Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Part II - Morphology and Agreement Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 191 - 336Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Allan, R., Holmes, P., and Lundskær-Nielsen, T. 1995. Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1990. “The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st.” In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax, New York: Academic Press: 235–273.Google Scholar
Axel, K. and Weiß, H. 2011. “Pro-drop in the history of German.” In Wratil, M. and Gallmann, P. (eds.), Null Pronouns, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 21–52.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 2007. “Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words,” Language 83: 8–42.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
Drosdowski, G. 1984. Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 4th edn. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 1998. “Suppletion, Natural Morphology, and Diagrammaticity,” Linguistics 36: 1065–91.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2000. Morphological Change Up Close. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, D. 2005. “Review of The Morphology of Dutch by Geert Booij,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17: 141–148.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2006. “Against markedness (and what to replace it with),” Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P. and Hinchliffe, I. 1994. Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and. Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.) 1994. The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. I: Internal Factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orešnik, J. 1980. “On the dental accretion in certain 2nd p. sg. verbal forms of Icelandic, Faroese, and the old West Germanic languages,” Íslenskt mál 2: 195–211. [Reprinted in Orešnik 1985. Studies in the Phonology and Morphology of Modern Icelandic, ed. by M. Pétursson. Hamburg: Helmut Buske: 191–211.]Google Scholar
Palmer, F., Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. 2002. “Inflectional morphology and related matters.” In Huddleston and Pullum: 1565–1619.Google Scholar
Pietsch, L. 2005. Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2005. “Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, P. 1989. Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
References
ANS = Haeseryn, W. et al. (eds.) 2 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1996. “Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis,” Yearbook of Morphology 1995: 1–16.Google Scholar
Börjars, K. 2003. “Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish possessive,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 133–163.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1994. “Morphological universals and change.” In Asher, R. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. V. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 2557–2562.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2004. “Definite articles in Scandinavian: Competing grammaticalization processes in standard and non-standard varieties.” In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 147–180.Google Scholar
Dammel, A. 2018. “Warum eigentlich nicht Worter? Ein Beitrag zur Ökumene des Umlauts.” In Kazzazi, K., Luttermann, K., Wahl, S., and Fritz, T. (eds.), Worte über Wörter. Tübingen: Stauffenburg: 65–98.Google Scholar
Dammel, A. and Gillmann, M. 2014. “Relevanzgesteuerter Umbau der Substantivflexion im Deutschen. Spiegelt Diachronie Typologie?” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 136.2: 173–229.Google Scholar
Dammel, A and Kürschner, S. 2008. “Complexity in nominal plural morphology: A contrastive survey of ten Germanic languages.” In Miestamo, M., Kaius, S., and Karlsson, F. (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 243–262.Google Scholar
Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. 2010. “Pluralallomorphie in den germanischen Sprachen: Konvergenzen und Divergenzen in Ausdrucksverfahren und Konditionierung.” In Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms: 587–642.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. 1994. “Afrikaans.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge 478–504.Google Scholar
De Graaf, T. and Tiersma, P. 1980. “Some phonetic aspects of breaking in West Frisian,” Phonetica 37: 109–120.Google Scholar
Enger, H-O. 2004. “On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian,” Studies in Language 28.1: 51–82.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. and Tiersma, P. 1994. “Frisian.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge: 505–531.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 1993. Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen. Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M.1994. “Zur Rolle von Schemata bei der Pluralbildung monosyllabischer Maskulina.” In Köpcke, K-M. (ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalflexion. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 81–95.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 1995. “Die Klassifikation der schwachen Maskulina in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14.2: 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 2000. “Starkes, Schwaches und Gemischtes in der Substantivflexion des Deutschen. Was weiß der Sprecher über die Deklinationsparadigmen?” In Thieroff, R., Tamrat, M., Fuhrhop, N., and Teuber, O. (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 155–170.Google Scholar
Krahe, H. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. II: Formenlehre. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. 2006. “De Nederlandse meervoudsallomorfie tussen Duitse complexiteit en Engelse eenvoud.” In Hüning, M., Matthias, V., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T., and Verhagen, A. (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden: 103–122.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. 2008. Deklinationsklassenwandel. Eine diachron-kontrastive Studie zur Entwicklung der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. and Dammel, A. 2013. “Flexionsklassenwandel im Vergleich. Nominale und verbale Entwicklungen in vier germanischen Sprachen.” In Fleischer, J. and Simon, H. (eds.), Sprachwandelvergleich – Comparing Diachronies. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 43–71.Google Scholar
Marynissen, A. 1994. “Het -s-meervoud in het vroegste ambtelijke Middelnederlands,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur Älteren Germanistik 40: 63–105.Google Scholar
Neef, M. 2000a. “Phonologische Konditionierung.” In Booij, G., Jehmann, C., Mudgan, J., and Skopetas, S. (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 463–473.Google Scholar
Neef, M. 2000b. “Morphologische und syntaktische Konditionierung.” In Booij, G., Jehmann, C., Mudgan, J., and Skopetas, S. (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 473–484.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2006. “Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29.2: 201–238.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2006. “Zur Entstehung und Struktur ungebändigter Allomorphie: Pluralbildungsverfahren im Luxemburgischen.” In Moulin, C. and Nübling, D. (eds.), Perspektiven einer linguistischen Luxemburgistik. Heidelberg: Winter: 107–128.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2008. “Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75 3: 282–330.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2012. “Auf dem Wege zu Nicht-Flektierbaren: Die Deflexion der deutschen Eigennamen diachron und synchron.” In Rothstein, B. (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 224–246.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2013. “Zwischen Konservierung, Eliminierung und Funktionalisierung: Der Umlaut in den germanischen Sprachen.” In Fleischer, J. and Simon, H. (eds.), Comparing Diachronies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 15–42.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2018. “Worte versus Wörter: Zur Genese und zur semantischen Differenzierung einer Pluraldublette.” In Kazzazi, K., Luttermann, K., Wahl, S., and Fritz, T. (eds.), Worte über Wörter. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 385–407.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. and Schmuck, M. 2010. “Die Entstehung des s-Plurals bei Eigennamen als Reanalyse vom Kasus- zum Numerusmarker. Evidenzen aus der deutschen und niederländischen Dialektologie,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 77.2: 145–182.Google Scholar
Schmuck, M. 2011. “Vom Genitiv- zum Pluralmarker: Der s-Plural im Spiegel der Familiennamengeographie.” In Heuser, R., Nübling, D., and Schmuck, M. (eds.), Familiennamengeographie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 285–304.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. 1983. “The nature of phonological representation: evidence from breaking in Frisian,” Journal of Linguistics 19: 59–78.Google Scholar
References
Askedal, J. O. 2016. “Norwegian.” In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 4. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter: 2525–2554.Google Scholar
Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E. H., Karker, A., Naumann, H. P., and Teleman, U. (eds.), 2002/2005. The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, Vol. 1 (2002), Vol. 2 (2005).Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., and Plag, I. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1993. “Against split morphology.” In Booij, G. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 27–49.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2015. “The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: Schema unification and second order schemas,” Nederlandse Taalkunde 20: 285–314.Google Scholar
Booij, G. and Masini, F. 2015. “The role of second order schemas in word formation.” In Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L., and Štekauer, P. (eds.), Semantics of Complex Words. Dordrecht: Springer: 47–66.Google Scholar
Carstens, W. and Bosman, N. (eds.) 2014. Kontemporêre Afrikaanse taalkunde. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. and Schlücker, B. (eds.) 2012. Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., and Russell, K. 2004. “Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper),” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 307–357.Google Scholar
Götzsche, H. 2016. “Danish.” In Müller, P.O., Ohnheiser, I., Olse, S.n, and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 4. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 2505–2524.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E. (ed.) 2016. Wortbildung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 2012. “Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments.” In Oebel, G. (ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich / Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs. Hamburg: Verlag dr. Kovač: 97–142.Google Scholar
Hüning, M. and Booij, G. 2014. “From compounding to derivation. The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’,” Folia Linguistica 48: 579–604.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G. 1997. On the Principles of Word Formation in Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., and van Kemenade, A. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, P.O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.) 2016, Word Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P., Jacobsen, J., and Hansen, Z. S. 2004. Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. “On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–275.Google Scholar
References
Audring, J. 2006. “Genusverlies en de betekenis van naamwoorden.” In Hüning, M., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T., and Verhagen, A. (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: SNL: 71–88.Google Scholar
Audring, J. 2010. “Deflexion und pronominales Genus.” In Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms: 693–717.Google Scholar
Audring, J. and Booij, G. 2009. “Genus als probleemcategorie,” Taal en tongval 22: 13–37.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 2000. “Gender in North Germanic: A diasystematic and functional approach.” In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 25–53.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 2007. Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick, third edn. Tübingen and Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2000. “Animacy and the notion of semantic gender.” In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 99–115.Google Scholar
Dolberg, F. 2012. “Gender change from Old to Middle English.” In Hegedűs, I. and Fodor, A (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 263–288.Google Scholar
Dolberg, F. 2014. Gender Variation, Change, and Loss in Mediaeval English. Evidence from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Duke, J. 2009. The Development of Gender as a Grammatical Category: Five Case Studies from Germanic. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Duke, J. 2010. “Gender reduction and loss in Germanic.” In Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms: 643–672.Google Scholar
Enger, H-O. (2004). “On the relation between gender and declension. A diachronic perspective from Norwegian,” Studies in Language 28: 51–82.Google Scholar
Fahlbusch, F. and Nübling, D. 2014. “Der Schauinsland – die Mobiliar – das Turm. Das referentielle Genus bei Eigennamen und seine Genese,” Beiträge zur Namenforschung 49.3: 245–288.Google Scholar
Fahlbusch, F. and Nübling, D. 2016. “Genus unter Kontrolle. Referentielles Genus bei Eigennamen – am Beispiel der Autonamen.” In A. Bittner and C. Spieß (eds.), Formen und Funktionen. Morphosemantik und grammatische Konstruktion: 103–125.Google Scholar
Jacobs, N. G., Prince, E. F., and van der Auwera, J. 2002. “Yiddish.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London and New York: Routledge: 406–436.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M., Panther, K-U. and Zubin, D. 2010. “Motivating grammatical and conceptual gender agreement in German.” In Schmid, H-J. and Handl, S. (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 171–194.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. and Zubin, D. 1996. “Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen.” In Lang, E. and Zifonun, G. (eds.), Deutsch: Typologisch. IDS-Jahrbuch 1995. Mannheim: IDS: 473–491.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. and Zubin, D. 2009. “Genu.” In Hentschel, E. and Vogel, P. M. (eds.), Deutsche Morphologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 132–154.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. and Nübling, D. 2011. “The interaction of gender and declension in Germanic languages,” Folia Linguistica 45.2: 355–388.Google Scholar
Leiss, E. 2000. “Gender in Old High German.” In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 237–258.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, M. 2002. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, eighth edn. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2008. “Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75.3: 282–330.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2015. “Die Bismarck – der Arena – das Adler. Vom Drei-Genus- zum Sechs-Klassen-System bei Eigennamen im Deutschen: Degrammatikalisierung und Exaptation,” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 43.2: 306–344.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2017. “Funktionen neutraler Genuszuweisungen bei Personennamen und Personenbezeichnungen im germanischen Vergleich,” Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 23: 173–211.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. in press. “Die Bismarck – der Arena – das Adler. The emergence of a classifier system for proper names in German.” In J. Flick and R. Szczepaniak (eds.), Walking on the Grammaticalization Path of the Definite Article in German: Functional Main and Side Roads.Google Scholar
Nübling, D., Busley, S., and Drenda, J. 2013. “Dat Anna und s Eva – Neutrale Frauenrufnamen in deutschen Dialekten und im Luxemburgischen zwischen pragmatischer und semantischer Genuszuweisung,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 80.2: 152–196.Google Scholar
Panther, K-U. 2009. “Grammatische versus konzeptuelle Kongruenz. Oder: Wann siegt das natürliche Geschlecht?” In Brdar-Szabó, R., Knipf-Komlósi, E., and Péteri, A. (eds.), An der Grenze zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang: 67–86.Google Scholar
Quak, A. and van der Horst, J. M. 1997. “Oudnederlands (tot circa 1200).” In van den Toorn, M., Pijnenburg, W. J. J., van Leuvensteijn, J. A., and van der Horst, J. M. (eds.), Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taa. Amsterdam University Press: 19–36.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, K. 1986. “Fleksionssystemets forenkling og middelnedertysk,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 101: 173–183.Google Scholar
Roberge, P. 2002. “Convergence and the formation of Afrikaans,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14.1: 57–59.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. 2007. “Typologically motivated over- and underspecification of gender in Germanic languages,” Language Typology and Universals 60: 205–218.Google Scholar
Sasse, H-J. 1993. “Syntactic categories and subcategories.” In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 646–686.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. 2008. Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. and Dolberg, F. 2011. “From lexical to referential gender: An analysis of gender change in medieval English based on two historical documents,” Folia Linguistica 45.2: 489–534.Google Scholar
Stenroos, M. 2008. “Order out of chaos? The English gender change in the southwest Midlands as a process of semantically based reorganization,” English Language and Linguistics 12: 445–473.Google Scholar
Wahrig-Burfeind, R. 1989. Nominales und pronominales Genus im südlichen Nordseegebiet: eine areallinguistische Untersuchung. Munich: Tuduv.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1986. “Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zur Entstehung von Deklinationsklassen,” Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 3.1: 76–96.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 2001. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung, second edn. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
References
