We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract 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.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
Lardiere, Donna. 1998. Dissociating syntax from morphology
in a divergent end-state grammar. In Second Language
Research14:359–375.Google Scholar
Lardiere, Donna. 2000. Mapping features to forms in second
language acquisition. In Second language acquisition
and linguistic theory, ed. Archibald, John, 102–129. Oxford:
Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, Jürgen M.1991. Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies
of language learning: Some similarities and differences between first and
second language acquisition. In Point counterpoint:
Universal Grammar in the second language, ed. Eubank, Lynn, 231–276.
Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Li, Peggy, Choi, Youngon, and Han, Chung-hye. 2007. Evidentiality in language and
cognition. Cognition103:253–299.Google Scholar
Pérez Pascual, José Ignacio. 1998. Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Ciencia
y pasión. Valladolid:
Junta de Castilla y
León.Google Scholar
Prévost, Philippe and White, Lydia. 2000. Missing surface inflection or
impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and
agreement. Second Language Research16:103–133.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard W.1999. Morphology driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising
and pro-drop. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1997. V-to-I movement and inflection for
person in all tenses. In The new comparative
syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 189–213.
London:
Longman.Google Scholar