oa On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch

References

1. Bennis, Hans & Frans Hinskens
   2014 “Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde19(2), 131–184. 10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.BENN
   https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.BENN [Google Scholar]
2. van Bergen, Geertje, Wessel Stoop, Jorrig Vogels & Helen de Hoop
   2011 “Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen.” Nederlandse Taalkunde161, 2–29. 10.5117/NEDTAA2011.1.LEVE468
   https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2011.1.LEVE468 [Google Scholar]
3. Binnick, Robert
   2005 “The markers of habitual aspect in English.” Journal of English Linguistics33(4), 339–369. 10.1177/0075424205286006
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424205286006 [Google Scholar]
4. Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen
   2022 “ordinal – Regression models for ordinal data”. R package version 2022.11–16. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal
   [Google Scholar]
5. Cornips, Leonie
   1994 “De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie.” Forum der Letteren35(4), 282–294.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cornips, Leonie
   1998 “Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch.” InDo in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variationed. byIngrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Marijke van der Wal & Arjan van Leuvensteijn, 83–101. Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Cornips, Leonie
   2013 “Child use of auxiliary + infinitive in Dutch: Acquisition device or reflection of the input.” InDummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisitioned. byElma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 369–394. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513476.369
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.369 [Google Scholar]
8. Cornips, Leonie
   2021 “The predictability of social stratification of syntactic variants.” InExplanations in sociosyntactic variationed. byTanya Karoli Christensen & Torben Juel Jensen, 144–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108674942.007
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674942.007 [Google Scholar]
9. Garrett, Andrew
   1998 “On the origin of auxiliary do.” English Language & Linguistics2(2), 283–330. 10.1017/S1360674300000897
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000897 [Google Scholar]
10. Giesbers, Herman
    1983–1984 “Doe jij lief spelen? Notities over het perifrastisch doen.” Mededelingen van de Nijmeegse Centrale voor Dialect- en Naamkunde191, 57–64.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hogeweg, Lotte, Stefanie Ramachers & Helen de Hoop
    2018 “Singular agreement in special partitive constructions in Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics30(4), 335–370. 10.1017/S1470542717000149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542717000149 [Google Scholar]
12. Hollebrandse, Bart, Margreet van Koert & Angeliek van Hout
    2013 “Semantic dummy verbs in child Dutch.” InDummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisitioned. byElma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 75–100. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513476.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.75 [Google Scholar]
13. Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop
    2013 “The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands, 89–101. 10.1075/avt.30.07hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.07hub [Google Scholar]
14. Hubers, Ferdy, Tineke Snijders & Helen de Hoop
    2016 “How the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.” Brain and Language1631, 22–31. 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.006 [Google Scholar]
15. Hubers, Ferdy, Theresa Redl, Hugo de Vos, Lukas Reinarz & Helen de Hoop
    2020 “Processing prescriptively incorrect comparative particles: evidence from sentence-matching and eye-tracking.” Frontiers in Psychology111, 186. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00186 [Google Scholar]
16. de Jong, Jan, Elma Blom & Antje Orgassa
    2013 “Dummy auxiliaries in children with SLI – a study on Dutch, in monolinguals and bilinguals.” InDummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisitioned. byElma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 251–278. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513476.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.251 [Google Scholar]
17. Jordens, Peter
    2013 “Dummies and auxiliaries in the acquisition of L1 and L2 Dutch.” InDummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisitioned. byElma Blom, Ineke van de Craats & Josje Verhagen, 341–368. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513476.341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.341 [Google Scholar]
18. Lenth, Russel V.
    2022 “emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means.” R package version 1.8.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
19. Lestrade, Sander & Helen de Hoop
    2016 “On case and tense: The role of grounding in differential subject marking.” The Linguistic Review33(3), 397–410. 10.1515/tlr‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
20. van der Meulen, Marten
    2020 “Language should be pure and grammatical: Values in prescriptivism in the Netherlands 1917–2016.” InLanguage Prescription: Values, Ideologies and Identityed. byDon Chapman & Jacob D. Rawlins, 121–144. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788928380‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788928380-008 [Google Scholar]
21. Mulder, Gijs, Gert-Jan Schoenmakers, Olaf Hoenselaar & Helen de Hoop
    2022 “Tense and aspect in a Spanish literary work and its translations.” Languages71, 217. 10.3390/languages7030217
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030217 [Google Scholar]
22. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2022 “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
23. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan
    2022 “Definite objects in the wild. A converging evidence approach to scrambling in the Dutch middle-field”. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
24. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan
    2023 “Linguistic judgments in 3D: A case study of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation.” Linguistics61(3), 779–82410.1515/ling‑2021‑0179
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0179 [Google Scholar]
25. Vogel, Ralf
    2019 “Grammatical taboos. An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft38(1), 37–79. 10.1515/zfs‑2019‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-0002 [Google Scholar]
26. Weber, Thilo
    2018 “An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics21(1), 75–129. 10.1007/s10828‑018‑9095‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9095-7 [Google Scholar]