BibBase https://api.zotero.org/users/4976940/collections/D8RLYM4S/items?key=qgktU7jnJLFTdBITankJ8mon&format=bibtex&limit=100

Buelens, L. (1)

Liliane Haegeman; Andrew Weir; Lieven Danckaert; Tijs D’Hulster; and Liisa Buelens. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua, 163: 61–74. August 2015.
doi link bibtex abstract 2 downloads

@article{haegeman_against_2015,
	title = {Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in {English}},
	volume = {163},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.013},
	abstract = {Based mainly on a number of interpretive considerations, Henry (1995) and den Dikken (2005) elaborate an analysis of English SCR which mirrors their discourse function. However, while the proposed topic-comment representation may well reflect the information structural properties of SCR, its predictions for the internal and external syntax of SCR are incorrect. In contrast, the predictions would be correct for Germanic V2R, undermining the basis for den Dikken's (2005) assimilation of the two patterns. On the basis of the discussion above I thus conclude that a topic-comment representation for English SCR, though attractive on interpretive grounds, cannot be maintained. The various empirical data discussed in this paper show that a relativization analysis along the lines of that in Doherty (1993, 1994, 2000), reviewed in the light of our current understanding of the articulation of the left periphery (see also Sistrunk, 2012), is to be preferred.},
	urldate = {2016-06-16},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew and Danckaert, Lieven and D’Hulster, Tijs and Buelens, Liisa},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Constituency, Distribution, Integrated relative/V2 relative in Dutch and German, Subject contact relative, Syntactization of discourse function},
	pages = {61--74},
}

Chomsky, N. (1)

Noam Chomsky; and H Lasnick. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8: 425–504. 1977.
link bibtex

@article{chomsky_filters_1977,
	title = {Filters and {Control}},
	volume = {8},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Chomsky, Noam and Lasnick, H},
	year = {1977},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {425--504},
}

Christian, D. (1)

Walt Wolfram; and Donna Christian. Appalachian speech. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, VA, 1976.
link bibtex

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Arlington, VA},
	title = {Appalachian speech},
	isbn = {978-0-87281-050-1},
	publisher = {Center for Applied Linguistics},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Christian, Donna},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {A-prefixing, Appalachian Region, Southern, Dialects, Embedded inversion, English language, Expletive they, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Personal datives, Positive anymore, Split subjects, United States},
}

Clarke, S. (1)

Sandra Clarke. The search for origins: Habitual aspect and Newfoundland Vernacular English. Journal of English Linguistics, 27(4): 328–340. December 1999.

Paper doi link bibtex 5 downloads

@article{clarke_search_1999,
	title = {The search for origins: {Habitual} aspect and {Newfoundland} {Vernacular} {English}},
	volume = {27},
	issn = {0075-4242, 1552-5457},
	url = {http://eng.sagepub.com/content/27/4/328},
	doi = {10.1177/00754249922004750},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {Journal of English Linguistics},
	author = {Clarke, Sandra},
	month = dec,
	year = {1999},
	keywords = {Copula, Habitual be, Subject contact relative},
	pages = {328--340},
}

Danckaert, L. (1)

Liliane Haegeman; Andrew Weir; Lieven Danckaert; Tijs D’Hulster; and Liisa Buelens. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua, 163: 61–74. August 2015.
doi link bibtex abstract 2 downloads

@article{haegeman_against_2015,
	title = {Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in {English}},
	volume = {163},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.013},
	abstract = {Based mainly on a number of interpretive considerations, Henry (1995) and den Dikken (2005) elaborate an analysis of English SCR which mirrors their discourse function. However, while the proposed topic-comment representation may well reflect the information structural properties of SCR, its predictions for the internal and external syntax of SCR are incorrect. In contrast, the predictions would be correct for Germanic V2R, undermining the basis for den Dikken's (2005) assimilation of the two patterns. On the basis of the discussion above I thus conclude that a topic-comment representation for English SCR, though attractive on interpretive grounds, cannot be maintained. The various empirical data discussed in this paper show that a relativization analysis along the lines of that in Doherty (1993, 1994, 2000), reviewed in the light of our current understanding of the articulation of the left periphery (see also Sistrunk, 2012), is to be preferred.},
	urldate = {2016-06-16},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew and Danckaert, Lieven and D’Hulster, Tijs and Buelens, Liisa},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Constituency, Distribution, Integrated relative/V2 relative in Dutch and German, Subject contact relative, Syntactization of discourse function},
	pages = {61--74},
}

