Auwera, J. van der and Aguilar, A. Z. 2016. “The History of Modality and Mood.” In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford University Press: 9–29.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. 2002. “Modality and Polarity.” In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 51–73.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. and van Dooren, A. 2017. “Modal auxiliaries.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn., Vol. V. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 2646–2676.Google Scholar

Berthelin, S., Borthen, K, and Knudsen, C. S 2013. “Midtstillet jo–semantiske og pragmatiske aspekter.” Paper presented at MONS 15. University of Oslo, November 21, 2013.Google Scholar

Boogart, R. 2007. “The Past and perfect of epistemic modals.” In Saussure, L., de Moeschler, J., and Puskas, G. (eds.), Recent Advances in the Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 47–71.Google Scholar

Boogart, R. And Janssen, T. 2010. “Mood in Dutch.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouchard, D. 2013. The Nature and Origin of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, V. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Brennan, V. 2004. Modalities. Ms., Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology – A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. N. 1977. References to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chung, S. and Timberlake, A. 1985. “Tense, aspect and mood.” In Scopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 203–258.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Diewald, G. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Ployfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Dyvik, H.1999. “The universality of f-stucture: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2011. “Modals and the present perfect.” In Mortelmans, T., Mortelmans, J, and de Mulder, W. (eds.), In the Mood for Mood. Rodopi: Cahiers Chronos: 1–20.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2017. “Counterfactual Present Perfects.” In Fryd, M. and Giancarli, P-D. (eds.), Aorists and Perfects: Synchronic and diachronic Perspectives. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers: 245–288.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. in press. “Have-less perfects.” In Eide, K. M. and Fryd, M. (eds.), Norwegian: An Old Norse Heritage. The Perfect Volume. Papers on the Perfect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Elsness, J. 2003. “A contrastive look at the present perfect/preterite opposition in English and Norwegian,” Languages in Contrast 3.1: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Fagan, S. 2001. “Epistemic modality and tense in German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13.3: 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falk, C. 2010. “The Interaction of Temporal and modal Auxiliaries in Counterfactual Contexts in Swedish,” Tampa Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In Borchert, D. M (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn., Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference: 20–27.Google Scholar

Frege, G. 1892. “Der Gedanke. Eine Logische Untersuchungen.” In Patzig, G. (ed.), 1986: Logische Untersiehurg (3): 30–53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Gelderen, E. van 2004. Grammticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haugen, E. 1972. “The inferential perfect in Scandinavian: a problem of contrastive Linguistics,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17.2: 132–139.Google Scholar

Haugen, O. E. 1998. Grunnbok i norrønt språk. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Izvorski, R. 1997. “The present perfect as an epistemic modal.” In Lawson, A. and Cho, E. (eds.), 1999: SALT VII. Ithaca: Cornell University: 99–116.Google Scholar

Khomutova, T. N. 2014. “Mood and Modality in Modern English,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 154: 395–401.Google Scholar

Kinnander, B. 1974. “Perfektum i sekundär användning,” Nysvenska studier 53: 127–172.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1992. “The present perfect puzzle,” Language 68: 525–552.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 1986. “Conditionals,” Chicago Linguistics Society 22.2: 1–15.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 2002. “The Notional Category of Modality.” In Portner, P. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell: 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larsson, I. 2014. “Conditional clauses and the shape of HAVE,” Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1: 287–299.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. 1969. Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Lohnstein, H. 2000. Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrizierung der Modus-phrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lohnstein, H. 2001. “Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases,” Theoretical Linguistics 27.2–3: 187–214.Google Scholar

Lohnstein, H. and Bredel, U. 2004. “Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German.” In Lohnstein, H. and Trissler, S. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 235–264.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mezhevich, I. 2008. “A time-relational approach to tense and mood.” In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 326–334.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Næs, O. 1972. Norsk grammatikk. Elementære strukturer og syntaks. Oslo: Fabritius.Google Scholar

Nordström, J. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. 2006. “Modality: Overview and linguistic issues.” In Frawley, W., Klein, W., and Levinson, S. (eds.), Expression of Cognitive Categories: The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1–26.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patard, A. 2014. “When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanic languages,” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 69–97.Google Scholar

Plank, F. 1984. “The modals story retold,” Studies in Language 8: 305–364.Google Scholar

Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 1985. “Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, H. 2010. “Mood in Icelandic.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 33–55.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 1978. “Assertion.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 315–332.Google Scholar

Thieroff, R. 2004. “The subjunctive mood in German and the Germanic languages.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology. Studia Typlogica 6. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 315–358.Google Scholar

Thieroff, R. 2010. “Moods, moods, moods.” In B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–29.Google Scholar

Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P, Jacobsen, J. Í L., and Hansen, Z. S.. 2004. Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Froðskaparfelag.Google Scholar

Thráinsson, H. and Vikner, S. 1995. “Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian languages,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51–88.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. “On the semantic motivation of verb movement to C in German,” Theoretical Linguistics 32.3: 257–306.Google Scholar

Vikner, S. 1988. “Modals in Danish and event expressions,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39: 1–33.Google Scholar

Wärnsby, A. 2009. “Controllability as a contextual variable.” In Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer: 69–98.Google Scholar

Wright, G. H. von 1951. “Deontic Logic.” Mind 60: 1–15. Reprinted in G. H. von Wright, A. Tsangalidis, and R. Fachinnetti (eds.), Logical Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 58–74.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. 1999. “Modal verbs must be raising verbs.” In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J. D., and Nordquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL18): 599–612.Google Scholar

Bach, E. 1981. “On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 63–81.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bennett, M. and Partee, B. 1978. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Bickerton, D. 1999. “How to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisitionists can learn from creoles.” In DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language Creation and Language Change – Creolization, Diachrony and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brodahl Nilsen, M. 2012. Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk. Om semantisk motivasjon for bøyingsklassetilhørighet ved norske verb. [Strong verbs and common semantic features. On the semantic motivation for conjugational classes of Norwegian verbs.] M.A. thesis, Dept. of Linguistic and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect – An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1985a. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1985b. “Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology.” In Shopen, T (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 309–348.Google Scholar

Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation. A Constraint-Based Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Distributed by: Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), The Hague.Google Scholar

Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Extebarria, M. 2000. “The primitives of temporal relations.” In Martin, R., Michael, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 157–186.Google Scholar

Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2004. “The syntax of time adverbs.” In Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time: Current Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Vooys, C. G. N. [1957]. 1967. Nederlandse spraakkunst, 7th edn., rev. by M. Schönfeld. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar

Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dyvik, H. 1999. “The universality of f-stucture: discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Studies in Generative Grammar 74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2009a. “Tense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar.” In Putnam, M. (ed.), Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 91–132.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2009b. “Finiteness: The haves and the have-nots.” In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J. T., McFadden, J., Nuger, J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 357–390.Google Scholar

Eide, K. M. 2016. “Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford.” In Eide, K. M. (ed.), Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 121–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enç, M. 1986. “Towards a referential analysis of tense expressions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426.Google Scholar

Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In D. M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn. http://mit.edu/fintel/www/modality.pdf.Google Scholar

Gelderen, E. van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guéron, J. and Hoekstra, T. 1995. “The temporal interpretation of predication.” In Cardinaletti, A. and Guasti, M. T. (eds.), Small Clauses: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 28. New York: Academic Press: 77–107.Google Scholar

Harbert, W. 2006. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Herweg, M. 1991a. “A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect,” Journal of Semantics 8: 362–403.Google Scholar

Herweg, M. 1991b. “Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states,” Linguistics 29: 969–1010.Google Scholar

Hofmann, T. R. 1976. “Past tense replacement and the modal system.” In McCawley, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press: 86–100.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Janssen, T. A. J. M. 1988. “Tense and temporal composition in Dutch: Reichenbach’s ‘point of reference’ reconsidered.” In Ehrich, V. and Vater, H. (eds.), Temporalsemantik. Beiträge zür Linguistik der Zeitreferenz. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 96–128.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Book IV. Syntax. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Julien, M. 2000. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation – A Study of Verbal Inflection. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. Published as Julien 2002 by Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Julien, M. 2001. “The syntax of complex tenses,” The Linguistic Review 18:125–167.Google Scholar

Keller, R. E. 1961. German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1998. “Partitive case and aspect.” In Geuder, W. and Butt, M. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI: 265–307.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1992. “The Present Perfect puzzle.” Language 68: 525–552.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1995. “A time-relational analysis of Russian Aspect,” Language 71: 669–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, W. 1998. “Assertion and Finiteness.” In Dittmar, N. and Penner, Z. (eds.), Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag: 225–245.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 2006. “On finiteness.” In van Geenhoven, V. (ed), Semantics in Acquisition. Heidelberg: Springer: 245–272.Google Scholar

König, E. and van der Auwera, J. 1994. The Germanic Languages. London:Routledge.Google Scholar

Kreidler, C. W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lockwood, W. 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maylor, B. R. 2002. Lexical Template Morphology: Change of State and the Verbal Prefixes in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Meulen, A. G. B. ter 1995. Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Societe Neophilogique.Google Scholar

Muysken, P. and Law, P. 2001. “Creole Studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide,” GLOT International 5.2: 47–57.Google Scholar

Partee, B. 1973. “Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English,” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609.Google Scholar

