Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert de Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 1–7

Introduction

Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation

| Ghent University | Vrije Universiteit Brussel |
| Ghent University |


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 23 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00013.dec
References (15)
References
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives”. Linguistic Inquiry 411: 287–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., and Marilyn Ford. 2010. “Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English.” Language 86 (1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. “Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’”. ConstructionsGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of Particle Placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Jason Grafmiller. 2017. “Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English”. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Perter William Culicover. 1971. “A Reconsideration of Dative Movement.” Foundations of Language 71: 397–412.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold, and Paul Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago (Ill.): University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 191: 335–393.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: a cognitive linguistic study. Cognitive linguistics research 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Jason. 2009. “Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages.” International Journal of Bilingualism 131: 155–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günther. 2003. “Aspects of grammatical iconicity in English.” In From Sign to Signing, edited by Wolfgang G. Müller and Olga Fischer, 263–285. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shank, Christopher, Van Bogaert Julie, and Koen Plevoets. 2016. The diachronic development of zero complementation: A multifactorial analysis of the that/zero alternation with think, suppose, and believe. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 12(1): 31–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderschueren, Clara, and Kevin Diependaele. 2013. “The Portuguese Inflected Infinitive: An Empirical Approach.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9 (1): 161–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2016. “A friendly conspiracy of input, L1, and processing demands: that – variation in German and Spanish learner language”. In The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism (Proceedings of GURT 2014), edited by Lourdes Ortega, Andrea E. Tyler, Hae In Park and Mariko Uno, 115–136. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.