Den Dikken, M. (1)

Marcel Den Dikken. A comment on the topic of topic-comment. Lingua, 115(5): 691–710. 2005.
link bibtex

@article{den_dikken_comment_2005,
	title = {A comment on the topic of topic-comment},
	volume = {115},
	number = {5},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Den Dikken, Marcel},
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {691--710},
}

Doherty, C. (2)

Cathal Doherty. The syntax of subject contact relatives. 1993.
link bibtex

@unpublished{doherty_syntax_1993,
	address = {University of California at Santa Cruz},
	title = {The syntax of subject contact relatives},
	author = {Doherty, Cathal},
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
}

Cathal Doherty. Clauses without "that": the case for bare sentential complementation in English. of Outstanding dissertations in linguisticsGarland Pub, New York, 2000.
link bibtex

@book{doherty_clauses_2000,
	address = {New York},
	series = {Outstanding dissertations in linguistics},
	title = {Clauses without "that": the case for bare sentential complementation in {English}},
	isbn = {978-0-8153-3775-1},
	shorttitle = {Clauses without "that"},
	publisher = {Garland Pub},
	author = {Doherty, Cathal},
	year = {2000},
	keywords = {Clauses, Complement, English language, Subject contact relative},
}

D’Hulster, T. (1)

Liliane Haegeman; Andrew Weir; Lieven Danckaert; Tijs D’Hulster; and Liisa Buelens. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua, 163: 61–74. August 2015.
doi link bibtex abstract 2 downloads

@article{haegeman_against_2015,
	title = {Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in {English}},
	volume = {163},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.013},
	abstract = {Based mainly on a number of interpretive considerations, Henry (1995) and den Dikken (2005) elaborate an analysis of English SCR which mirrors their discourse function. However, while the proposed topic-comment representation may well reflect the information structural properties of SCR, its predictions for the internal and external syntax of SCR are incorrect. In contrast, the predictions would be correct for Germanic V2R, undermining the basis for den Dikken's (2005) assimilation of the two patterns. On the basis of the discussion above I thus conclude that a topic-comment representation for English SCR, though attractive on interpretive grounds, cannot be maintained. The various empirical data discussed in this paper show that a relativization analysis along the lines of that in Doherty (1993, 1994, 2000), reviewed in the light of our current understanding of the articulation of the left periphery (see also Sistrunk, 2012), is to be preferred.},
	urldate = {2016-06-16},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew and Danckaert, Lieven and D’Hulster, Tijs and Buelens, Liisa},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Constituency, Distribution, Integrated relative/V2 relative in Dutch and German, Subject contact relative, Syntactization of discourse function},
	pages = {61--74},
}

Elgin, S. (1)

Suzette Haden Elgin; and Rebecca Haden. A celebration of Ozark English: A collection of articles from the Lonesome Node–1980 to 1990. OCLS Press, Huntsville, AR, 1991.
link bibtex

@book{elgin_celebration_1991,
	address = {Huntsville, AR},
	title = {A celebration of {Ozark} {English}: {A} collection of articles from the {Lonesome} {Node}--1980 to 1990},
	isbn = {978-1-878709-01-1},
	shorttitle = {A celebration of {Ozark} {English}},
	language = {English},
	publisher = {OCLS Press},
	author = {Elgin, Suzette Haden and Haden, Rebecca},
	editor = {Haden, Rebecca},
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, For to infinitives},
}

Green, L. (1)

Lisa J. Green. African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
link bibtex abstract

@book{green_african_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {African {American} {English}: {A} linguistic introduction},
	isbn = {978-0-521-81449-2 978-0-521-89138-7},
	shorttitle = {African {American} {English}},
	abstract = {"This authoritative introduction to African American English (AAE) is the first textbook to look at the grammar as a whole. Clearly organized, it describes patterns in the sentence structure, sound system, word formation and word use in AAE. The book uses linguistic description and data from conversation to explain that AAE is not a compilation of random deviations from mainstream English but that it is a rule-governed system. The textbook examines topics such as education, speech events in the secular and religious world, and the use of language in literature and the media to create black images. This much-needed book includes exercises to accompany each chapter and will be essential reading for students in linguistics, education, anthropology, African American studies and literature."--BOOK JACKET},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Green, Lisa J.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {African Americans, Bare got, Black English, Dialects, English language, Finna, Languages, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects, Stressed BIN, United States, Variation},
}

Haden, R. (1)

Suzette Haden Elgin; and Rebecca Haden. A celebration of Ozark English: A collection of articles from the Lonesome Node–1980 to 1990. OCLS Press, Huntsville, AR, 1991.
link bibtex

@book{elgin_celebration_1991,
	address = {Huntsville, AR},
	title = {A celebration of {Ozark} {English}: {A} collection of articles from the {Lonesome} {Node}--1980 to 1990},
	isbn = {978-1-878709-01-1},
	shorttitle = {A celebration of {Ozark} {English}},
	language = {English},
	publisher = {OCLS Press},
	author = {Elgin, Suzette Haden and Haden, Rebecca},
	editor = {Haden, Rebecca},
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, For to infinitives},
}

Haegeman, L. (2)

Liliane Haegeman. A Note on English Subject Contact Relatives. In 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky's Aspects, of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pages 133–146. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2015.
link bibtex

@incollection{haegeman_note_2015,
	address = {Cambridge, MA},
	series = {{MIT} {Working} {Papers} in {Linguistics}},
	title = {A {Note} on {English} {Subject} {Contact} {Relatives}},
	number = {77},
	booktitle = {50 {Years} {Later}: {Reflections} on {Chomsky}'s {Aspects}},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane},
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {133--146},
}

Liliane Haegeman; Andrew Weir; Lieven Danckaert; Tijs D’Hulster; and Liisa Buelens. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua, 163: 61–74. August 2015.
doi link bibtex abstract 2 downloads

@article{haegeman_against_2015,
	title = {Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in {English}},
	volume = {163},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.013},
	abstract = {Based mainly on a number of interpretive considerations, Henry (1995) and den Dikken (2005) elaborate an analysis of English SCR which mirrors their discourse function. However, while the proposed topic-comment representation may well reflect the information structural properties of SCR, its predictions for the internal and external syntax of SCR are incorrect. In contrast, the predictions would be correct for Germanic V2R, undermining the basis for den Dikken's (2005) assimilation of the two patterns. On the basis of the discussion above I thus conclude that a topic-comment representation for English SCR, though attractive on interpretive grounds, cannot be maintained. The various empirical data discussed in this paper show that a relativization analysis along the lines of that in Doherty (1993, 1994, 2000), reviewed in the light of our current understanding of the articulation of the left periphery (see also Sistrunk, 2012), is to be preferred.},
	urldate = {2016-06-16},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew and Danckaert, Lieven and D’Hulster, Tijs and Buelens, Liisa},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Constituency, Distribution, Integrated relative/V2 relative in Dutch and German, Subject contact relative, Syntactization of discourse function},
	pages = {61--74},
}

Harris, M. (1)

Martin Harris; and Nigel Vincent. On zero relatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(4): 805–807. 1980.
link bibtex

@article{harris_zero_1980,
	title = {On zero relatives},
	volume = {11},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Harris, Martin and Vincent, Nigel},
	year = {1980},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {805--807},
}

Henry, A. (1)

Alison Henry. Belfast English and standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. of Oxford studies in comparative syntaxOxford University Press, New York, 1995.
link bibtex

@book{henry_belfast_1995,
	address = {New York},
	series = {Oxford studies in comparative syntax},
	title = {Belfast {English} and standard {English}: {Dialect} variation and parameter setting},
	isbn = {978-0-19-508291-3 978-0-19-508292-0},
	shorttitle = {Belfast {English} and standard {English}},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Henry, Alison},
	year = {1995},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Belfast (Northern Ireland), Dialects, Embedded inversion, English language, Northern Ireland Belfast, Social conditions},
}

Jespersen, O. (1)

Otto Jespersen. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Volume 4 Allen & Unwin, London, 1932. OCLC: ocn687199335
link bibtex

@book{jespersen_modern_1932,
	address = {London},
	title = {A modern {English} grammar on historical principles},
	volume = {4},
	publisher = {Allen \& Unwin},
	author = {Jespersen, Otto},
	year = {1932},
	note = {OCLC: ocn687199335},
	keywords = {Bare got, English language, Grammar, Historical, Syntax},
}

Lambrecht, K. (1)

Knud Lambrecht. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In volume 14, 1988.
link bibtex

@inproceedings{lambrecht_there_1988,
	title = {There was a farmer had a dog: {Syntactic} amalgams revisited},
	volume = {14},
	author = {Lambrecht, Knud},
	year = {1988},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
}

Lasnick, H (1)

Noam Chomsky; and H Lasnick. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8: 425–504. 1977.
link bibtex

@article{chomsky_filters_1977,
	title = {Filters and {Control}},
	volume = {8},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Chomsky, Noam and Lasnick, H},
	year = {1977},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {425--504},
}

McCawley, J. (1)

James D. McCawley. The syntactic phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
link bibtex

@book{mccawley_syntactic_1988,
	address = {Chicago},
	title = {The syntactic phenomena of {English}},
	isbn = {978-0-226-55623-9 978-0-226-55625-3 978-0-226-55624-6 978-0-226-55626-0},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
	author = {McCawley, James D.},
	year = {1988},
	keywords = {Bare got, English language, Grammar, Generative, Syntax},
}

Prince, E. (1)

Ellen Prince. Toward a taxonomy of given-new inforation. Radical Pragmatics,223–255. 1981.
link bibtex

@article{prince_toward_1981,
	title = {Toward a taxonomy of given-new inforation},
	journal = {Radical Pragmatics},
	author = {Prince, Ellen},
	year = {1981},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {223--255},
}

Vincent, N. (1)

Martin Harris; and Nigel Vincent. On zero relatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(4): 805–807. 1980.
link bibtex

@article{harris_zero_1980,
	title = {On zero relatives},
	volume = {11},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Harris, Martin and Vincent, Nigel},
	year = {1980},
	keywords = {Subject contact relative},
	pages = {805--807},
}

Weir, A. (1)

Liliane Haegeman; Andrew Weir; Lieven Danckaert; Tijs D’Hulster; and Liisa Buelens. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua, 163: 61–74. August 2015.
doi link bibtex abstract 2 downloads

@article{haegeman_against_2015,
	title = {Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in {English}},
	volume = {163},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.013},
	abstract = {Based mainly on a number of interpretive considerations, Henry (1995) and den Dikken (2005) elaborate an analysis of English SCR which mirrors their discourse function. However, while the proposed topic-comment representation may well reflect the information structural properties of SCR, its predictions for the internal and external syntax of SCR are incorrect. In contrast, the predictions would be correct for Germanic V2R, undermining the basis for den Dikken's (2005) assimilation of the two patterns. On the basis of the discussion above I thus conclude that a topic-comment representation for English SCR, though attractive on interpretive grounds, cannot be maintained. The various empirical data discussed in this paper show that a relativization analysis along the lines of that in Doherty (1993, 1994, 2000), reviewed in the light of our current understanding of the articulation of the left periphery (see also Sistrunk, 2012), is to be preferred.},
	urldate = {2016-06-16},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew and Danckaert, Lieven and D’Hulster, Tijs and Buelens, Liisa},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Constituency, Distribution, Integrated relative/V2 relative in Dutch and German, Subject contact relative, Syntactization of discourse function},
	pages = {61--74},
}

Wolfram, W. (1)

Walt Wolfram; and Donna Christian. Appalachian speech. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, VA, 1976.
link bibtex

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Arlington, VA},
	title = {Appalachian speech},
	isbn = {978-0-87281-050-1},
	publisher = {Center for Applied Linguistics},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Christian, Donna},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {A-prefixing, Appalachian Region, Southern, Dialects, Embedded inversion, English language, Expletive they, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Personal datives, Positive anymore, Split subjects, United States},
}