Ponelis, F. A. 1992. The Development of Afrikaans. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar

Prior, A. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. 1993. “The transformation of Hawaiian plantation pidgin and the emergence of Hawaii Creole English.” Paper presented at the conference of Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Amsterdam, June 10–12.Google Scholar

Romaine, S. 1993. Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Salmons, J. 2012. A History of German: What the Past Reveals about Today’s Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, C. S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Stowell, T. 1995. “What is the meaning of the present and past tenses?” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier: 381–396.Google Scholar

Stowell, T. 1996. “The phrase structure of tense.” In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in Natural language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 33. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Vikner, S. 1985. “Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations,” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–98.Google Scholar

Zagona, K. 1995. “Temporal argument structure: Nonfigurational elements of construal.” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, 397–410.Google Scholar

Zwarts, J. 2006. “Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs,” Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 42.2: 93–107.Google Scholar

Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.) 2005. Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Claessen, C. and Zwarts, J. 2010. “On the directional particle heen.” In van Kampen, J. and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 31–43.Google Scholar

Eschenbach, C. 2005. “Contextual, functional, and geometric components in the semantics of projective terms.” In Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press: 71–91.Google Scholar

Garrod, K. R. and Coventry, S. A. 2004. Saying, Seeing, and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Gehrke, B. 2008. Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

Griffiths, J. and Sailor, C. 2015. “Prepositional object gaps in English.”, British In Köhnlein, B. and Audring, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–74.Google Scholar

Haselbach, B. 2016. P’s at the Interfaces: On the Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology of Spatial Prepositions In German. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of The Prepositions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kracht, M. 2002. “On the semantics of locatives,” Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 2: 157–232.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1996. “Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence.” In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 109–169.Google Scholar

Lindner, S. J. 1983. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

McIntyre, A. 2015. “Particle-verb formation.” In Müller, P., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 434–450.Google Scholar

Noonan, M. 2010. “À to Zu.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. Oxford University Press: 161–195.Google Scholar

Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., and Cohn, A. G. 1992. “A spatial logic based on regions and connection.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman: 165–176.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, H. van 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, H. van and Huybregts, R. 2007. “Location and locality.” In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. (eds.), Clausal and Phrasal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation: A Festschrift for Joseph E. Emonds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 339–364.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2007. “Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce.” In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T., and Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–103.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2010. “Spatial p in English.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. New York: Oxford University Press: 126–160.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1975. “Figure and ground in complex sentences.” In Cogen, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society: 419–430.Google Scholar

Zwarts, J. 2017. “Spatial semantics: modeling the meaning of prepositions,” Language and Linguistics Compass 11. 5: 1–20.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L 1970. “Double Negatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–186.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. “Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap,” Journal of Semantics 29: 345–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brandtler, J. 2012. The Evaluability Hypothesis: The Syntax and Semantics of Polarity Item Licensing in Swedish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Büring, D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Collins, C. and Postal, P. M.. 2014. Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Crnič, L. 2014. “Non-monotonicity in NPI Licensing,” Natural Language Semantics 22:169–217.Google Scholar

de Swart, H. 1998. “Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope,” Lingua 105: 175–200.Google Scholar

den Dikken, M. 2002. “Direct and Indirect Polarity Item Licensing,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 35–66.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1975. “Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–376.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1979. “Implication reversal in a natural language.” In Guenther, F. and Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel: 289–301.Google Scholar

Gajewski, J. R. 2011. “Licensing Strong NPIs,” Natural Language Semantics 19.2: 109–148.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Guerzoni, E. 2004. “Even-NPIs in Yes/No Questions,” Natural Language Semantics 12.4: 319–343.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I. 1984. “A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness.” In Jones, C. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th North Eastern Linguistic Society meeting. Amherst: GLSA: 98–107.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 1999. “Blocking Effects in the Expression of Negation,” Leuvense Bijdragen 80: 403–423.Google Scholar

Homer, V. in press. “Domains of Polarity Items,” Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1978. “Remarks on Neg-raising.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 129–220.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity,” Language 61.1: 121–174.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 2001. “Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar.” In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sanchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T. (eds.), Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 173–200.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 1996. “Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 2001. “Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning,” Journal of Semantics 18: 297–331.Google Scholar

Kadmon, N. and Landman, F. 1993. “Any,” Linguistics and Philosophy 16.4: 353–422.Google Scholar

Klima, E. 1964. “Negation in English.” In Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 246–323.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, J. 2002. “Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese.” In Otso, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 1995. “The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items,” Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–258.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Published 1980 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. A. 1992. “Expressing negation.” In Barker, C. and Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Columbus: Ohio State University: 237–259.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. A. 1997. “Negation and polarity items.” In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell: 321–341.Google Scholar