Alexiadou, A. and Fanselow, G. 2000. “On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I.” In Zwart, C. J-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings of GLOW 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 219–242.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. 1976. “The VP complement analysis in modern Icelandic.” In Papers from the Sixth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Recherches linguistiques à Montréal, Vol. 6: 1–21.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. 1982. “The representation of case in modern Icelandic.” In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 427–503.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. “On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case.” In Coon, J., Massam, D., and Travis, L. deMena (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford University Press: 111–134.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Vinokurova, N. 2010. “Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in Sakha,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach. Lund: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2002. “ ‘Oblique subjects’ in Icelandic and German,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 61–99.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. and Eythórsson, T. 2003. “The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects,” Journal of Linguistics 39: 439–472.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2009. “The development of case in Germanic.” In Barðdal, J. and Chelliah, S. (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 123–159.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, P. and Subbarao, K. V. (eds.) 2004. Non-Nominative Subjects. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2002. “Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–167.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Cook, P. 2006. “The datives that aren’t born equal: Beneficiaries and the Dative Passive.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 141–184.Google Scholar
Czepluch, H. 1996. Kasus im Deutschen und Englischen: ein Beitrag zur Theorie des abstrakten Kasus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Delsing, L-O. 2002. “The morphology of Old Nordic II: Old Sw. and Old Dan.” In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E. H., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P., Telemann, U., Elmevik, L., and Widmark, G. (eds.), The Nordic Languages, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 925–940.Google Scholar
Dewey, T. K. and Syed, Y. 2009. “Case variation in Gothic absolute con-structions.” In Barðdal, J. and Chelliah, S. (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 3–21.Google Scholar
Enger, H-O. 2013. “Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology,” Diachronica 30: 1–26.Google Scholar
Eyþórsson, Þ., Johannessen, J. B., Laake, S., and Åfarli, T. 2013. “Dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese: Preservation and non-preservation,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 219–249.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1968. “The case for case.” In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.: 1–25.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. and Sprouse, R. 1991. “Lexical case phenomena.” In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 392–416.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1985. “The case of German.” In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris: 65–101.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. “The license to license: Licensing of structural Case plus economy yields Burzio’s Generalization.” In Reuland, E. (ed.), Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 31–56.Google Scholar
Harðarson, J. A. 2017. “The morphology of Germanic.” In Klein, J., Joseph, B., and Fritz, M. (eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 913–95.Google Scholar
Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.) 2006. Datives and Other Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Þ. 2000. “Interacting movements in the history of Icelandic.” In Tsoulas, G., Pintzuk, S., and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press: 296–321.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2003. “Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic.” In Brandner, E. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications: 127–163.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2012. “Dative versus accusative and the nature of inherent case.” In Fernandez, B. and Etxepare, R. (eds.), Variation in Datives. Oxford University Press: 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. 1976. “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’.” In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press: 303–333.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. van 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1997. “The rise of positional licensing.” In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press: 460–494.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, G. and Travis, L. 1987. “The syntax of adjacency.” In Proceedings of WCCFL, 6: 173–186.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 2008. “On the development of Case theory: Triumphs and challenges.” In Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 17–41.Google Scholar
Levin, T. 2017. “Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative- nominative case-stacking,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 447–498.Google Scholar
Levin, T. and Preminger, O. 2015. “Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33 :231–250.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 2001. “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles,” Lingua 111: 419–464.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 2002. “Icelandic verbs with dative objects,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 1–60.Google Scholar
Maling, J. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 2002. “The ‘new impersonal’ construction in Icelandic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and Licensing.” In ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics: 234–253.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1993. “Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.” In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 113–150.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2002. “The rise of the to-dative in Middle English.” In Lightfoot, D. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford University Press: 107–130.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2003 [2009]. “On the pronominal origins of the Germanic strong adjective inflection,” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 63: 53–82.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2005. “OV-VO in English and the role of case marking in word order,” English Language and Linguistics 9: 1–20.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas 2006. “German inherent datives and argument structure.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 49–77.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2009. “Structural case, locality and cyclicity.” In Grohmann, K. (ed.), Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107–130.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2014. Deducing the structural /inherent / quirky case distinction from competing theories of case. Presentation at CGSW 29, University of York.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. and Sundaresan, S. 2011. Nominative Case is Independent of Finiteness and Agreement. Ms., Tromsø and Tromsø/Stuttgart. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001350.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2006. “The interpretation of German datives and English have.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 185–211.Google Scholar
Meinunger, A. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F. 1999. Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 1998. “The linguistic status of the early runic inscriptions of Scandinavia.” In Düwel, K. (ed.), Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 539–55.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1993. “On assigning semantic cases in Finnish.” In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 75–88.Google Scholar
Parrott, J. 2007. Distributed Morphological Mechanisms of Labovian Variation in Morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Parrott, J. 2009. “Danish vestigial case and the acquisition of vocabulary in Distributed Morphology,” Biolinguistics 3: 270–304.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2002. “Morphological case and word order in Old English,” Language Sciences 24: 267–299.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Quinn, H. 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ratkus, A. 2015. “Gothic possessives, adjectives, and other modifiers in -ata,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27: 238–307.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (ed.) 2000. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2006. A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. and Taylor, A. 2014. The Development of Old English: A Linguistic History of English, Vol. II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1997. “Directionality and word order change in the history of English.” In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press: 397–426.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schrodt, R. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II: Syntax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F. and Wood, J. 2013. “Case alternations in Icelandic ‘get’-passives,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 269–312.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1991. “Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2006. “The nom/acc alternation in Germanic.” In Hartmann, J. and Molnárfi, L. (eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 13–50.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2009. “The No Case generalization.” In Alexiadou, A. et al. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 249–280.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. 2002. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2002. Morphosyntactic Change in the History of the Mainland Scandinavian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5:197–225.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2006. “Case alternations in the Icelandic passive and middle.” Ms., University of Tromsø, available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000124.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J. í L., and Hansen, Z. S. 2004. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðska-parfelag.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J-R. 1977. “Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and Control’.” In Freidin, R. et al. (eds.), 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wegener, H. 1991. “Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus?” In Fanselow, G. and Felix, Sascha (eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Tübingen: Narr: 70–103.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–130.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1997. “Cause and the structure of verbs,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68.Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H-A, Putnam, M. T., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., and Salmons, J. 2015. “New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in heritage German,” Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 6, Article 1716. www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thráinsson, H. 1985. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar
References
Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., and van der Ham, M. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Part 1. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., and van der Ham, M. 2006. “Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND).” www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 1984. “COMP in Bavarian XE ‘Bavarian’ syntax,” The Linguistic Review, 3: 209–274.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 2014. “Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh- movement in Bavarian.” In Grewendorf, G. and Weiß, H. (eds.), Bavarian Syntax. Contributions to the Theory of Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 23–50.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses. Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, Meertens Instituut (KNAW) / Universiteit Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 317.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2003. “Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked goal,” Linguistic Inquiry 34.3: 393–412.