Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bruening, Benjamin
    2010 “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives”. Linguistic Inquiry41: 287–305. doi: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bresnan, Joan W. , and Marilyn Ford
    2010 “Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English.” Language86 (1): 168–213. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cappelle, Bert
    2006 “Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’”. Constructions
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2003Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of Particle Placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Heller, Benedikt , Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Jason Grafmiller
    2017 “Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English”. Journal of English Linguistics45(1): 3–27.10.1177/0075424216685405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216685405 [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackendoff, Ray , and Perter William Culicover
    1971 “A Reconsideration of Dative Movement.” Foundations of Language7: 397–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Katz, Jerrold , and Paul Postal
    1964An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago (Ill.): University of Chicago press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Larson, R. K.
    1988 “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry19: 335–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Newman, John
    1996Give: a cognitive linguistic study. Cognitive linguistics research 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110823714
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110823714 [Google Scholar]
  11. Rothman, Jason
    2009 “Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages.” International Journal of Bilingualism13: 155–163. doi: 10.1177/1367006909339814
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339814 [Google Scholar]
  12. Rohdenburg, Günther
    2003 “Aspects of grammatical iconicity in English.” InFrom Sign to Signing, edited by Wolfgang G. Müller and Olga Fischer , 263–285. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ill.3.19roh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.3.19roh [Google Scholar]
  13. Shank, Christopher , Van Bogaert Julie , and Koen Plevoets
    2016 The diachronic development of zero complementation: A multifactorial analysis of the that/zero alternation with think, suppose, and believe. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 12(1): 31–72.10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0074 [Google Scholar]
  14. Vanderschueren, Clara , and Kevin Diependaele
    2013 “The Portuguese Inflected Infinitive: An Empirical Approach.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory9 (1): 161–186. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Wulff, Stefanie
    2016 “A friendly conspiracy of input, L1, and processing demands: that – variation in German and Spanish learner language”. InThe usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism (Proceedings of GURT 2014), edited by Lourdes Ortega , Andrea E. Tyler , Hae In Park and Mariko Uno , 115–136. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error