Lahiri, U. 1998. “Focus and negative polarity in Hindi,” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.Google Scholar

Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Linebarger, M. C. 1980. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Linebarger, M. C. 1987. “Negative polarity and grammatical representation,” Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.Google Scholar

Nicolae, A. 2012. “Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account.” In Guevara, A. Aguilar, Chernilovskaya, A., and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16: 475–488.Google Scholar

Penka, D. 2011. Negative Indefinites. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. van Orman 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Spector, B. 2014. “Global Positive Polarity Items and Obligatory Exhaustivity,” Semantics and Pragmatics 7. 11: 1–61.Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, A. 2004. “Positive polarity – negative polarity,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 2: 409–452.Google Scholar

van der Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

van Rooy, R. 2003. “Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance,” Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. 1999. “NPI Licensing, Strawson-entailment, and Context Dependency,” Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. 2017. Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2.1: 91.1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.220.Google Scholar

Zwarts, F. 1995. “Nonveridical contexts,” Linguistic Analysis 25: 286–312.Google Scholar

Zwarts, F. 1996. “A hierarchy of negative expressions.” In Wansing, H. (ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 169–194.Google Scholar

Zwarts, F. 1998. “Three Types of Polarity.” In Hamm, F. and Hinrichs, E. (eds.), Plurality and Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 177–238.Google Scholar

Bauman, S. and Riester, A. 2013. “Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German,” Lingua 136: 16–37.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. and Nikitina, T. 2008. “Gradience and the dative alternation.” In Uyechi, L. and Wee, L-H. (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 1–23.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. 1977. “Swedish word accent in sentence perspective,” Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. Gleerup: Lund.Google Scholar

Büring, D. 2003. “On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents,” Linguistics & Philosophy 26. 5: 511–545.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press: 25–55.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Haviland, S. E.. 1977. “Comprehension and the given-new contract.” In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 1: Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 1–40.Google Scholar

Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. 2001. “Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. 2016. “Syntactic and prosodic reflexes of information structure in Germanic.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 621–641.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. and Lenertová, D. 2010. “Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:169–209.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 2011. “German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases,” Lingua 121: 1906–1922.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 2013. “Focus as prosodic alignment,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.3: 683–734.Google Scholar

Frey, W. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Haider, H. 1981. “Empty categories: On some Differences between German and English,” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 25:13–36.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1967 /1968. “Transitivity and theme in English (part II),” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. L. 1973. “Questions in Montague Grammar,” Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. 2006. “Word-prosodic typology,” Phonology 23: 225–257.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, J. 2001. “The dimensions of topic-comment,” Linguistics 39: 641–681.Google Scholar

Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. O. 2011. “Contrastive focus versus discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence,” Language 87: 771–816.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 2008. “Basic notions of information structure,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.Google Scholar

Kügler, F. and Féry, C. 2016. “Postfocal downstep in German,” Language and Speech. DOI:10.1177/0023830916647204.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. 2004. “Fragments and ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27.6: 661–738.Google Scholar

Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2016. “On the expression of focus in the metrical grid and in the prosodic hierarchy.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 441–462.Google Scholar

Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2016. “Word order and information structure.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 383–401.Google Scholar

Prince, E. 1981. “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 223–256.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics,” Philosophica 27: 63–94.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. 1996. “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics.” In Yoon, J. H. and Kathol, A. (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press: 91–136.Google Scholar

Rochemont, M. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rochemont, M. 2016. “Givenness.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 41–63.Google Scholar

Rochemont, M. and Culicover, P. 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 52. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rooth, M. 1985. Associations with Focus. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Rooth, M. 1992. “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar

Rooth, M. 2016. “Alternative semantics.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 19–40.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, R. 1999. “Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent,” Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. O. 2000. “The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing.” In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 231–261.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 1974. “Pragmatic presuppositions.” In Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds), Semantics and philosophy. New York University Press: 197–213.Google Scholar

Steedman, M. 2000. “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 31:649–689.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2002. “Subject positions and the placement of adverbials.” In Svenonius, P. (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York: Oxford University Press: 199–240.Google Scholar

Tomioka, S. 2010. “Contrastive topics operate on speech acts.” In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 115–138.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological Phrases: The Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Vallduví, E. and Engdahl, E. 1996. “The linguistic realization of information packaging,” Linguistics 34: 459–519.Google Scholar

Vicente, L. 2006. “Negative short replies in Spanish.” In Bettelou, L. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 199–210.Google Scholar

Wang, B. and Féry, C. 2018. Prosody of Dual-focus in German: Interaction between Focus and Phrasing. Language and Speech 61.2: 303–333.Google Scholar

Winkler, S. 2016. “Ellipsis and information structure.” In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 359–382.Google Scholar

Zubizaretta, M-L. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar