2004
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, we present corpus data from Dutch and English on long-distance movement and discuss its diachronic development in Dutch, English and German. Long-distance movement is the displacement phenomenon characterized by the appearance of a part of a dependent clause in a higher clause (e.g. ). It has played a central role within generative grammar over the past few decades. The picture that emerges is that long-distance movement appears to be currently most productive in English and least productive in German, whereas Dutch occupies an in-between position. As we will argue, the productivity of long-distance movement is strongly tied to the availability of functional alternatives. German has at least three of such alternatives that are fully productive, whereas Dutch has one particularly productive one. The alternative constructions do not involve long-distance movement: the dependency between the constituent in the matrix clause and the position in the embedded clause where it is interpreted is formed indirectly, in the semantics, and not via syntactic movement. In English, long-distance movement is most productive when the complementizer is deleted. This is not just the case for subject movement but also for non-subject movement. Special attention is paid to the so-called -trace effect and its alleged absence in German and Dutch. The general conclusion is that long-distance movement is possible in all languages under consideration, but more restricted than commonly assumed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.003.SCHI
2021-04-01
2022-08-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & AdNeeleman(2007). Restricted pro drop in early modern Dutch. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics10, 81-107.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AnderBois, Scott(2011). Issues and alternatives. Proefschrift University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson, Sven-Gunnar & SigmundKvam(1984). Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, Jennifer E., ElsiKaiser, Jason M.Kahn & Lucy K.Kim(2013). Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. WIREs Cognitive Science4, 403-413.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbiers, Sjef, HansBennis, GuntherDe Vogelaer, MargaDevos & Margreetvan der Ham(2005). Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (Deel I). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbiers, Sjef, OlafKoeneman & MarikaLekakou(2010). Syntactic doubling and the nature of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics46,1-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayer, Josef(1984). COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review3,209-274.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayer, Josef(2005). Was beschränkt die Extraktion? Subjekt Objekt vs. Topic Fokus. In: FranzJosef d'Avis (red.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 233-257.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bayer, Josef & MartinSalzmann(2013). That-trace effects and resumption – How Improper Movement can be repaired. In: PatrickBrandt & EricFuß (red.), Repairs. The added value of being wrong. Berlin: Mouton, 275-333.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beck, Sigrid(2006). Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14, 1-56.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Belletti, Adriana, NaamaFriedmann, DominiqueBrunato & LuigiRizzi(2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children's comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua122, 1053-1069.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bennis, Hans(1986). Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bérard, Lolita, Henri-JoséDeulofeu & SylvainKahane(2014). A corpus-based study of bridge verbs in long-distance dependencies in French: a specific construction. Chimera: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies1, 137-155.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boeckx, Cedric(2008). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from locality in long-distance dependencies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Boef, Eefje(2013). Doubling in relative clauses: Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in Dutch (Proefschrift). Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouma, Gerlof(2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject and object-fronting. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bresnan, Joan(1977). Variables in the Theory of Transformations. In: Peter W.Culicover, ThomasWasow & AdrianAkmajian (red.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 157-196.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bresnan, Joan & Sam A.Mchombo(1987). Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa. Language 63, 741-782.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Broekhuis, Hans & NorbertCorver(2016). Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & NorbertCorver(2006). WH-movement: Moving On. Cambridge MA: MIT-Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, Noam(1973). Conditions on transformations. In: StephenR. Anderson & PaulKiparsky (red.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rineholt & Winston, 232–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chomsky, Noam(1977). On Wh-movement. In: PeterW. Culicover, ThomasWasow & AdrianAkmajian (red.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chomsky, Noam & HowardLasnik(1977). Filters and control. Linguistic inquiry8, 425-504.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chung, Sandra & JamesMcCloskey(1983). On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry14, 704-713.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cooper, Kathrin(1994). Topics in Zurich German syntax. Proefschrift University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Coppen, Peter-Arno(2013). De zin die wij merken dat ook voor linguïstische problemen zorgt. Nederlandse Taalkunde18, 193-203.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cowart, Wayne(1997). Experimental Syntax. Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cowart, Wayne(2003). Detecting Syntactic Dialects: The that-trace phenomenon. Manuscript University of Southern Maine.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Culicover, Peter(1993). The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. In: Amy J.Schafer (red.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society23. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Graduate Linguistic Student Association, 97-111.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dąbrowska, Ewa(2004). Language, mind and brain. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dąbrowska, Ewa(2008). Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics19, 391-425.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Davies, Mark(2011). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the First Reliable Monitor Corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing25, 447-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Diessel, Holger & MichaelTomasello(2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language81, 882-906.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dikken, Marcel den(2007). Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: Stimuli and results. (MS). New York: CUNY. <https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-center/PDF/ Programs/Linguistics/Dikken/dutch_that_trace_results.pdf >
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Douglas, Jamie(2017). Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics2, 60. < 10.5334/gjgl.312 >
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ebert, Robert P.(1978). Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Eckardt, Regine(2007). Inherent focus on wh-phrases. In: LouiseMcNally & EstelaPuig-Waldmüller (red.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung11. Barcelona: Universiteit Pompeu Fabra, 209-228.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fanselow, Gisbert, ReinholdKliegl & MatthiasSchlesewsky(2005). Syntactic variation in German wh-questions. Empirical investigations of weak crossover violations and long wh-movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook5, 37-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Featherston, Sam(2004). Bridge verbs and V2 verbs–the same thing in spades?Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft23, 181-209.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A.Thompson(1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language66, 297-316.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Frank, Bob(2002). Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gazdar, Gerald(1981). Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure. Linguistic Inquiry12, 155-184.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Giannakidou, Anastasia & JosepQuer(1997). Long-distance licensing of negative indefinites. In: DanielleForget, PaulHirschbühler, FranceMartineau & MariaLuisa Rivero (red.), Negation and Polarity. Syntax and semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 95-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gibson, Edward(1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1-79.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ginzburg, Jonathan & IvanA. Sag(2000). Interrogative Investigations. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Grewendorf, Günther(1998). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Günther Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gundel, Jeannette K.(1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Proefschrift University of Texas, Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Haider, Hubert(1993). Deutsche Syntax, generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Heim, Irene(2001). Degree operators and scope. In: CarolineFéry & WolfgangSternefeld (red.), Audiatur Vos Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 214-239.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoeksema, Jack(2017). Neg-raising and long-distance licensing of negative polarity items. In: DebraZiegeler & ZhimingBao (red.), Negation and contact: With special focus on Singapore English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 33-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hoeksema, Jack & AnkelienSchippers(2012). Diachronic changes in long-distance dependencies: the case of Dutch. In: Ansvan Kemenade & Nynkede Haas (red.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 155-170.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Horst, Joop van der(2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Deel 2. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jansen, Frank(1981). Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taal. Amsterdam: Huis aan de drie grachten.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Joshi, Aravind K.(1987). An Introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammars. In: AlexisManaster-Ramer (red.), Mathematics of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87-114.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Juffs, Alan & Guillermo A.Rodríguez(2014). Second language sentence processing. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kaan, Edith(1997). Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kampen, Jacqueline van(1998). First steps in WH-movement. Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kandybowicz, Jason(2008). The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe Grammar at the Syntax-phonology Interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kaplan, Ronald M. & AnnieZaenen(1988). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In: Mark R.Baltin & Anthony S.Kroch (red.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 17-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kiziak, Tanja(2010). Extraction Asymmetries. Experimental evidence from German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Koster, Jan(1978). Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kroch, Anthony S. (1989a). Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a tree-adjoining grammar. In: Mark R.Baltin & Anthony S.Kroch (red.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 66-98.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kroch, Anthony S. (1989b). Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In: RalphW. Fasold & DeborahSchiffrin (red.). Language change and variation (Vol. 52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-72.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kuno, Susumo(1976). Subject, Theme and Speaker’s Empathy: A Reexamination of Relativization Phenomena. In CharlesN. Li (red.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 417-444.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lühr, Rosemarie(1988). Zur Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. GAGL28, 74-87.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lutz, Uli, GereonMüller & Arnim vonStechow(2000). Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mak, Willem M., WietskeVonk & HerbertSchriefers(2008). Discourse structure and relative clause 
processing. Memory and Cognition36, 170-181.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Maling, Joan & AnnieZaenen(1978). The non-universality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry9, 475-497.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. McDaniel, Dana(1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory7, 565-604.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McDaniel, Dana(2018). Long-distance extraction attraction: A production-based account of an unexpected cross-linguistic structure. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3(1):95. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.712.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. McDaniel, Dana, CecileMcKee, WayneCowart & MerrillF. Garrett(2015). The role of the 
language production system in shaping grammars. Language9, 415-441.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Müller, Gereon(1997). Partial wh-movement and Optimality Theory. The Linguistic Review14, 249-306.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Nieuwborg, Elie(1968). De distributie van het onderwerp en het lijdend voorwerp in het huidige geschreven Nederlands in zijn A.B.-vorm. Antwerpen: Plantyn.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Noord, Gertjan van(2009). Huge parsed corpora in Lassy. In: Frankvan Eynde, AnetteFrank, KoenraadDe Smedt & Gertjanvan Noord (red.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 7). Utrecht: LOT, 115–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Odijk, Jan, Gertjanvan Noord, PeterKleiweg & ErikTjong Kim Sang(2017). The Parse and Query (PaQu) Application. In: JanOdijk & Arjanvan Hessen (red.), Clarin in the Low Countries. London: Ubiquity Press, 281-297.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Perlmutter, David(1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pesetsky, David(1982). Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition. The Linguistic Review1, 297-344.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Pesetsky, David(1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In: EricReuland & Alice terMeulen (red.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 98-129.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Pesetsky, David(1998). Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In: PilarBarbosa, DannyFox, PaulHagstrom, MarthaMcGinnis & DavidPesetsky (red.), Is the best good 
enough?Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press, 337-384.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Phillips, Colin, NinaKazanina & ShaniH. Abada(2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research22, 407-428.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pollard, Carl & IvanA. Sag(1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press & Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Prince, Ellen F.(1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In: William C.Mann & Sandra A.Thompson (red.), Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295-325.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Reis, Marga(1996). Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? In: UliLutz & JurgenPafel (red.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 45-88.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Reis, Marga(2000). On the Parenthetical Features of German Was…W-Constructions and How to Account for Them. In: UliLutz & JurgenPafel (red.),On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 359-408.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Reis, Marga(2002). Wh-movement and integrated parenthetical constructions. In: Jan-WouterZwart & WernerAbraham (red.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 121-144.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Reuland, Eric(1983). Onderzoek van het Nederlands en het zoeken naar verklaringen. TTT3, 239-259.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Reuland, Eric & JanKoster(1991). Long-distance anaphora: an overview. In: JanKoster & EricReuland (red.), Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Riemsdijk, Henk van(1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of preposi­tional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Ringmann, Svenja(2014). Das Verständnis komplexer W-Fragen bei Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen mit Sprachentwicklungsstörung. In: SvenjaRingmann & JuliaSiegmüller (red.), Handbuch Spracherwerb und Sprachentwicklungsstörungen. Jugend- und Erwachsenenalter. München: Elsevier, 115-135.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Rizzi, Luigi(1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Roelfszema, Jurjen(1983). Over that-trace-verschijnselen. Tabu13, 37-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Roeper, Tom & Jillde Villiers(2011). The acquisition path for wh-questions. In: JillDe Villiers & TomRoeper (red.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition. Springer: Dordrecht, 189-246.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Rohdenburg, Gunter(1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics7, 149–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Ross, John Robert(1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Proefschrift Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Salzmann, Martin(2006). Resumptive Prolepsis. A Study in Indirect A’ dependencies. Proefschrift Universiteit van Utrecht. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Salzmann, Martin(2017). Prolepsis. In: MartinEveraert & Henk C.van Riemsdijk (red.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. <https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom062>
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Salzmann, Martin, JanaHäussler, MarkusBader & JosefBayer (2013). That-trace effects without traces. An experimental investigation. In: StefanKleine & ShayneSloggett (red.), Proceedings of the 42th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 149-162.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Siegmüller, Julia & JürgenWeissenborn(2004).The comprehension of complex wh-questions in German-speaking individuals with WS. In: SusanneBartke & JuliaSiegmüller (red.), Williams Syndrome across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 319-341.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Schippers, Ankelien(2010). On the (un)availability of long-distance movement. In: VincentTorrens, LindaEscobar, AnnaGavarró & JunkalGutierrez-Mangado (red.), Movement and Clitics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 40-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Schippers, Ankelien(2012). Variation and Change in Germanic Long-Distance Dependencies. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Groningen: GRODIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Schippers, Ankelien(2016). Partial wh-movement and wh-copying in Dutch: Evidence for an indirect dependency approach. In: NicholasRolle, JeremySteffman & JohnSylak-Glassman, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 338-353.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schippers, Ankelien & JackHoeksema(2011). Variation in long-distance dependencies. In: FransGregersen, Jeffrey K.Parrot & PiaQuist (red.), Language variation–European perspectives III. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 123-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sobin, Nicolas(1987). The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory5, 33-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Speyer, Augustin(2005). Topicalization in English and the Trochaic Requirement. In: MaciejBaranowski & UriHoresh (red.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 10.2. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Linguistics Club, 243-256.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Speyer, Augustin(2010). Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the history of English. Berlijn/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sprouse, Rex & BarbaraVance(1999). An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance dialects. In: MicheldeGraff (red.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 257-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Staudacher, Peter(1990). Long movement from verb-second complements in German. In: GüntherGrewendorf & WolfgangSternefeld (red.), Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 319-339.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Strik, Nelleke(2008). Syntaxe et Acquisition des Phrases Interrogatives en Français et en Neerlandais: une Etude Contrastive. Proefschrift Université Paris 8, Saint Denis, Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Stroop, Jan(2016). De bijzin zonder dat. [blog] <nederl.blogspot.com/2016/02/ik-geloof-t-zoo-in-elkaar-zit-vincent.html#more>
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Szabolcsi, Anna & TerjeLohndal(2017). Weak and strong islands. In: MartinEveraert & Henk C.van Riemsdijk (red.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. <https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom008>
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Tappe, Hans Thilo(1981). Wer glaubst du hat recht? Einige Bemerkungen zu COMP-COMP-Bewegung im Deutschen. In: ManfredKohrt & JürgenLenerz (red.), Sprache, Formen und Strukturen: Akten des 15. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Münster 1980, Band I. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 203-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Thiersch, Craig(1978). Topics in German Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Verhagen, Arie(2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Verhagen, Arie(2006). On subjectivity and ‘long distance Wh-movement’. In: AngelikiAthanasiadou, CostasCanakis & BertCornillie (red.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlijn/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 323-346.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Vogels, Jorrig & Geertjevan Bergen(2013). Where to place inaccessible subjects in Dutch: The role of definiteness and animacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13, 369-398.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Vries, Mark de(2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Ward, Gregory & Betty J.Birner(2001). Discourse and information structure. In: DeborahSchiffrin, DeborahTannen, Heidi E.Hamilton (red.), The handbook of discourse analysis,
 119-137. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Weerman, Fred(1989). The V/2 Conspiracy. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.003.SCHI
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.1.003.SCHI
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error