@article{dudley_swarp_1946,
	title = {'{Swarp}' and some other {Kentucky} words},
	volume = {21},
	issn = {0003-1283},
	url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/487323},
	doi = {10.2307/487323},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-05-10},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Dudley, Fred A.},
	year = {1946},
	keywords = {Dative presentatives},
	pages = {270--273},
}

@incollection{montgomery_grammar_2004,
	address = {Knoxville},
	title = {Grammar and syntax of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-57233-222-5},
	booktitle = {Dictionary of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	publisher = {University of Tennessee Press},
	author = {Montgomery, Michael and Hall, Joseph S.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Americanisms, Dative presentatives, Dialects Glossaries, vocabularies, etc, English language, Great Smoky Mountains (N.C. and Tenn.), Negative inversion, Split subjects, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {xxxv--lxv},
}

@article{wood_dative_2019,
	title = {Dative {Country}: {Markedness} {And} {Geographical} {Variation} in {Southern} {Dative} {Constructions}},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/doi/10.1215/00031283-7587901/138690/Dative-CountryMarkedness-And-Geographical},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-7587901},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence and Zentz, Jason},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--60},
}

@article{wood_southern_2015,
	title = {The {Southern} dative presentative meets {Mechanical} {Turk}},
	volume = {90},
	issn = {0003-1283, 1527-2133},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-3324487},
	abstract = {This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-05-06},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Horn, Laurence and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Lindemann, Luke},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Amazon Mechanical Turk, Dative presentatives, MTurk, Personal datives, dative constructions, dialect syntax, dialect variation, presentatives},
	pages = {291--320},
}

This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.

@incollection{horn_afterword:_2014,
	address = {Oxford},
	series = {Oxford {Studies} in {Comparative} {Syntax}},
	title = {Afterword: {Microvariation} in syntax and beyond},
	booktitle = {Micro-syntactic variation in {North} {American} {English}},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Horn, Laurence R.},
	editor = {Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence R.},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Dative presentatives, English language, Syntax, Variation},
	pages = {324--348},
}

@article{wood_southern_2015,
	title = {The {Southern} dative presentative meets {Mechanical} {Turk}},
	volume = {90},
	issn = {0003-1283, 1527-2133},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-3324487},
	abstract = {This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-05-06},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Horn, Laurence and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Lindemann, Luke},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Amazon Mechanical Turk, Dative presentatives, MTurk, Personal datives, dative constructions, dialect syntax, dialect variation, presentatives},
	pages = {291--320},
}

This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.

@incollection{montgomery_grammar_2004,
	address = {Knoxville},
	title = {Grammar and syntax of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-57233-222-5},
	booktitle = {Dictionary of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	publisher = {University of Tennessee Press},
	author = {Montgomery, Michael and Hall, Joseph S.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Americanisms, Dative presentatives, Dialects Glossaries, vocabularies, etc, English language, Great Smoky Mountains (N.C. and Tenn.), Negative inversion, Split subjects, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {xxxv--lxv},
}

@article{wood_datives_2018,
	title = {Datives, data and dialect syntax in {American} {English}},
	volume = {3},
	copyright = {Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:    Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.  Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).  All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on  Educational Fair Use , please see  this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries .   All copyright  of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners.  Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are ©, ® or ™ of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner’s rights is intended or should be inferred.},
	issn = {2397-1835},
	url = {http://www.glossa-journal.org//articles/10.5334/gjgl.527/},
	doi = {10.5334/gjgl.527},
	abstract = {In this paper, we present a detailed case study of a number of dative constructions that vary across speakers of American English. We show how geographical maps of acceptability judgments can be used to shed light on the syntactic structures underlying those judgments. Those structures can then be used to refine our understanding of syntax more generally, in this case relating to the features of argument-introducing heads. We provide novel support for the low applicative analysis of the Personal Dative construction, on the grounds that this analysis falls in line with a general, somewhat surprising conclusion about Southern American English: that ApplP may occur not just as the complement of a verb, but also as the subject of a small clause or the complement of a preposition. We propose that this wider distribution follows from a featural difference between ApplP in Northern and Southern varieties: that low ApplP in Southern American English is not categorially distinct from ordinary DPs. We then show that even though Personal Datives have spread outside of the South, they have not taken this basic structure with them. Instead, Northern varieties adopting the Personal Dative have made a minimal modification to their existing Appl heads, to accommodate the Personal Dative without adopting the full range of dative constructions found in the South.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella},
	month = aug,
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {Extended Benefactives, Personal Datives, SE-reflexives, Southern American English, Southern Dative Presentatives, applicatives, datives, microsyntactic variation},
	pages = {87},
}

In this paper, we present a detailed case study of a number of dative constructions that vary across speakers of American English. We show how geographical maps of acceptability judgments can be used to shed light on the syntactic structures underlying those judgments. Those structures can then be used to refine our understanding of syntax more generally, in this case relating to the features of argument-introducing heads. We provide novel support for the low applicative analysis of the Personal Dative construction, on the grounds that this analysis falls in line with a general, somewhat surprising conclusion about Southern American English: that ApplP may occur not just as the complement of a verb, but also as the subject of a small clause or the complement of a preposition. We propose that this wider distribution follows from a featural difference between ApplP in Northern and Southern varieties: that low ApplP in Southern American English is not categorially distinct from ordinary DPs. We then show that even though Personal Datives have spread outside of the South, they have not taken this basic structure with them. Instead, Northern varieties adopting the Personal Dative have made a minimal modification to their existing Appl heads, to accommodate the Personal Dative without adopting the full range of dative constructions found in the South.

@article{wood_dative_2019,
	title = {Dative {Country}: {Markedness} {And} {Geographical} {Variation} in {Southern} {Dative} {Constructions}},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/doi/10.1215/00031283-7587901/138690/Dative-CountryMarkedness-And-Geographical},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-7587901},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence and Zentz, Jason},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--60},
}

@article{wood_southern_2015,
	title = {The {Southern} dative presentative meets {Mechanical} {Turk}},
	volume = {90},
	issn = {0003-1283, 1527-2133},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-3324487},
	abstract = {This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-05-06},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Horn, Laurence and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Lindemann, Luke},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Amazon Mechanical Turk, Dative presentatives, MTurk, Personal datives, dative constructions, dialect syntax, dialect variation, presentatives},
	pages = {291--320},
}

This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.

@article{wood_datives_2018,
	title = {Datives, data and dialect syntax in {American} {English}},
	volume = {3},
	copyright = {Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:    Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.  Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).  All third-party images reproduced on this journal are shared under Educational Fair Use. For more information on  Educational Fair Use , please see  this useful checklist prepared by Columbia University Libraries .   All copyright  of third-party content posted here for research purposes belongs to its original owners.  Unless otherwise stated all references to characters and comic art presented on this journal are ©, ® or ™ of their respective owners. No challenge to any owner’s rights is intended or should be inferred.},
	issn = {2397-1835},
	url = {http://www.glossa-journal.org//articles/10.5334/gjgl.527/},
	doi = {10.5334/gjgl.527},
	abstract = {In this paper, we present a detailed case study of a number of dative constructions that vary across speakers of American English. We show how geographical maps of acceptability judgments can be used to shed light on the syntactic structures underlying those judgments. Those structures can then be used to refine our understanding of syntax more generally, in this case relating to the features of argument-introducing heads. We provide novel support for the low applicative analysis of the Personal Dative construction, on the grounds that this analysis falls in line with a general, somewhat surprising conclusion about Southern American English: that ApplP may occur not just as the complement of a verb, but also as the subject of a small clause or the complement of a preposition. We propose that this wider distribution follows from a featural difference between ApplP in Northern and Southern varieties: that low ApplP in Southern American English is not categorially distinct from ordinary DPs. We then show that even though Personal Datives have spread outside of the South, they have not taken this basic structure with them. Instead, Northern varieties adopting the Personal Dative have made a minimal modification to their existing Appl heads, to accommodate the Personal Dative without adopting the full range of dative constructions found in the South.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella},
	month = aug,
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {Extended Benefactives, Personal Datives, SE-reflexives, Southern American English, Southern Dative Presentatives, applicatives, datives, microsyntactic variation},
	pages = {87},
}

In this paper, we present a detailed case study of a number of dative constructions that vary across speakers of American English. We show how geographical maps of acceptability judgments can be used to shed light on the syntactic structures underlying those judgments. Those structures can then be used to refine our understanding of syntax more generally, in this case relating to the features of argument-introducing heads. We provide novel support for the low applicative analysis of the Personal Dative construction, on the grounds that this analysis falls in line with a general, somewhat surprising conclusion about Southern American English: that ApplP may occur not just as the complement of a verb, but also as the subject of a small clause or the complement of a preposition. We propose that this wider distribution follows from a featural difference between ApplP in Northern and Southern varieties: that low ApplP in Southern American English is not categorially distinct from ordinary DPs. We then show that even though Personal Datives have spread outside of the South, they have not taken this basic structure with them. Instead, Northern varieties adopting the Personal Dative have made a minimal modification to their existing Appl heads, to accommodate the Personal Dative without adopting the full range of dative constructions found in the South.

@article{wood_dative_2019,
	title = {Dative {Country}: {Markedness} {And} {Geographical} {Variation} in {Southern} {Dative} {Constructions}},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/doi/10.1215/00031283-7587901/138690/Dative-CountryMarkedness-And-Geographical},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-7587901},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence and Zentz, Jason},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--60},
}

@article{wood_southern_2015,
	title = {The {Southern} dative presentative meets {Mechanical} {Turk}},
	volume = {90},
	issn = {0003-1283, 1527-2133},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-3324487},
	abstract = {This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-05-06},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Horn, Laurence and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Lindemann, Luke},
	month = aug,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Amazon Mechanical Turk, Dative presentatives, MTurk, Personal datives, dative constructions, dialect syntax, dialect variation, presentatives},
	pages = {291--320},
}

This article introduces the southern dative presentative, an understudied construction that varies across speakers of American English. The authors discuss similarities and differences between this construction and the better-studied personal dative construction and compare the Southern dative presentative with similar constructions cross-linguistically. They then present the results of a nationwide acceptability judgment survey administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that Southern dative presentatives are alive and well in Southern dialects of American English. In the process, they also illustrate the usefulness of Amazon Mechanical Turk (and similar crowdsourcing platforms) for the study of dialect variation in the domain of syntax.

@article{wood_dative_2019,
	title = {Dative {Country}: {Markedness} {And} {Geographical} {Variation} in {Southern} {Dative} {Constructions}},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/doi/10.1215/00031283-7587901/138690/Dative-CountryMarkedness-And-Geographical},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-7587901},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2019-10-04},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Wood, Jim and Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence and Zentz, Jason},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--60},
}