510–36.Find this resource:

Coulson, Seana, Jonathan W. King, and Marta Kutas (1998). ‘Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58.Find this resource:

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2011). ‘Grammaticalization and conversation’, in Narrog and Heine (2011), 424–37.Find this resource:

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono (2007). ‘Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.’ Pragmatics 17(4): 513–52.Find this resource:

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cowart, Wayne (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Jason Merchant (2013). ‘Ellipsis phenomena’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1427–520.Find this resource:

(p. 711) Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Tanja Temmerman (eds) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen, and Janet Dean Fodor (1985). ‘How can grammars help parsers?’, in David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), Natural Language Parsing: Psycholinguistic, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94–128.Find this resource:

Cristofaro, Sonia (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Crnič, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, and Danny Fox (2015). ‘Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction.’ Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305.Find this resource:

Croft, William (1990). ‘A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or: a taxonomy of propositional acts).’ Journal of Semantics 7: 245–79.Find this resource:

Croft, William (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2000). ‘Parts of speech as typological universals and as language particular categories’, in Petra Maria Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–102.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2002). Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2003). ‘Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy’, in Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–68.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2004). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2007a). ‘Construction grammar’, in Hubert Cuyckens and Dirk Geeraerts (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 463–508.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2007b). ‘The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience.’ Cognitive Linguistics 18: 339–82.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2012). Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2014). Morphosyntax. MS. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.Find this resource:

Croft, William (2015). ‘Grammar: Functional approaches’, in James D. Wright (ed), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, vol. 9. Oxford: Elsevier, 470–5.Find this resource:

Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (1979). Language in Infancy and Childhood. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (2001). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (2006). ‘The de-accenting of given information: a cognitive universal?’, in Bernini, Giuliano and Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–56.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 712) Crystal, David (2008a). Think on My Words: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (2008b). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 5th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Crystal, David (2009). Just a Phrase I’m Going Through. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Crystal, David, and Derek Davy (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. (2009). Natural Language Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray S. Jackendoff (1999). ‘The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative.’ Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–71.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W., and Michael S. Rochemont (1983). ‘Stress and focus in English.’ Language 59: 123–65.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan (2009). ‘Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59.Find this resource:

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cumming, Susanna, Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Lauri (2006). ‘Discourse, grammar and interaction’, in Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 1, 2nd edn. London: SAGE, 8–36.Find this resource:

Curme, George O. (1947). English Grammar: The Principles and Practice of English Grammar Applied to Present-Day Usage. College Outline Series. New York: Barnes and Noble. Published online by HathiTrust Digital Library: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015042004724.Find this resource:

Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cutler, Anne, and Dennis Norris (1988). ‘The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14: 113–21.Find this resource:

Dąbrowska, Ewa (2008). ‘Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 391–425.Find this resource:

Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Dagmar Divjak (eds) (2015). The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen (1975). ‘On generics’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–111.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen (1980). ‘Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson’s “Constituency and dependency”.’ Linguistics 18: 485–8.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen (ed) (2000). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology 20–6.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen, and Viveka Velupillai (2013). ‘The perfect’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/68.Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary (ed) (1999). Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Find this resource:

(p. 713) Dalrymple, Mary (2015). ‘Morphology in the LFG architecture’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications (http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/).Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘Linguistic generalizations over descriptions’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 199–208.Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1993). ‘LFG Semantics via Constraints’, in Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European ACL, 97–105. European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Utrecht.Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III, and Annie Zaenen (eds) (1995). Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Daneš, Frantisek (1966). ‘A three-level approach to syntax’, Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–40.Find this resource:

Davidse, Kristin (2000). ‘A constructional approach to clefts.’ Linguistics 38(6): 1101–31.Find this resource:

Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels (1990). Tense and Mood in English: A Comparison with Danish. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Davidson, Jonathan (2011). Early Train. Sheffield, Yorks.: smith|doorstop.Find this resource:

Davies, Eirlys (1986). The English Imperative. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Davies, Mark (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ (last accessed 25 May 2019).

Davies, Mark (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 Million Words, 1990–Present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (last accessed 25 May 2019).

Davies, Mark (2016?). Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE). Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/core/ (last accessed 25 May 2019).

Davis, S. M., and M. H. Kelly (1997). ‘Knowledge of the English noun–verb stress difference by native and nonnative speakers.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 36: 445–60.Find this resource:

Davis, Steven (ed) (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Davis, Steven, and Brendan S. Gillon (eds) (2004). Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Davydova, Julia (2013). ‘Detecting historical continuity in a linguistically diverse urban area: The present perfect in modern Singapore English’, in Joana Duarte and Ingrid Gogolin (eds), Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Davydova, Julia, Michaela Hilbert, Lukas Pietsch, and Peter Siemund (2011). ‘Comparing varieties of English: Problems and perspectives’, in Peter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 291–323.Find this resource:

Déchaine, Rose-Marie (1993). Predicates across Categories. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko (2003). ‘On pro-nouns and other “pronouns”’, in Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), From NP to DP, Vol 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 71–98.Find this resource:

Declerck, Renaat (1988). Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Find this resource:

Declerck, Renaat (1991). Tense in English. Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

(p. 714) Declerck, Renaat, and Susan Reed (2001). Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. (Topics in English Linguistics 37.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Susan Reed, and Bert Cappelle (2006). The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase. Volume 1. The Grammar of the English Tense System. (Topics in English Linguistics, 60–1.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Degand, Liesbeth, and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul (2015). ‘Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 59–85.Find this resource:

Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds) (2011). ‘Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, and (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues in the study of discourse markers.’ Special issue of Linguistics, 49: 2.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole (2014). Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole, and Yordanka Kavalova (eds) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 25–52.Find this resource:

Delahunty, Gerald P. (1982). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft-Sentences. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Brechtje Post, Mathieu Avanzi, Carolin Buthke, Albert Di Cristo, Ingo Feldhausen, Sun-Ah Jun, Philippe Martin, T. Meisenburg, Annie Rialland Raféu Sichel-Bazin and Hi-Yon Yoo (2015). ‘Intonational Phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French’, in Pilar Prieto and Sonia Frota (eds), Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, and Christopher D. Manning (2008). ‘The Stanford typed dependencies representation’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, 1–8. http://nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/dependencies-coling08.pdf.Find this resource:

Den Dikken, Marcel (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Denison, David (1990). ‘Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139–66.Find this resource:

Denison, David (1993). English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Denison, David, and Alison Cort (2010). ‘Better as a verb’, in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 349–83.Find this resource:

Depraetere, Ilse (1995). ‘On the necessity of distinguishing (un)boundedness and (a)telicity.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.Find this resource:

Depraetere, Ilse, and Chad Langford (2012). Advanced English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Find this resource:

Depraetere, Ilse, and Susan Reed (2011). ‘Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29.Find this resource:

Depraetere Ilse, and An Verhulst (2008). ‘Source of modality: A reassessment.’ English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 1–25.Find this resource:

De Smet, Hendrik (2014). ‘Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English’, in Marianne Hundt (ed) (2014), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 224–38.Find this resource:

(p. 715) Diessel, Holger (2013). ‘Construction grammar and first language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–78.Find this resource:

Dik, Simon C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Dik, Simon C. (1991). ‘Functional grammar’, in Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph (eds), Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–74.Find this resource:

Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 volumes. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dikker, Suzanne, Hugh Rabagliati, and Liina Pylkkänen (2009). ‘Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex.’ Cognition 110: 293–321.Find this resource:

Dineen, David A. (ed). Presupposition, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 1–56.Find this resource:

Di Sciullo, A.-M., and Williams E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Divjak, Dagmar (2015). ‘Frequency and entrenchment’, in Ewa Dbrowska and Dagmar Divjak (eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–74.Find this resource:

Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (2002). ‘Word: a typological framework’, in Dixon R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–40.Find this resource:

Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds) (2006). Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Don, Jan (2014). Morphological Theory and the Morphology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Don, Jan, and Marian Erkelens (2008). ‘Possible phonological cues in categorial acquisition: Evidence from adult categorization.’ Studies in Language, 32: 670–82.Find this resource:

Dons, Ute (2004). Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun (1997). Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2004). ‘Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and Discourse Structure.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1761–79.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2006). ‘Inversion in descriptive and narrative discourse: A text-typological account following functional principles.’ Cahiers de Recherche 9: 101–14.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2014). ‘“If it didn’t work the first time, we can try it again”: Conditionals as a grounding device in a genre of illness discourse.’ Communication and Medicine 11: 55–68.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2016). ‘The interrelationship of register and genre in medical discourse’, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–65.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2003). ‘Too abstract for agents? The syntax and semantics of agentivity in abstracts of English research articles’, in Holden Härtl and Heike Tappe (eds), Mediating between Concepts and Language-Processing Structures. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 152.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 433–56.Find this resource:

(p. 716) Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2009). ‘Formulaic argumentation in scientific discourse’, in Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouli, and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. (Typological Studies in Language 83.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 523–44.Find this resource:

Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (eds) (2010). Syntactic Variation and Genre. (Topics in English Linguistics 70.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Douthwaite, John (2000). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Find this resource:

Downing, Angela (1991). ‘An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective.’ Word 42(2): 119–43.Find this resource:

Downing, Angela (2015). English Grammar: A University Course, 3rd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Dowty, David R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Find this resource:

Dowty, David R. (1986). ‘The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics?’ Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 37–61.Find this resource:

Dowty, David R. (1991). ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument structure.’ Language 67(3): 547–619.Find this resource:

Dowty, David R. (2003). ‘The dual analysis of adjuncts and complements in categorial grammar’, in Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–66.Find this resource:

Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Dreschler, Gretha Anthonia (2015). Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Ph.D. thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Find this resource:

Dronkers, Nina F., David P. Wilkins, Robert D. Van Valin Jr., Brenda B. Redfern, and Jeri J. Jaeger (2004). ‘Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension.’ Cognition 92: 145–77.Find this resource:

Drubig, Hans Bernhard (1988). ‘On the discourse function of subject verb inversion.’ Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 18: 83–95.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (1996). ‘Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions.’ Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (1997). ‘Are grammatical relations universal?’, in Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 115–43.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). ‘Order of subject, object, and verb’, in Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330–3.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (1987). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity.’ Language 63(4): 805–55.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (2003). ‘Discourse and grammar’, in Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (2014). ‘Towards a dialogic syntax.’ Cognitive Linguistics 25: 359–410.Find this resource:

Duffley, Patrick J. (1992). The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Find this resource:

(p. 717) Duffley, Patrick J. (2006). The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

Duffley, Patrick J. (2014). Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Dunmore, Helen (2012). The Malarkey. Newcastle: BloodaxeFind this resource:

Durieux, Gert, and Steven Gillis (2001). ‘Predicting grammatical classes from phonological cues: An empirical test’, in J. Weissenborn and B. Höhle (eds), Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic, and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Dürscheid, Christa (2003). Medienkommunikation im Kontinuum von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Theoretische und Empirische Probleme. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

Edelman, Shimon, and Morton H. Christiansen (2003). ‘How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax?’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 60–1.Find this resource:

Edwards, Viv (1993). ‘The grammar of southern British English’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 214–42.Find this resource:

Egan, Thomas (2008). Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Find this resource:

Ehrlich, Susan (1990). Point of View: A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Ehrlich, Victor (1965) [1955]. Russian Formalism: History and Doctrine. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Einstein, Albert (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2011). Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2016). ‘Incomplete descriptions and indistinguishable participants.’ Natural Language Semantics 24(1): 1–43.Find this resource:

Ellis, Nick C. (2013). ‘Construction grammar and second language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–64.Find this resource:

Elsness, Johan (1997). The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Elsness, Johan (2009). ‘The present perfect and the preterite’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–45.Find this resource:

Embick, David (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer (2007). ‘Distributed morphology and the syntax–morphology interface’, in Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 239–88.Find this resource:

Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Emonds, Joseph E. (1972). ‘Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule.’ Foundations of Language 8: 546–61.Find this resource:

Emonds, Joseph (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

(p. 718) Emonds, Joseph (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Emons, Rudolf (1974). Valenzen Englischer Prädikatsverben. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Emons, Rudolf (1978). Valenzgrammatik für das Englische. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Engel, Ulrich (1972). ‘Bemerkungen zur Dependenzgrammatik.’ Sprache der Gegenwart. Jahrbuch des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, 111–151.Find this resource:

Engel, Ulrich (1977). Syntax der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Schmidt.Find this resource:

Engel, Ulrich (1983). ‘Dependenz ohne Konstituenz: Zur Dogmenbildung in der Linguistik.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84(1): 8–14.Find this resource:

Engel, Ulrich, and Helmut Schumacher (1976). Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Find this resource:

Engelberg, Stefan, Svenja König, Kristel Proost, and Edeltraut Winkler (2011). ‘Argumentstrukturmuster als Konstruktionen? Identität – Verwandtschaft – Idiosynkrasien’, in Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler, and Kristel Proost (eds), Sprachliches Wissen Zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Englebretson, Robert (1997). ‘Genre and grammar: Predicative and attributive adjectives in spoken English’, in Matthew L. Juge and Jeri L. Moxley (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Find this resource:

Epstein, Samuel David, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugu Kitahara (1998). A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1979). ‘Discourse constraints on dative movement’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 441–67.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas (2007). ‘Insubordination and its uses’, in Irina Nikolaeva (ed), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen Levinson (2009). ‘The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–92.Find this resource:

Evans, Vyvyan (2010). ‘From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at’, in Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space. London: Equinox, 215–48.Find this resource:

Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Fabb, Nigel (1988). ‘English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–39.Find this resource:

Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Find this resource:

Faltz, Leonard M. (1985). Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Farmer, Thomas A., Morten H. Christiansen, and Padraic Monaghan (2006). ‘Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension.’ PNAS 103: 12203–8.Find this resource:

Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:

Fawcett, Robin P. (1988). ‘The English personal pronouns: An exercise in linguistic theory’, in James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings, and William S. Greaves (eds), Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 185–220.Find this resource:

(p. 719) Fawcett, Robin P. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Fawcett, Robin P. (2008). Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: An Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London/Oakville: Equinox.Find this resource:

Fawcett, Robin P. (2011). The Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form. London: Equinox.Find this resource:

Featherston, Sam (2005). ‘The Decathlon Model of empirical syntax’, in Marga Reis and Stephan Kepser (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 187–208.Find this resource:

Featherston, Sam (2007). ‘Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot.’ Theoretical Linguistics 33: 269–318Find this resource:

Fellbaum, Christiane (ed) (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fens-de Zeeuw, Lyda (2011). Lindley Murray (1746–1826), Quaker and Grammarian. Utrecht: LOT.Find this resource:

Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). ‘Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization’, in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York: Oxford University Press, 5–30.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Fernanda (2005). ‘Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science.’ The Linguistic Review 22: 365–80.Find this resource:

Ferris, D. Connor (1993). The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (2006). ‘Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci.’ Language, 82: 131–50.Find this resource:

Fiebach, Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions.’ Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–72.Find this resource:

Fiengo, Robert (2007). Asking Questions: Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). ‘The case for case’, in Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1–88.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). ‘Frame semantics and the nature of language.’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1988). ‘The mechanisms of “construction grammar”’, in Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jassier, and Helen Singmaster (eds), General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). ‘Inversion and constructional inheritance’, in Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Andreas Kathol (eds), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 113–28.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (2014). ‘Frames, constructions and FrameNet’, in Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber (eds), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 113–58.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor (1988). ‘Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.’ Language 64(3): 501–38.Find this resource:

(p. 720) Filppula, Markku (1999). A Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Filppula, Markku (2004). ‘Irish English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 73–101.Find this resource:

Findlay, Jamie Yates (2014). The Prepositional Passive: A Lexical Functional Account. MA thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford.Find this resource:

Findlay, Jamie Yates (2016). ‘Mapping Theory Without Argument Structure.’ Journal of Language Modelling 4(2): 293–338.Find this resource:

Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Firth, John Rupert (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Fischer, Kerstin, and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds) (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Find this resource:

Fischer, Olga (2004). ‘The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes’, in David Hart (ed), English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Lang, 16–32.Find this resource:

Fischer, Olga (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Fischer, Olga, and Wim van der Wurff (2006). ‘Syntax’, in Richard Hogg and David Denison (eds), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–98.Find this resource:

Fitting, Melvin (2015). ‘Intensional logic’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford: CSLI, Summer 2015 edn.Find this resource:

Fleischman, Suzanne (1982). The Future in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Fleischman, Suzanne (2001). ‘Language and medicine’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 470–502.Find this resource:

Fligelstone, Steven, Mike Pacey, and Paul Rayson (1997). ‘How to generalize the task of annotation’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 122–36.Find this resource:

Fligelstone, Steven, Paul Rayson, and Nicholas Smith (1996). ‘Template analysis: Bridging the gap between grammar and the lexicon’, in Jenny Thomas and Mick Short (eds), Using Corpora for Language Research. London: Longman, 181–207.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Foley, William A., and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley (2007). ‘Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v.’ Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.Find this resource:

Foolen, Ad (1992). Review of Sweetser (1990). Lingua 88: 76–86.Find this resource:

Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Fowler, Roger (1977). Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.Find this resource:

Fowler, Roger (1991). Language in the News. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Fowler, Roger, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Fox, Barbara A. (2007). ‘Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.’ Discourse Studies 9(3): 299–318.Find this resource:

(p. 721) Francis, Gill (1993). ‘A corpus-driven approach to grammar’, in Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), Text and Technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–56.Find this resource:

Francis, W. Nelson (1989). ‘Otto Jespersen as grammarian’, in Arne Juul and Hans F. Nielsen (eds), Otto Jespersen: Facets of His Life and Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–99.Find this resource:

Franke, Michael (2011). ‘Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82.Find this resource:

Frawley, William (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Frawley, William (ed) (2006). The Expression of Modality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Frazier, Lyn, and Giovanni B. Flores d’Arcais (1989). ‘Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch.’ Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–44.Find this resource:

Freed, Alice F. (1979). The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung.’ Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Translated as Frege (1952).Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1918–1919/1997). ‘Thought/Der Gedanke: The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 325–45.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1952). ‘On sense and reference’, in Peter T. Geach and Max Black (eds), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78. Translation of Frege (1892).Find this resource:

Freidin, Robert (2007). Generative Grammar: Theory and its History. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Fried, Mirjam (2013). ‘Principles of constructional change’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–37.Find this resource:

Fried, Mirjam (2015). ‘Construction grammar’, in Artemis Alexiadou and Tibor Kiss (eds), Handbook of Syntax, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 974–1003.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. (2002). ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 78–84.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., and Stefan Frisch (2000). ‘Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information.’ Journal of Memory and Language 43: 476–507.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Anja Hahne, and Axel Mecklinger (1996). ‘Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1219–48.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Martin Meyer, and D. Yves von Cramon (2000). ‘Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information.’ Brain and Language 74: 289–300.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Erdmut Pfeifer, and Anja Hahne (1993). ‘Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations.’ Cognitive Brain Research 1: 183–92.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Jörg Bahlmann, Stefan Heim, Ricarda I. Schubotz, and Alfred Anwander (2006). ‘The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 2458.Find this resource:

Fries, Charles C. (1952). The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt Brace.Find this resource:

(p. 722) Fries, Peter H. (1981). ‘On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse.’ Forum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38.Find this resource:

Frisch, Stefan, Matthias Schlesewsky, Douglas Saddy, and Annegret Alpermann (2002). ‘The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity.’ Cognition 85: B83–B92.Find this resource:

Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas (1986). ‘Specifiers and projections.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–72.Find this resource:

Gabelentz, Georg von der (1972). Die Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Polyfoto Dr. Vogt.Find this resource:

Gabrielatos, Costas and Paul Baker (2008). ‘Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press 1996-2005.’ Journal of English Linguistics 36: 5–38.Find this resource:

Gagné, Christina (2001). ‘Relational and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 236–54.Find this resource:

Gahl, Susanne, and Susan Marie Garnsey (2006). ‘Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities.’ Language 82: 405–10.Find this resource:

Gamut, L. T. F. (1991a). Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, vol. 2 of Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Gamut, L. T. F. (1991b). Introduction to Logic, vol. 1 of Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Garnsey, Susan M., Michael Tanenhaus, and Robert M. Chapman (1989). ‘Evoked potential and the study of sentence comprehension.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 51–60.Find this resource:

Garside, Roger (1987). ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Geoff Sampson (eds), The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Approach. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Garside, Roger, and Nicholas Smith (1997). ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4,’ in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 102–21.Find this resource:

Gast, Volker (2007). ‘I gave it him – on the motivation of the alternative double object construction in varieties of British English’, in Anna Siewierska and Willem Hollmann (eds), Ditransitivity: Special Issue of Functions of Language 14(1): 31–56.Find this resource:

Gavins, Joanna (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald (1981a). ‘Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12: 155–84.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald (1981b). ‘Speech act assignment’, in Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan A. Sag (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag (1982). ‘Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar.’ Language 58: 591–638.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Geach, Peter T. (1962). Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 3rd revised edn, 1980.Find this resource:

Gee, James Paul (2018). Introducing Discourse Analysis: From Grammar to Society. London/New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

(p. 723) Geeraerts, Dirk (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Geis, Michael (1970). Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Geluykens, Ronald (1992). From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Geluykens, Ronald (1994). The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English. Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Gensler, Orin (2003). ‘Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: Nonexplanation and explanation.’ Linguistic Typology 7(2): 187–231.Find this resource:

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, and Dionysis Goutsos (2000). ‘Revisiting discourse boundaries: The narrative and non-narrative modes.’ Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 20: 63–82.Find this resource:

Gerdes, Kim, Eva Hajičová, and Leo Wanner (eds) (2014a). Dependency Linguistics: Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Gerdes, Kim, Eva Hajičová, and Leo Wanner (2014b). ‘Foreword’, in Kim Gerdes, Eva Hajičová, and Leo Wanner (eds), Dependency Linguistics: Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Gerken, L., P. W. Jusczyk, and D. R. Mandel (1994). ‘When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds’ sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases.’ Cognition 51: 237–65.Find this resource:

Gerwin, Johanna (2013). ‘Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects.’ English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 445–63.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (2009). ‘Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics.’ Mind and Language 24(1): 51–79.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2009). ‘Embedded implicatures?!?’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(4): 1–34.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart, and Bob van Tiel (2013). ‘Embedded scalars.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 6(9): 1–37.Find this resource:

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2014). ‘The prospective as nonveridical: Polarity items, speaker commitment and projected truth’, in Jack Hoeksema and Dicky Gilbers (eds), Black Book: A Festschrift for Frans Zwarts. Groningen: University of Groningen, 101–24.Find this resource:

Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2010). ‘Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 233–4.Find this resource:

Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2013). ‘The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 88–124.Find this resource:

Giegerich, Heinz J. (1999). Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004). ‘Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion.’ English Language and Linguistics 8: 1–24.Find this resource:

Giegerich, Heinz J. (2005). ‘Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax interface.’ Journal of Linguistics 41: 571–91.Find this resource:

Giegerich, Heinz J. (2012). ‘The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of “adverbs” in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 16: 341–59.Find this resource:

Ginzburg, Jonathan (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 724) Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Raquel Fernández (2010). ‘Computational models of dialogue’, in Alexander Clark, Chris Fox, and Shalom Lappin (eds), The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell, 429–81.Find this resource:

Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Ivan A. Sag (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Girard, Jean-Yves (1987). ‘Linear logic.’ Theoretical Computer Science 50(1): 1–102.Find this resource:

Gisborne, Nikolas (2007). ‘Dynamic modality.’ SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4: 44–61.Find this resource:

Gisborne, Nikolas (2008). ‘Dependencies are constructions’, in Graeme Trousdale and Nikolas Gisborne (eds), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–55.Find this resource:

Gisborne, Nikolas (2010). The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1971). ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology.’ Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 394–415.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1979a). ‘From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 81–112.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1979b). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1980). ‘The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements.’ Studies in Language 4: 333–77.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1983). ‘Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–41.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1984a). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1984b). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1993). English Grammar. 2 volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1994). ‘Irrealis and the subjunctive.’ Studies in Language 18: 265–337.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (2001a). Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (2001b). Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (2012). ‘The adaptive approach to grammar’, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (2013). ‘The intellectual roots of functionalism in linguistics’, in Shannon Bischoff and Carmen Jany (eds), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 9–30.Find this resource:

Godfrey, Elizabeth, and Sali Tagliamonte (1999). ‘Another piece of the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in Southwest England.’ Language Variation and Change 11(1): 87–121.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. (1996). ‘Jackendoff and construction-based grammar.’ Cognitive Science 7: 3–19.Find this resource:

(p. 725) Goldberg, Adele E. (1998). ‘Patterns of experience in patterns of language’, in Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 203–19.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. (2003). ‘Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele (2006a). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. (2006b). ‘The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction’, in Dirk Geeraerts (ed), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 401–437.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman (2001). ‘The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts.’ Language 77: 798–814.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff (2004). ‘The English resultative as a family of constructions.’ Language 80(3): 532–68.Find this resource:

Gómez-González, María Ángeles (2001). The Theme–Topic Interface: Evidence from English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Goossens, Louis (2000). ‘Patterns of meaning extension, “parallel chaining”, subjectification, and modal shifts’, in Antonio Barcelona (ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–69.Find this resource:

Gotti, Maurizio (2010). ‘A new genre for a specialized community: The rise of the experimental essay’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 85–110.Find this resource:

Grabe, Esther, Greg Kochanski, and John Coleman (2005). ‘The intonation of native accent varieties in the British Isles: Potential for miscommunication?’, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds), English Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene. Oxford: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

Grafmiller, Jason (2014). ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genres.’ English Language and Linguistics 18: 471–96.Find this resource:

Graustein, Gottfried, and Gerhard Leitner (eds) (1989). Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber (2015). ‘Stance markers’, in Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–48.Find this resource:

Greaves, Paul (1594). Grammatica Anglicana. Canterbury: Legatt.Find this resource:

Greenbaum, Sidney, and Randolph Quirk (1970). Elicitation Experiments in English. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Find this resource:

Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A. Michaelis (2001). ‘Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–706.Find this resource:

Grewe, Tanja, Ina Bornkessel, Stefan Zysset, Richard Wiese, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2005). ‘The emergence of the unmarked: A new perspective on the language‐specific function of Broca’s area.’ Human Brain Mapping 26: 178–90.Find this resource:

Grice, H. Paul (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 183–98. Reprinted in Grice (1989: 22–40).Find this resource:

(p. 726) Grice, H. Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th. (2005). ‘Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4): 365–99.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th. (2012). ‘Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/ exemplar-based linguistics.’ Studies in Language 11(3): 477–510.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th. (2013). ‘50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next…’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137–65.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th. (2015). ‘The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models.’ Corpora 10(1): 95–125.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004a). ‘Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004b). ‘Covarying collexemes in the Into-causative’, in Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture, and Mind. Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, Stanford, 225–46.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanie Wulff (2005). ‘Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora.’ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182–200.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane, and Sten Vikner (1993). ‘Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events’, in Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds), Knowledge and Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 143–55.Find this resource:

Grodzinsky, Yosef (1986). ‘Language deficits and the theory of syntax.’ Brain and Language 27: 135–59.Find this resource:

Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Andrea Santi (2008). ‘The battle for Broca’s region.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 474–80.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof (1991). ‘Dynamic predicate logic.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.Find this resource:

Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson (1989). ‘The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English.’ Language 65(2): 203–95.Find this resource:

Groß, Thomas, and Timothy Osborne (2009). ‘Toward a Practical Dependency Grammar Theory of Discontinuities.’ SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.Find this resource:

Grossman, Eitan, and Stéphane Polis (2010). ‘On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian)’. Paper presented at Gramis 2010 (International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification. Royal Flemish Academy, Brussels, 11–13 November 2010.Find this resource:

Grosu, A. (2003), ‘A unified theory of “standard” and “transparent” free relatives.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331.Find this resource:

Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Guéron, Jacqueline (ed) (2015). Sentence and Discourse (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Guéron, Jacqueline, and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds) (2008). Time and Modality. Houten, NL: Springer Media BV.Find this resource:

Guevara, Emiliano, and Sergio Scalise (2009). ‘Searching for universals in compounding’, in Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, and Antonietta Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer, 101–28.Find this resource:

(p. 727) Guion, Susan G., J. J. Clark, Tetsuo Harada, and Ratree P. Wayland (2003). ‘Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words.’ Language and Speech, 46: 403–26.Find this resource:

Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1976). The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985). ‘Shared knowledge and topicality.’ Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1988). ‘Universals of topic-comment structure’, in Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209–39.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1993). ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse.’ Language 69(2): 274–307.Find this resource:

Gunter, Thomas C., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gusbertus Mulder (1997). ‘When syntax meets semantics.’ Psychophysiology 34: 660–76.Find this resource:

Günther, Christine (2011). ‘Noun ellipsis in English: Adjectival modifiers and the role of context.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 279–301.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gwynne, N. M. (2011). Gwynne’s Grammar: The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English. London: Idler Books.Find this resource:

Haas, W. (1973). Review of John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 9: 71–114.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2006). Thinking Syntactically: A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane, and Jacqueline Guéron (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane, and Tabea Ihsane (1999). ‘Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English.’ Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45.Find this resource:

Hagège, Claude (2008). ‘Towards a typology of interrogative verbs.’ Linguistic Typology 12: 1–44.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter (2008). ‘The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363: 1055.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Colin Brown, and Jolanda Groothusen (1993). ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 439–83.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Marlies Wassenaar, and Colin M. Brown (2003). ‘Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch.’ Cognitive Brain Research 16: 38–50.Find this resource:

Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (1999). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11: 194–205.Find this resource:

(p. 728) Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs.’ Cognitive Brain Research 13: 339–56.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey, and Stefan Schnell (2016). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity revisited.’ Language 93(3): 591–618.Find this resource:

Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993). ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–109.Find this resource:

Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Hall, Alison (2008). ‘Free enrichment or hidden indexicals?’ Mind and Language 23(4): 426–56.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993). ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.’ in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1994). ‘Some key features of distributed morphology.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–88.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). ‘Categories of the theory of grammar.’ Word 17: 242–92.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a). ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.’ Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1976a). ‘A brief sketch of systemic grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 3–6.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1976b). ‘The form of functional grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 7–25.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). ‘Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar’, in Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds), English Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman, 30–43.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). ‘Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct’, in Jan Svartvik (ed), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 61–77.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K., (2004) 3rd edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Hamawand, Zeki (2002). Atemporal Complement Clauses in English: A Cognitive Grammar Analysis. Munich: Lincom Europa.Find this resource:

Hamblin, Charles L. (1987). Imperatives. London: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky (nd). ‘Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change.’ https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/pubs/paper-hist_vec.pdf.Find this resource:

(p. 729) Han, Chung-Hye (2011). ‘Imperatives’, in Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics 2. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 33(2). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1785–2004.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi (2009). ‘The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP’, in Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (eds), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–42.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi (2010). ‘A minimalist approach to argument structure’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–47.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi (2015). ‘The syntax/morphology interface,’ in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1128–54.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer (1999). ‘Distributed morphology.’ Glot International, Vol. 4(4): 3–9.Find this resource:

Harman, Gilbert H. (1963). ‘Generative grammars without transformation rules: A defense of phrase structure.’ Language 39: 597–616.Find this resource:

Harnish, Robert (1994). ‘Mood, meaning and speech acts’, in Savas Tsohatzidis (ed), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 407–59.Find this resource:

Harris, Randy Allen (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Harris, Zellig S. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell, and Wenjuan Yuan (eds) (2014). Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Harrison, Tony (1985). Selected Poems. London: Penguin Books.Find this resource:

Hart, Christopher (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Find this resource:

Hart, Christopher (2016). ‘Event-frames affect blame assignment and perception of aggression in discourse on political protests: An experimental case study in critical discourse analysis.’ Applied Linguistics 39: 400–21.Find this resource:

Harvey, Thomas W. (1868). A Practical Grammar of the English Language for the Use of Schools of Every Grade. New York/Cincinnati: Van Antwerp, Bragg and Co. (Revised edition 1878.)Find this resource:

Hasan, Ruqaiya (1987). ‘The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar’, in M. A. K. Halliday and Robin Fawcett (eds), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics 1: Theory and Description. London: Pinter, 184–211.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Optimality and diachronic adaptation.’ Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18: 180–205.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2001). ‘The European linguistic area: Standard Average European’, in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wolfgang Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1492–510.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Edward Arnold.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2008). ‘Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33.Find this resource:

(p. 730) Haspelmath, Martin (2010). ‘Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies.’ Language 86: 663–87.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2013a). ‘Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 115. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/115 (last accessed 6 April 2019).Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2013b). ‘Ditransitive constructions: The verb “give”’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 105. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/105 (last accessed 6 April 2019).Find this resource:

Hatcher, Anna Granville (1960). ‘An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds.’ Word 16: 356–73.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1986). A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1992). ‘Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation.’ Linguistische Berichte 4: 196–219.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1999). ‘Processing complexity and fill-gap dependencies across languages.’ Language 75: 244–85.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hay, Jennifer (2000). Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. Ph.D. thesis. Chicago: Northwestern University.Find this resource:

Hay, Jennifer (2002). ‘From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited.’ Language, 78: 527–55.Find this resource:

Hay, Jennifer, and Ingo Plag (2004). ‘What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–96.Find this resource:

Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson (2008). ‘A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning.’ Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440.Find this resource:

Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw (2013). OTSoft 2.5, software package, http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy (2013). ‘Multiple focus and cleft sentences’, in Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra (eds), Cleft Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy, and Lorna Fadden (2007). ‘The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English’, in Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski (eds), The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–76.Find this resource:

Heger, Klaus (1976). Monem, Wort, Satz und Text. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1983). ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’, in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 164–90. Reprinted in Portner and Partee (2002: 223–48).Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1990). ‘E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–77.Find this resource:

(p. 731) Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd (1995). ‘Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on German modals’, In Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 17–53.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd (2002). ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–101.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd (2013). ‘On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?’ Linguistics 51(6): 1205–47.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd, and Heiko Narrog (eds) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Helbig, Gerhard (1992). Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Helbig, Gerhard, and Wolfgang Schenkel (1973). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. [First edition: 1969.]Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees (1989). ‘Layers and operators in Functional Grammar.’ Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–57.Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees (1992). Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees (2011). ‘The grammaticalization of tense and aspect’, in Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 850–94.Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees (2017). ‘A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization’, in Kees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog, and Hella Olbertz (eds), The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–38.Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas (1983). Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas (1988). ‘A valency model for nouns in English.’ Journal of Linguistics 24: 265–301.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas (2011). ‘The status of generalisations: Valency and argument structure constructions.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–67.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas (2014). ‘The valency approach to argument structure constructions’, in Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber (eds), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 167–216.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas (2015). ‘Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity.’ Journal of Social Sciences 11(3): 91–110.Find this resource:

(p. 732) Herbst, Thomas, and Susen Schüller (2008). Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas, and Peter Uhrig (2009–). Erlangen Valency Patternbank: A Corpus-based Research Tool for Work on Valency and Argument Structure Constructions. www.patternbank.fau.de (last accessed 3 June 2019).Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, and Hans-Martin Dederding (eds) (1980). Grimm’s Grandchildren: Current Topics in German Linguistics. Longman Linguistics Library 24. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian Roe, and Dieter Götz (eds) (2004). A Valency Dictionary of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Heringer, Hans Jürgen (1970). Theorie der deutschen Syntax. München: Hueber. [2nd edn 1973]Find this resource:

Heringer, Hans Jürgen (1996). Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Find this resource:

Hermann, Johann Gottfried Jakob (1801). De Emendanda Ratione Graecae Grammaticae. Leipzig: Apvd Gerhard Fleischer.Find this resource:

Herring, Susan C. (2001). ‘Computer-mediated discourse’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 612–34.Find this resource:

Herrmann, Tanja (2003). Relative Clauses in Dialects of English: A Typological Approach. PhD thesis. Freiburg: University of Freiburg.Find this resource:

Hewitt, George (1979). Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Find this resource:

Hewson, John (1972). Article and Noun in English. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Hewson, John (1991a). ‘Determiners as heads.’ Cognitive Linguistics 2: 317–37.Find this resource:

Hewson, John (1991b). ‘The roles of subject and verb in a dependency grammar’, in Werner Bahner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger (eds), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, Vol. III. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2364–6.Find this resource:

Hewson, John, and Vit Bubenik (1997). Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Heycock, Carolyn, and Anthony Kroch (2002). ‘Topic, focus and syntactic representations’, in Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts (eds), WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 141–65.Find this resource:

Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2012a). Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2012b) Standards of English: Codified Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hill, Archibald A. (1961). ‘Grammaticality.’ Word 17: 1–10.Find this resource:

Hilpert, Martin (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hilpert, Martin (2012). ‘Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels.’ Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42: 67–82.Find this resource:

Hilpert, Martin (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Hilpert, Martin (2016). ‘Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may.’ Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85.Find this resource:

Hiltunen, Ristu (2012). ‘The grammar and structure of legal texts’, in Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–51.Find this resource:

(p. 733) Himmelmann, Nikolaus, and Eva Schultze-Berndt (2005). ‘Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction’, in Nikolaus Himmelmann and Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds), Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–67.Find this resource:

Hinojosa, José, Manuel Martín-Loeches, Pilar Casado, Francisco Muñoz, and Francisco Rubia (2003). ‘Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntactic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 113–42.Find this resource:

Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, and Axel Bohmann (2015). ‘Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause.’ Language 91(4): 806–36.Find this resource:

Hinzen, Wolfram, Edouard Machery, and Markus Werning (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

Hirtle, Walter H. (2007a). Language in the Mind: An Introduction to Guillaume’s Theory. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Find this resource:

Hirtle, Walter H. (2007b). Lessons on the English Verb. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Find this resource:

Hjelsmlev, Louis (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Find this resource:

Ho, Yufang (2012). Corpus Stylistics in Principles and Practice: A Stylistic Exploration of John Fowles’ The Magus. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Find this resource:

Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillian.Find this resource:

Hodson, Jane (2014). Dialect in Film and Literature. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Hoey, Michael (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hofmeister, Philip, and Ivan A. Sag (2010). ‘Cognitive constraints and island effects.’ Language 86: 366–415.Find this resource:

Hogg, Richard M. (1992). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Norman Blake (ed), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67–167.Find this resource:

Hogg, Richard M., and R. D. Fulk (2011). A Grammar of Old English, Volume 2: Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Höhle, Barbara, Jürgen Weissenborn, Dorothea Kiefer, Antje Schulz, and Michaela Schmitz (2004). ‘Functional elements in infants’ speech processing: The role of determiners in the syntactic categorization of lexical elements.’ Infancy 5: 341–53.Find this resource:

Hollmann, Willem B. (2010). ‘Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events’, in Hans C. Boas (ed), Contrastive Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 201–36.Find this resource:

Hollmann, Willem B. (2012). ‘Word classes: Towards a more comprehensive usage-based account.’ Studies in Language, 36: 671–98. [Reprinted in Nikolas Gisborne and Willem B. Hollmann (eds), Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–37.]Find this resource:

Hollmann, Willem B. (2013). ‘Nouns and verbs in Cognitive Grammar: Where is the “sound” evidence?’ Cognitive Linguistics 24: 275–308.Find this resource:

(p. 734) Hollmann, Willem B. (2014). ‘What do adjectives sound like?’ Papers from the 14th National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 14: 749–54.Find this resource:

Hommerberg, Charlotte, and Gunnel Tottie (2007). ‘Try to or try and? Verb complementation in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 31: 45–64.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. (1979). ‘Aspect and foregrounding in discourse’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 213–41.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. (1987). ‘Emergent grammar.’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–57.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul (2011). ‘Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics’, in Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (eds), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 22–44.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. (2012). ‘Emergent grammar’, in James Gee and Michael Handford (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, 301–12.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra Thompson (1984). ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar.’ Language 60: 703–52.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J., and Elisabeth C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R., and Gregory Ward (eds) (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Hornstein, Norbert (1990). As Time Goes By: Tense in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Hoye, Leo Francis (2005). ‘“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions’, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1481–1506.Find this resource:

Huang, C.-T. James (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Huang, C.-T. James (1993). ‘Reconstruction and the nature of vP: Some theoretical consequences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–38.Find this resource:

Huang, Yan (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1970). ‘Two approaches to the analysis of tags.’ Journal of Linguistics 6: 215–22.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1971). The Sentence in Written English: A Syntactic Study Based on the Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1976). ‘Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb.’ Lingua 40: 331–83.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1988). Review of Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985). Language 64: 345–54.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1991). ‘Further remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 75–129.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney (1992). ‘On Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Martin and to Martin and Matthiessen.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 197–211.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, (p. 735) David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2004). ‘The classification of finite subordinate clauses’, in Gunnar Bergh, Jennifer Herriman, and Mats Mobärg (eds), An International Master of Syntax and Semantics: Papers Presented to Aimo Seppänen on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday (Gothenburg Studies in English, 88). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 103–16.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson (2002). ‘Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031–96.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1976). Arguments for a Non-transformational Grammar. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1987). ‘Zwicky on Heads.’ Journal of Linguistics 23: 109–32.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1988). ‘Extraction and grammatical relations.’ Lingua 76: 177–208.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1990). An English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (1993). ‘Do we have heads in our minds?’, in Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan (eds), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266–91.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2003a). ‘Case-agreement, PRO and structure sharing.’ Research in Language 1: 7–33.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2003b). ‘Word grammar’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 508–26.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2008). ‘Word grammar and construction grammar’, in Graeme Trousdale and Nikolas Gisborne (eds), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–302.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2010a). An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hudson, Richard A. (2010b). ‘The canon.’ The Times Higher Education Supplement 1958 (29 July): 51.Find this resource:

Hughes, Arthur, Peter Trudgill, and Dominic Watt (2005). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles. London: Hodder Arnold.Find this resource:

Hughes, Rebecca (1996). English in Speech and Writing. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Humphries, Colin, Jeffrey R. Binder, David A. Medler, and Einat Liebenthal (2006). ‘Syntactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 665–79.Find this resource:

(p. 736) Humphries, Colin, Tracy Love, David Swinney, and Gregory Hickok (2005). ‘Response of anterior temporal cortex to syntactic and prosodic manipulations during sentence processing.’ Human Brain Mapping 26: 128–38.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (1998a). ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four varieties of English’, in Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin, and Maria Estling (eds), The Major Varieties of English. Växjö: Växjö University Press, 159–75.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (1998b). New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2004). ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the Progressive in modern English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2007). English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of Their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2008). ‘Text corpora’, in Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics [HSK 29.1]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 168–87.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2009). ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change?’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars: Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–37.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2014). ‘The demise of the being to V construction.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 167–87.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne (2016). ‘Error, feature, (incipient) change – or something else altogether? On the role of low-frequency deviant patterns for the description of Englishes’, in Elena Seoane and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–60.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne, and Anne-Christine Gardner (2017). ‘Corpus-based approaches: Watching English change’, in Laurel J. Brinton (ed), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–130.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne, and Geoffrey Leech (2012). ‘Small is beautiful: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–88.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne, and Christian Mair (1999). ‘“Agile” and “Uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–42.Find this resource:

Hundt, Marianne, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds) (2017). The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hunston, Susan, and Gill Francis (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hunter, John (1784). ‘A grammatical essay in the nature, import, and effect of certain conjunctions.’ Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1: 113–34.Find this resource:

Huntley, Martin (1984). ‘The semantics of English imperatives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 7(2): 103–33.Find this resource:

Isel, Frédéric, Anja Hahne, Burkhard Maess, and Angela D. Friederici (2007). ‘Neurodynamics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French.’ Biological Psychology 74: 337–46.Find this resource:

Iverson, Gregory K., and Sang-Cheol Ahn (2007). ‘English voicing in dimensional theory.’ Language Sciences 29: 247–69.Find this resource:

(p. 737) Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1973). ‘The base rules for prepositional phrases’, in Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 345–56.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1977). X-Bar̅ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (2009). ‘Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–28.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray S. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 19752010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Jacobs, Joachim (1993). ‘Integration’, in Marga Reis (ed), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 64–116.Find this resource:

Jacobs, Joachim (1994). Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Find this resource:

Jacobs, Joachim (2009). ‘Valenzbindung oder Konstruktionsbindung? Eine Grundfrage der Grammatiktheorie.’ ZGL: 490–513.Find this resource:

Jacobson, Pauline (1999). ‘Towards a variable-free semantics.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2): 117–84.Find this resource:

Jacobson, Pauline (2002). ‘The (Dis)organization of the Grammar: 25 Years.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 601–26.Find this resource:

Jacobson, Pauline (2014). Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

James, Francis (1986). Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Find this resource:

Jansen, Wouter (2007). ‘Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing, and assimilation in English.’ Language Sciences 29: 270–93.Find this resource:

Janssen, Theo M. V. (1997). ‘Compositionality’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 417–73.Find this resource:

Jarrett, Gene Andrew (2010). Companion to African American Literature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine (2014). Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley (1993). The Language of Twentieth–Century Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley (2000). ‘Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater: In defence of theoretical eclecticism in stylistics.’ Poetics and Linguistics Association Occasional Papers 12, 1–15.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley (2006). ‘Poetry: Stylistic aspects’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Waltham, MA: Elsevier, 645–51.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley (2010a). Critical Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley (2010b). ‘“The Unprofessionals”: Syntactic iconicity and reader interpretation in contemporary poems’, in Dan McIntyre and Beatrix Busse (eds), Language and Style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 95–115.Find this resource:

(p. 738) Jeffries, Lesley (2015). ‘Textual meaning and its place in a theory of language.’ Topics in Linguistics. 15(1), 1–10.Find this resource:

Jeffries, Lesley, and Dan McIntyre (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Jespersen, Otto (1905). Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner. Reprinted with Foreword by Randolph Quirk by University of Chicago Press, 1982.Find this resource:

Jespersen, Otto (1909–1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part I: Sounds and Spellings; Part II: Syntax Vol. 1; Part III, Syntax Vol. 2; Part IV: Syntax Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Part V: Syntax Vol. 4; Part VI, Morphology (with Paul Christophersen, Nils Haislund, and Knud Schibsbye); Part VII: Syntax (with Nils Haislund). Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Republished in 1954 by George Allan and Unwin.Find this resource:

Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. (Reprinted 1966.)Find this resource:

Jespersen, Otto (1924/1975). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Find this resource:

Jespersen, Otto (1938). A Linguist’s Life: An English Translation of Otto Jespersen’s Autobiography with Notes, Photos and a Bibliography. Edited by Arne Juul, Hans F. Nielsen, and Jørgen Erik Nielsen and translated by David Stoner. Denmark: Odense University. Reprinted 1995.Find this resource:

Ježek, Elisabetta (2005). The Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Johannessen, Janne Bondi (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Johnson, David E., and Paul M. Postal (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:

Johnson, Keith (2004). ‘Massive reduction in conversational American English’, in Kiyoko Yoneyama and Kikuo Maekawa (eds), Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium. Tokyo: The National Institute for Japanese Language, 29–54.Find this resource:

Johnson, Kyle (2001). ‘What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t but not why’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 439–79.Find this resource:

Jonson, Ben (1640). The English Grammar. London: Bishop.Find this resource:

Jurafsky, Daniel (1992). An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. Ph.D. thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Find this resource:

Jusczyk, Peter W., Anne Cutler, and Nancy J. Redanz (1993). ‘Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words.’ Child Development 64: 675–87.Find this resource:

Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, and Jacqueline D. Woolley (1982). ‘Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111: 228–38.Find this resource:

Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, Timothy A. Keller, William F. Eddy, and Keith R. Thulborn (1996). ‘Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension.’ Science 274: 114.Find this resource:

Kaan, Edith (2002). ‘Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 165–93.Find this resource:

Kaan, Edith, and Tamara Y. Swaab (2003). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations.’ Cognitive Brain Research 17: 621–35.Find this resource:

(p. 739) Kaan, Edith, Anthony Harris, Edward Gibson, and Phillip Holcomb (2000). ‘The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 159–201.Find this resource:

Kachru, Braj B. (1985). ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle’, in Randolph Quirk and Henry Widdowson (eds), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council, 11–30.Find this resource:

Kachru, Braj B. (2006). ‘The English language in the outer circle’, in Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds), World Englishes, Volume 3. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Kahan, Jeffrey (2015). ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylometrics.’ ELH: English Literary History 82(3): 815–44.Find this resource:

Kahane, Sylvain (2003). ‘The Meaning-Text Theory’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 546–70.Find this resource:

Kahane, Sylvain (2012). ‘Why to choose dependency rather than constituency for syntax: A formal point of view’, in Juri D. Apresjan, Marie-Claude L’Homme, Leonid Iomdin, Jasmina Milicevic, Alain Polguère, and Leo Wanner (eds), Meanings, Texts, and Other Exciting Things: A Festschrift to Commemorate the 80th Anniversary of Professor Igor Alexandrovic Mel´cuk, 257–72.Find this resource:

Kahane, Sylvain, and Timothy Osborne (2015). ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in Lucien Tesnière (ed), Elements of Structural Syntax. Translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xxix–lxxiii.Find this resource:

Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected Speech. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Kaleta, Agnieszka (2016). ‘The binding hierarchy and infinitival complementation in English and in Polish: A contrastive study’, in Grzegorz Drożdż (ed), Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 143–59.Find this resource:

Kallel, Amel (2011). The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Find this resource:

Kaltenböck, Gunther (2004). ‘Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts: A functional perspective’, in Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 219–42.Find this resource:

Kaltenböck, Gunther (2005). ‘It-extraposition in English: A functional view.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2): 119–59.Find this resource:

Kaltenböck, Gunther (2011). ‘Explaining diverging evidence: The case of clause-initial I think’, in Doris Schönefeld (ed), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–112.Find this resource:

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva (2011). ‘On thetical grammar.’ Studies in Language 35(4): 852–97.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (1981). ‘A theory of truth and semantic representation’, in Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. B. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts, 277–322.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Kaplan, David (1989). ‘Demonstratives’, in Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Harvey Wettstein (eds), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481–563.Find this resource:

(p. 740) Kaplan, Ronald M., and Joan Bresnan (1982). ‘Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation’, in Joan Bresnan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173–281.Find this resource:

Karlsson, Fred (1987). Finnish Grammar, 2nd edn. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri (1973). ‘Presuppositions of compound sentences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–93.Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri (1974). ‘Presupposition and linguistic context.’ Theoretical Linguistics 1(1): 181–94.Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters (1979). ‘Conventional implicature’, in Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dineen (eds), Presupposition, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Kasher, Asa (ed) (1998). Pragmatics, vol. I–VI. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Kastovsky, Dieter (2005). ‘Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans’, in Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds), Handbook of Word-Formation. New York, NY: Springer, 99–124.Find this resource:

Katamba, Francis, and John Stonham (2006). Morphology, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Katz, Jonah, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2011). ‘Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English.’ Language 87: 771–816.Find this resource:

Kay, Paul (2013). ‘The limits of (construction) grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–48.Find this resource:

Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore (1999). ‘Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalization: The What’s X doing Y? construction.’ Language 75(1): 1–33.Find this resource:

Kaye, Jonathan (1989). Phonology: A Cognitive View. New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Kaye, Jonathan (1995). ‘Derivations and interfaces’, in Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. Harlow: Longman.Find this resource:

Kayne, Richard S. (1983). ‘Connectedness.’ Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 223–49.Find this resource:

Kayne, Richard S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Kazanina, Nina, Ellen Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida, and Colin Phillips (2007). ‘The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora.’ Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409.Find this resource:

Kearns, Kate (2000). Semantics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Kearns, Kate (2011). Semantics, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Find this resource:

Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.’ Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Find this resource:

Keenan-Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin (1976). ‘Topic as a discourse notion’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335–84.Find this resource:

Kehoe, Andrew, and Matt Gee (2011). ‘Social tagging: A new perspective on textual “aboutness”’, in Paul Rayson, Sebastian Hoffmann, and Geoffrey Leech (eds), Methodological and Historical Dimensions of Corpus Linguistics. (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6.) Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/06/kehoe_gee/, last accessed 6 April 2019.Find this resource:

Keizer, Evelien (2004). ‘Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction.’ English Language and Linguistics 8(2): 1–28.Find this resource:

(p. 741) Keizer, Evelien (2007). The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Keizer, Evelien (2011). ‘English proforms: An alternative account.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 303–34.Find this resource:

Keizer, Evelien (2015). A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Keizer, Evelien (2016). ‘We teachers, you fools: Pro + N(P) constructions in Functional Discourse Grammar.’ Language Sciences 53: 177–92.Find this resource:

Keller, Frank (2000). Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Kelly, Michael H. (1992). ‘Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments.’ Psychological Review 99: 349–64.Find this resource:

Kelly, Michael H. (1996). ‘The role of phonology in grammatical category assignment’, in James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds), From Signal to Syntax. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 249–62.Find this resource:

Kelly, Michael H., and J. Kathryn Bock (1988). ‘Stress in time.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 389.Find this resource:

Kempson, Ruth M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Kempson, Ruth M. (2016). ‘Syntax as the dynamics of language understanding’, in Keith Allan (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, 135–52.Find this resource:

Kempson, Ruth M., Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Dov Gabbay (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Kenesei, István (2007). ‘Semiwords and affixoids: The territory between word and affix.’ Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54: 263–93.Find this resource:

Kennedy, Christopher (1999). Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Kennedy, Christopher (2007). ‘Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 1–45.Find this resource:

Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally (2005). ‘Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates.’ Language 81(2): 345–81.Find this resource:

Kenstowicz, Michael (1993). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Kho, Kuan H., Peter Indefrey, Peter Hagoort, C. W. M. van Veelen, Peter C. van Rijen, and Nick F. Ramsey (2008), ‘Unimpaired sentence comprehension after anterior temporal cortex resection.’ Neuropsychologia 46: 1170–8.Find this resource:

Kilgariff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Brighton: Lexical Computing. Available at: www.sketchengine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/The_Sketch_Engine_2014.pdf.Find this resource:

Kim, Albert, and Lee Osterhout (2005). ‘The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 52: 205–25.Find this resource:

Kim, Jong-Bok, and Ivan A. Sag (2002). ‘Negation without head-movement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(2): 339–412.Find this resource:

Kim, Jong-Bok, and Peter Sells (2015). ‘English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective.’ Journal of Linguistics 51(1): 41–73.Find this resource:

(p. 742) Kiparsky, Paul (1982a). ‘Word-formation and the Lexicon’, in Fred Ingemann (ed), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 3–29.Find this resource:

Kiparsky, Paul (1982b). ‘From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology’, in Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Kiparsky, Paul (1985). ‘Some consequences of lexical phonology.’ Phonology 2: 85–138.Find this resource:

Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky (1970). ‘Fact’, in Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–73.Find this resource:

Kiss, Katalin É. (1996). ‘Two subject positions in English.’ The Linguistic Review 13: 119–42.Find this resource:

Kissine, Mikhail (2012). ‘Sentences, utterances and speech acts’, in Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169–90.Find this resource:

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Klavans, Judith L. (1982). ‘Some problems in a theory of clitics.’ Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Klein, Dan, and Christopher D. Manning (2004). ‘Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency.’ Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2004), 479–86. http://nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/factored-induction-camera.pdf.Find this resource:

Klein, Ewan (1980). ‘A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 1–45.Find this resource:

Klein, Ewan (1982). ‘The interpretation of adjectival comparatives.’ Journal of Linguistics 18(1): 113–36.Find this resource:

Klein, Ewan (1991). ‘Comparatives’, in Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 673–91.Find this resource:

Klein, Ewan, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). ‘Type-driven translation.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8(2): 163–201.Find this resource:

Klima, Edward S. (1965). Studies in Diachronic Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Klotz, Michael (2015). ‘Foundations of dependency and valency theory’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook. Volume 2. Berlin/Munich, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1004–26.Find this resource:

Klotz, Michael (2019) ‘Explaining explain: Some remarks on verb complementation, argument structure and the history of two English verbs.’ English Studies 100 (3): 339–356.Find this resource:

Klotz, Michael, and Thomas Herbst (2016). English Dictionaries: A Linguistic Introduction. Berlin: Schmidt.Find this resource:

Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993a). ‘Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 196–214.Find this resource:

Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993b). ‘Subjacency as a processing phenomenon.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633.Find this resource:

Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher (1985). ‘Sprache der Nähe–Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.’ Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Find this resource:

Kokkonidis, Miltiadis (2008). ‘First-order glue.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(1): 43–68.Find this resource:

König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

(p. 743) König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2000). ‘Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective’, in Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci Curl (eds), Reflexives: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 41–74.Find this resource:

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2007). ‘Speech act distinctions in grammar,’ in Timothy Shopen (ed), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd edn, Vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 276–324.Find this resource:

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2011). ‘Satztyp und Typologie’, in Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, and Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 84–873.Find this resource:

König, Esther, Wolfgang Lezius, and Holger Voormann (2003). TIGERSearch User’s Manual. IMS, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Available at: www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/ressourcen/werkzeuge/TIGERSearch/manual.html.Find this resource:

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2014). ‘Verbal derivation’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 257–75.Find this resource:

Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche (1991). ‘The position of subjects.’ Lingua 85: 211–58.Find this resource:

Koopman, Hilda, Dominique Sportiche, and Edward Stabler (2013). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Korta, Kepa, and John Perry (2015). ‘Pragmatics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2015 edn.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd (2002). ‘New prospects for the study of English dialect syntax: Impetus from syntactic theory and language typology’, in Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips, and Susanne van der Kleij (eds), Syntactic Microvariation. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute, 185–213.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the British Isles’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1089–103.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd (2006). ‘Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 603–24.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd (2013). ‘How powerful is geography as an explanatory factor of variation? Areal features in the Anglophone world’, in Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 165–94.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2012a). The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (2012b). ‘Introduction’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–11.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2013). The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English 2.0. [eWAVE 2.0]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ewave-atlas.org.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Verena Schröter (2017). ‘Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 304–30.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2004). ‘Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1142–1202.Find this resource:

(p. 744) Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2011). ‘Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in world Englishes: Prospects and limitations of searching for universals’, in Peter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–83.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds) (2012). Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, and Christoph Wolk (2012). ‘Morphosyntactic variation in the Anglophone world: A global perspective’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 906–36.Find this resource:

Kortmann, Bernd, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004). A Handbook of Varieties of English. Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Koster, Jan (1978). ‘Why subject sentences don’t exist’, in S. Jay Keyser (ed), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–64.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (1996). ‘Severing the external argument from its verb’, in Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–37.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2007). ‘Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge: The case of verbs.’ The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135.Find this resource:

Kreidler, Charles W. (1987). ‘English word stress: A theory of word-stress patterns in English by Ivan Poldauf and W. R. Lee [Review].’ Language 63: 155–8.Find this resource:

Kress, Gunther, and Rob