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2016. “Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of ‘upwards’ complementizer agreement and the mechanics of case,” Syntax, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, J. van and van Koppen, M. 2002. “The locality of agreement and the CP-domain,” Handout Glow 2002, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cremers, C. and van Koppen, M. 2008. “Boolean Agreement in Tegelen Dutch,” Lingua 118.8: 1064–1079.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2010. Agreement with Subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2013. “Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.2: 357–407.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. 2004. “Diachronic clues to pro-drop and complementizer agreement in Bavarian.” In Fuß, E. and Trips, C. (eds.), Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 59–100.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. 2005. The Rise of Agreement: A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. 2008. “Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the c-domain,” Linguistische Berichte 213: 77–106.Google Scholar
Ginneken, J. van 1939. “De vervoeging der onderschikkende voegwoorden en voornaamwoorden,” Onze Taaltuin, 8:1–11.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 1980. “Comp-Agreement?” In Zonneveld, W. and Weerman, F. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977–1979. Dordrecht: Foris: 291–306.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 1997. “Historiografie van het onderzoek naar voegwoordvervoeging: een bibliografisch overzicht (1821–1997).” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 112–145.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 2000. “Structurele aspecten van de morfologie van voegwoordvervoeging: mogelijkheden en beperkingen, morfologisch gewicht en MCGG.” In de Tier, V., Devos, M., and van Keymeulen, J. (eds.), Nochtans was scherp van zin. Huldealbum Hugo Ryckeboer. Een bundel artikelen aangeboden aan Hugo Ryckeboer voor zijn 65e verjaardag. Gent-Deinze: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde van de Universiteit Gent-Van Daele: 269–294.Google Scholar
Gruber, B. 2008. Complementizer Agreement: New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de 1997. “Voegwoordcongruentie in het Fries.” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P.J. Meertensinstituut 9: 50–67.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de 2001. “More is going on upstairs than downstairs: Embedded root phenomena in West Frisian,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 3–38.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de and Weerman, F. 1986. “Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 77–110.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. 1999. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and van Koppen, M. 2012. “Complementizer Agreement and the relation between T and C,” Linguistic inquiry 43.3: 441–454.Google Scholar
Haeringen, C. van 1958. “Vervoegde voegwoorden in het Oosten,” Driemaandelijkse bladen 19: 115–124.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. 1997. “Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten.” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 6–30.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. 1999. “Everything you always wanted to know about Complementizer Agreement.” In van Gelderen, E. and Samiian, V. (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL 10. California State University: Fresno: 189–200.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 1997. “Pro-drop, cliticering en voegwoordcongruëntie in het Westgermaans.” In Hoekstra, E and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 68–86.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. and Marácz, L. 1989. “On the position of inflection in West Germanic,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 44:75–88.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2005. One Probe, Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations 105.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2012. “The distribution of phi-features in pronouns,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30: 135–177.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2017. “Complementizer agreement.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Mayr, C. 2010. “On the necessity of phi-features: The case of Bavarian subject extraction.” In Panagiotidis, P. (ed.), The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and wh-dependencies. Oxford University Press: 117–142.Google Scholar
McCloseky, J. 2001. “The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish,” Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.Google Scholar
Meer, G. van der 1991. “The ‘conjugation’ of subclause introducers: Frisian -st,” North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE), 17:63–84.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and van Koppen, M. 2011. “All there is to know about the alls-construction,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14.2: 81–109.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 2000. Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schiepek, J. 1899 / 1908. Der Satzbau der Egerländer Mundart. 2 Teile. Prag: Verlag des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. 1987. “Enclitische verschijnselen in het Westbrabants,” Taal en Tongval 39:121–140.Google Scholar
Vanacker, V-F. 1949. “Over enkele meervoudsvormen van voegwoorden,” Taal en Tongval 1: 32–45, 77–93, 108–112.Google Scholar
Vogelaer, G. de 2006. Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese Dialecten. Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Weber, A. 1964. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik. Ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.Google Scholar
Weise, O. 1907. “Die sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen,” Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten 2: 199–205.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2005. “Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2012. “The diachrony of complementizer agreement.” Paper presented at the Complementizer Agreement Workshop, October 17, University of Gent. www.gist.ugent.be/file/366.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 1997. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: The case of English n’t,” Language 59.3: 502–513.Google Scholar