oa The importance of features and exponents

References

1. Aboh, E. O.
   (2009) Competition and selection. InE. O. Aboh & N. Smith (Eds.), Complex processes in new languages (pp.113–170). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.35.20abo
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.35.20abo [Google Scholar]
2. Aboh, E. O.
   (2015) The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars: Language Contact and Change. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139024167
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139024167 [Google Scholar]
3. Aboh, E. O.
   (2019) Our creolized tongues. InE. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, Y. Reshef, & M. Taube (Eds.), Language contact, continuity and change in the genesis of Modern Hebrew (pp.287–320). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.256.11abo
   https://doi.org/10.1075/la.256.11abo [Google Scholar]
4. Aboh, E. O.
   (2020) Lessons from neuro-(a)-typical brains: Universal multilingualism, code mixing, recombination, and executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 111. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00488
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00488 [Google Scholar]
5. Åfarli, T. A.
   (2007) Do verbs have argument structure?InE. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument Structure (pp.1–16). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.108.04afa
   https://doi.org/10.1075/la.108.04afa [Google Scholar]
6. Alexiadou, A.
   (2014) Roots don’t take complements. Theoretical Linguistics, 401, 287–298. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0012
   https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0012 [Google Scholar]
7. Alexiadou, A.
   (2017) Building verbs in language mixing varieties. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 361, 165–192. 10.1515/zfs‑2017‑0008
   https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0008 [Google Scholar]
8. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F.
   (2015) External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
9. Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T.
   (2018) Units of language mixing: A cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01719
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01719 [Google Scholar]
10. Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T.
    (2021) From the Origins of Government and Binding to the Current State of Minimalism. InN. Allott, T. Lohndal & G. Rey (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Chomsky (pp.25–51). John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119598732.ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119598732.ch3 [Google Scholar]
11. Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T.
    (in press). Grammatical gender in syntactic theory. InN. Schiller & T. Kupisch Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Classifiers. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Anderson, S.
    (1992) Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511586262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586262 [Google Scholar]
13. Anderssen, M., Lundquist, B., & Westergaard, M.
    (2018) Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 211, 748–764. 10.1017/S1366728918000330
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000330 [Google Scholar]
14. van Baal, Y.
    (2020) Compositional definiteness in American heritage Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.
15. van Baal, Y.
    (2022) New Data on Language Change: Compositional Definiteness in American Norwegian. Heritage Language Journal, 191, 1–32. 10.1163/15507076‑bja10005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15507076-bja10005 [Google Scholar]
16. Beard, R.
    (1981) The Indo-European Lexicon. North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Beard, R.
    (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology. State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Blix, H.
    (2021) Phrasal Spellout and Partial Overwrite: On an alternative to backtracking. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 61, 621. 10.5334/gjgl.1614
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1614 [Google Scholar]
19. Borer, H.
    (1994) The projection of arguments. InE. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics201 (pp.1–30). GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Borer, H.
    (2003) Exo-skeletal vs. Endo-skeletal Explanations: Syntactic Projections and the Lexicon. InJ. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp.31–67). CSLI Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Borer, H.
    (2005a) Structuring Sense, Volume 1, In Name Only. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Borer, H.
    (2005b) Structuring Sense, Volume 2, The Normal Course of Events. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Borer, H.
    (2013) Structuring Sense, Volume 3, Taking Form. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
24. Borer, H.
    (2014) The Category of Roots. InA. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax (pp.112–148). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
25. Borer, H.
    (2017) The Generative Word. InJ. McGilvray (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (pp.110–133). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316716694.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316716694.006 [Google Scholar]
26. Brennan, J. R., & Hale, J. T.
    (2019) Hierarchical structure guides rapid linguistic predictions during naturalistic listening. PLOS One, 14(1), e0207741. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207741
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207741 [Google Scholar]
27. Caha, P.
    (2009) The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
28. Cinque, G.
    (2006) Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford. 10.1093/oso/9780195179545.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195179545.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
29. Chomsky, N.
    (1955) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University and MIT. [Revised version published in part byPlenum, New York 1975.]
    [Google Scholar]
30. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic Structures. Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
31. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Chomsky, N.
    (2005) Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
35. Comrie, B.
    (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Creemers, A.
    (2020) Morphological processing and the effects of semantic transparency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
37. Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D.
    (2016) Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19(1), 158–164. 10.1038/nn.4186
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4186 [Google Scholar]
38. di Sciullo, A., & Williams, E.
    (1987) On the Definition of Word. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Embick, D.
    (2015) The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501502569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502569 [Google Scholar]
40. Embick, D., & Noyer, R.
    (2007) Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. InG. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp.289–324). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Fisher, R., Natvig, D., Pretorius, E., Putnam, M. T., & Schuhmann, K. S.
    (2022) Why is inflectional morphology difficult to borrow? – Distributing and lexicaling plural allomorphy in Pennsylvania Dutch. Languages, 71, 86. 10.3390/languages7020086
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020086 [Google Scholar]
42. Folli, R., & Harley, H.
    (2005) Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. InP. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Inquiries (pp.95–120). Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3033‑9_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 [Google Scholar]
43. Frasson, A.
    (2022) The syntax of subject pronouns in heritage languages: Innovation and complexification. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
44. Fruchter, J., & Marantz, A.
    (2015) Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the Full Decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 1431, 81–96. 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar]
45. Gebhardt, L.
    (2009) Numeral classifiers and the structure of DP. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
46. Getz, H., Ding, N., Newport, E. L., & Poeppel, D.
    (2018) Cortical tracking of constituent structure in language acquisition. Cognition, 1811, 135–140. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.019 [Google Scholar]
47. Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F.
    (1997) Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195091922.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195091922.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
48. Goldrick, M., Putnam, M. T., & Schwarz, L.
    (2016) Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 857–876. 10.1017/S1366728915000802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000802 [Google Scholar]
49. Goodwin Davies, A. J.
    (2018) Morphological representations in lexical processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
50. Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A.
    (2014) Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: A case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. Nordlyd, 411, 213–237. 10.7557/12.3413
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3413 [Google Scholar]
51. Grimstad, M. B., Riksem, B. R., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A.
    (2018) Lexicalist vs. Exoskeletal approaches to language mixing. The Linguistic Review, 351, 187–218. 10.1515/tlr‑2017‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0022 [Google Scholar]
52. Guo, Y.
    (2022) From a simple to a complex aspectual system: Feature reassembly in L2 acquisition of Chinese imperfective markers by English speakers. Second Language Research, 38(1), 89–116. 10.1177/0267658320911433
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320911433 [Google Scholar]
53. Gwilliams, L.
    (2019) How the brain composes morphemes into meaning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3751: 20190311. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0311
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0311 [Google Scholar]
54. Haegeman, L.
    (1997) Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 233–270. 10.1017/S1360674300000526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000526 [Google Scholar]
55. Halle, M.
    (1997) Impoverishment and fission. InB. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), PF: Papers at the interface (Vol. 30 of MITWPL) (pp.425–450). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Harley, H., & Ritter, E.
    (2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 781, 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
57. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S.
    (2017) The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 219–234. 10.1017/S1366728915000164
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000164 [Google Scholar]
58. Haugen, E.
    (1953) The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D.
    (1997) Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition?InE. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp.257–268). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
60. van Heuven, W. J. B., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P.
    (2008) Language conflict in the brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716. 10.1093/cercor/bhn030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn030 [Google Scholar]
61. Hicks, G., & Domínguez, L.
    (2020) A model for L1 grammatical attrition. Second Language Research, 36(2), 143–165. 10.1177/0267658319862011
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319862011 [Google Scholar]
62. Hjelde, A.
    (1992) Trøndsk talemål i Amerika [The Trønder variety of Norwegian in America]. Tapir.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Huang, C., Li, Y., & Li, Y.
    (2009) The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
64. Hwang, S. H.
    (2012) The acquisition of Korean plural marking by native English speakers. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
65. Hwang, S. H., Lardiere, D.
    (2013) Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research, 291, 57–86. 10.1177/0267658312461496
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461496 [Google Scholar]
66. Jackendoff, R.
    (2017) In defense of theory. Cognitive Science, 411, 185–212. 10.1111/cogs.12324
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12324 [Google Scholar]
67. Johannessen, J. B.
    (2015) The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). InB. Megeysi, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics231.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Krauzka, A., & Lau, E.
    (2023) Moving away from lexicalism in psycho- and neuro-linguistics. Frontiers in Language Science, 21:1125127. 10.3389/flang.2023.1125127
    https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2023.1125127 [Google Scholar]
69. Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. H.
    (2014) Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. InM. Goldrick, V. Ferriera, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp.165–181). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Lapointe, S.
    (1980) A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
71. Lardiere, D.
    (1998a) Case and tense in the ‘fossilization’ steady state. Second Language Research, 141, 1–26. 10.1191/026765898674105303
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898674105303 [Google Scholar]
72. Lardiere, D.
    (1998b) Disassociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 141, 359–375. 10.1191/026765898672500216
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898672500216 [Google Scholar]
73. Lardiere, D.
    (2005) On morphological competence. InL. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004) (pp.178–192). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Lardiere, D.
    (2007) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Lardiere, D.
    (2008) Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. InJ. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp.107–140). Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Lardiere, D.
    (2009) Some thoughts on a contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 251, 173–227. 10.1177/0267658308100283
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308100283 [Google Scholar]
77. Lardiere, D.
    (2017) Detectability in feature reassembly. InS. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in Second Language Acquisition (pp.41–63). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315399027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315399027-3 [Google Scholar]
78. Lee, E.
    (2015) L2 acquisition of number marking: A bidirectional study of adult learners of Korean and Indonesian. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
79. Lee, E., & Lardiere, D.
    (2016) L2 acquisition of number marking in Korean and Indonesian: A feature-based approach. InD. Stringer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015) (pp.113–123). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Lee, E., & Lardiere, D.
    (2019) Feature reassembly in the acquisition of plural marking by Korean and Indonesian bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(1), 73–119. 10.1075/lab.16018.lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16018.lee [Google Scholar]
81. Levin, B.
    (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
82. Liceras, J. M., Zobl, Z., & Goodluck, H.
    (Eds.) (2008) The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
84. Lightfoot, D.
    (2020) Born to parse. How children select their languages. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/12799.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12799.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
85. Lin, J.
    (2002) Aspectual selection and temporal reference of the Chinese aspectual marker zhe. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, 321, 257–296.
    [Google Scholar]
86. Lohndal, T.
    (2012) Without specifiers: Phrase structure and argument structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
87. Lohndal, T.
    (2013) Generative grammar and language mixing. Theoretical Linguistics, 391, 215–224. 10.1515/tl‑2013‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0013 [Google Scholar]
88. Lohndal, T.
    (2014) Phrase structure and argument structure: A case-study of the syntax semantics interface. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677115.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677115.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
89. Lohndal, T.
    (2019) Neodavidsonianism in semantics and syntax. InR. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (pp.287–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
90. Lohndal, T.
    (to appear). The exoskeletal model. InA. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz, & I. Oltra-Massuet Eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
91. Lohndal, T., & Putnam, M. T.
    (2021) The Tale of Two Lexicons: Decomposing Complexity across a Distributed Lexicon. Heritage Language Journal, 181, 1–29. 10.1163/15507076‑12340010
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15507076-12340010 [Google Scholar]
92. Lohndal, T., & Putnam, M. T.
    (2023) Expanding structures while reducing mappings: Morphosyntactic complexity in agglutinating heritage languages. InM. Polinsky & M. T. Putnam (Eds.), Formal approaches to complexity in heritage languages. Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
93. Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, J., & Westergaard, M.
    (2019) Heritage language acquisition: What it reveals and why it is important for formal linguistic theories. Language and Linguistics Compass, 131, e12357. 10.1111/lnc3.12357
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12357 [Google Scholar]
94. López, L.
    (2020) Bilingual Grammar: Toward an Integrated Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108756181
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108756181 [Google Scholar]
95. López, L.
    (to appear). Distributed Morphology and Bilingualism. InA. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz, & I. Oltra-Massuet Eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
96. MacSwan, J.
    (1999) A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. Garland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
97. MacSwan, J.
    (2000) The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 37–54. 10.1017/S1366728900000122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000122 [Google Scholar]
98. MacSwan, J.
    (2013) Code switching and linguistic theory. InT. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp.223–250). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
99. MacSwan, J.
    (2014) Programs and proposals in codeswitching research: Unconstraining theories of bilingual language mixing. InJ. MacSwan (Ed.), Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching (pp.1–33). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8338.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8338.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
100. Mahootian, S.
     (1993) A null theory of code switching. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
101. Marantz, A.
     (2013a) Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua, 1301, 152–168. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012 [Google Scholar]
102. Marantz, A.
     (2013b) No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 905–916. 10.1080/01690965.2013.779385
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.779385 [Google Scholar]
103. Matthews, P. H.
     (1972) Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Meilinger, A., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J.
     (2014) Parallel processing in language production. Language, Cognition, & Neuroscience, 291, 663–683. 10.1080/23273798.2014.906635
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.906635 [Google Scholar]
105. Müller, G.
     (2017) Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 28. 10.5334/gjgl.193
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.193 [Google Scholar]
106. Murphy, E.
     (2021) The oscillatory nature of language. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
107. Natvig, D. A., Putnam, M. T., & Lykke, A. K.
     (2023) Stability in the integrated bilingual grammar: Tense exponency in North American Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 10.1017/S0332586523000069
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586523000069 [Google Scholar]
108. Natvig, D. A., Pretorius, E., Putnam, M. T., & Carlson, M. T.
     (to appear). A spanning approach to bilingual representations: Initial exploration. InB. R. Page & M. T. Putnam Eds. Contact varieties of German: Studies in honor of William D. Keel. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
109. Opitz, A., Regel, S., Müller, G., & Friederici, A. D.
     (2013) Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language, 89(2), 231–264. 10.1353/lan.2013.0033
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0033 [Google Scholar]
110. Oseki, Y., & Marantz, A.
     (2020) Modeling human morphological competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 111:513740. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513740
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513740 [Google Scholar]
111. Pesetsky, D.
     (2019) Exfoliation: towards a derivational theory of clause size. Ms., MIT. Available fromhttps://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440
     [Google Scholar]
112. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S.
     (2013) Forward models and their implications for production, comprehension, and dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 377–392. 10.1017/S0140525X12003238
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003238 [Google Scholar]
113. Pietroski, P.
     (2005) Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Pietroski, P.
     (2018) Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198812722.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812722.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
115. Prévost, P.
     (1997) Truncation in Second Language Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
116. Prévost, P., & White, L.
     (2000a) Accounting for morphological variability in second language acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection?InM.-A. Friedmann & L. Rizzi (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax (pp.202–235). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
117. Prévost, P., & White, L.
     (2000b) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 161, 103–133. 10.1191/026765800677556046
     https://doi.org/10.1191/026765800677556046 [Google Scholar]
118. Putnam, M. T.
     (2020) One feature – one head: Features as functional heads in language acquisition and attrition. InP. Guijaaro-Fuentes & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), New trends in language acquisition within the generative perspective (pp.3–26). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑024‑1932‑0_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1932-0_1 [Google Scholar]
119. Putnam, M. T., Carlson, M., & Reitter, D.
     (2018) Integrated, not isolated: Defining typological proximity in an integrated multilingual architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 2212. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02212
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02212 [Google Scholar]
120. Putnam, M. T., Perez-Cortes, S., & Sánchez, L.
     (2019) Language attrition and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. InM. S. Schmid & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition (pp.18–24). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
121. Ramchand, G. C.
     (2008) Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
122. Ramchand, G. C., & Svenonius, P.
     (2014) Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences, 461, 152–174. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
123. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
     (1998) Building verb meanings. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments (pp.97–134). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
124. Riksem, B. R.
     (2017) Language Mixing and Diachronic Change: American Norwegian Noun Phrases Then and Now. Languages, 21. 10.3390/languages2020003
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages2020003 [Google Scholar]
125. Riksem, B. R.
     (2018) Language mixing in American Norwegian noun phrases: An exoskeletal analysis of synchronic and diachronic patterns. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). 10.1163/19552629‑01103005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-01103005
126. Riksem, B. R., Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A.
     (2019) Language mixing within verbs and nouns in American Norwegian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 221, 189–209. 10.1007/s10828‑019‑09109‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-019-09109-6 [Google Scholar]
127. Rizzi, L.
     (1994) Early null subjects and root null subjects. InT. Hoekstra, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp.151–177). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.8.09riz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.8.09riz [Google Scholar]
128. Sánchez, L.
     (2019) Bilingual alignments. Languages, 41, 821: 10.3390/languages4040082
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4040082 [Google Scholar]
129. Schein, B.
     (1993) Plurals and Events. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
130. Seyboth, M., & Domahs, F.
     (2023) Why do he and she disagree: The role of binary morphological features in grammatical gender agreement in German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. First view: Published online16 January 2023. 10.1007/s10936‑022‑09926‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09926-z [Google Scholar]
131. Slabakova, R.
     (2009) Features or parameters: Which one makes second language acquisition research easier, and more interesting to study?Second Language Research, 25(2), 313–324. 10.1177/0267658308100291
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308100291 [Google Scholar]
132. Slabakova, R.
     (2016) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
133. Slabakova, R.
     (2021) Second language acquisition. InN. Allott, T. Lohndal, & G. Rey (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp.222–231). Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119598732.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119598732.ch14 [Google Scholar]
134. Smith, C.
     (1997) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5606‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6 [Google Scholar]
135. Song, Y., Do, Y., Thompson, A. L., Waegemaekers, E. R., & Lee, J.
     (2020) Second language uses exhibit shallow morphological processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(5), 1121–1136. 10.1017/S0272263120000170
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000170 [Google Scholar]
136. Stockall, L., Manouilidou, C., Gwilliams, L., Neophyton, K., & Marantz, A.
     (2019) Prefix stripping re-re-revisited: MEG investigations of morphological decomposition and recomposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 101 1964 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01964
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01964 [Google Scholar]
137. Stump, G. T.
     (2001) Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
138. Sugimoto, Y.
     (2022) Underspecification and (Im)possible Derivations: Toward a Restrictive Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
139. Sugimoto, Y., & Baptista, M.
     (2022) A late-insertion-based exoskeletal approach to the hybrid nature of functional features in creole languages. Languages, 71, 10.3390/languages7020092
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020092 [Google Scholar]
140. Svenonius, P.
     (2016) Spans and words. InH. Harley & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), Morphological metatheory (pp.199–202). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.229.07sve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.07sve [Google Scholar]
141. Taft, M.
     (2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(4), 745–765. 10.1080/02724980343000477
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 [Google Scholar]
142. Vanden Wyngaerd, E.
     (2021) Bilingual Implications: Using code-switching data to inform linguistic theory. Doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
143. White, L.
     (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
144. Williams, A.
     (2014) Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
145. Wiltschko, M.
     (2021) The syntax of number markers. InP. C. Hofherr & J. Doetjes (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number (pp.164–196). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198795858.013.8
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198795858.013.8 [Google Scholar]
146. Wu, Z., & Juffs, A.
     (2022) Effects of L1 morphological type on L2 morphological awareness. Second Language Research, 38(4), 787–812. 10.1177/0267658321996417
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321996417 [Google Scholar]
147. Wood, J.
     (2015) Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑09138‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9 [Google Scholar]
148. Zwicky, A. M.
     (1985) How to describe inflection. InM. Niepokuj, M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.372–386). Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]