Article published in:
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp. 109142
References

[ p. 139 ]References

Abraham, W.
(1997) Kausativierung und Dekausativierung: zu Fragen der verbparadigmatischen Markierung in der Germania. In Th. Birkmann, H. Klingenberg, D. Nübling & E. Ronneberger-Sibold (Eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner (pp. 13–28). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Zwischen extensionaler Ökonomie und intensionaler lokalistischer Präzisierung: Dativobjekte im Deutschen und ihre Wiedergabe im kasuslosen Niederländischen. In A. Bittner, D. Bittner & K.-M. Köpcke (Eds.), Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax (pp. 299–316). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
(2006) Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic among all of Germanic). In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency, and transitivity (pp. 115–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Reflexiv- und Passivdiathesen im germanisch-romanischen Vergleich. Ein Ansatz. In E. Stark, R. Schmidt-Riese & E. Stoll (Eds.), Romanische Syntax im Wandel (pp. 87–112). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2012) Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure? In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and theory of mind elements across languages (pp. 67–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) SOV-SVO/VSO-OVO oder T3: Deutsch – Englisch – Polnisch: Unterspezifikation, die UG erst ausmacht. In K. Lukas & I. Olszewska (Eds.), Deutsch im Kontakt und im Kontrast. Festschrift für Prof. Andrzej Kątny zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 75–104). Frankfurt: P. Lang.Google Scholar
(2017) Review (article) of Andrew Carstairs-McCarty 2010 The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Word Structure 10.1, 1–17.Google Scholar
forthcoming). Modality: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abraham, W. & Conradie, J. C.
(2001) Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W. & Leiss, E.
(2012) The case differential: Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic case – its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 316–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Multiple case binding – The principled underspecification of case exponency. In L. Hellan, A. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Contrastive studies in verbal valency (pp. 27–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2012) Review of Gabriele Diewald, Elena Smirnova (Eds.) 2010 Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Studies in Language 36(1): 431–439.Google Scholar
Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. & Bickerton, D.
(Eds.) (2010) The emergence of protolanguage: holophrasis vs compositionality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 140 ]
Ardila, A.
(2010) A proposed reinterpretation and reclassification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology 24(3): 363–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E.
(1981): On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 63–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baumann, S., Röhr, Ch. & Grice, M.
(2015) Prosodische (De-)Kodierung des Informationsstatus im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34(1): 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
(2016) Why only us. Language and evolution. Cam-bridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(2014) More than nature needs. Language, mind and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K.
(1889) Einleitung und Lautlehre. 1886 II. Wortbildungslehre 1. Vorbemerkungen. Nominalkomposita. 1989. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Bühler, K.
(1934) Sprachtheorie. Ungekürzter Neudruck der Ausgabe von 1934. Stuttgart: UTB 1982.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
(2010) The evolution of morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Champollion, L. & Krifka, M.
(2016) Mereology. In M. Aloni (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics (pp. 513–541). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Morris, H.
(1968) The sound pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G.
(2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. & Smirnova, E.
(Eds.) 2010Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doitchinov, S.
(2001) „Es kann sein, dass der Junge nach Hause gegangen ist“ – Zum Erstspracherwerb von können in epistemischer Lesart. In R. Müller & M. Reis (Eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen (pp. 111–134). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Embick, D.
(2004) On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E.
(2011) The Linguistic Cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gertsch, J.
(2012) Cross-cultural comparisons of medicinal floras – what are the implications for bioprospecting? J. Ethnopharmacol. 139, 685–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gretsch, P. & Perdue, C.
(2007) Finiteness in first and second language acquisition. In I. Nikolava (Ed), Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp. 432–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E.
(1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. 2 Voll. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar
(1874) Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 141 ]
Hagoort, P. R. & Levelt, W. J. M.
(2009) The speaking brain. Science 326: 372–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
(2012) German syntax. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T.
(2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science 298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D. & Bever, Th. G.
(2008) A biolinguistic agenda. Science 322: 1057–1059. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D.
(2016) Challenges to the what, when, and why? Biolinguistics 10: 1–5.Google Scholar
Hellbernd, N. & Sammler, D.
(2016) Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language 88: 70–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1936) Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–288.Google Scholar
(1962/1969) Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
(1971a) Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutung der russischen Kasus. In R. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp. 33–71). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1971b) The relation between genitive and plural in the declension of Russian nouns. In R. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp. 148–153). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1971c) Two types of language and two types of aphasic disturbance. In R. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp. 239–259). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
(1986) Massennomina. Mit einem Exkurs zu Aktionsarten, Berichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99 “Grammatik und sprachliche Prozesse” der Universität Konstanz 117, Mai 1986.Google Scholar
(2007) Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6 (pp. 13–55). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. [see also in Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (2008), 243–276].Google Scholar
La Joie, R., Landeau, B., Perrotin, A., Bejanin, A., Egret, St., Pélerin, A., Mézenge, F., Belliard, S., De La Sayette, V., Eustache, F., Desgranges, B. & Chételat, G.
(2014) Intrinsic connectivity identifies the hippocampus as a main crossroad between Alzheimer’s and semantic dementia-targeted networks. Neuron 81: 1417–1428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E.
(1992) Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997) Synkretismus und Natürlichkeit. Folia Linguistica 31: 133–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Artikel und Aspekt. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Submorphematische Motiviertheit als Grammatikalisierungsergebnis – Grammatikalisierung von Reflexivpronomina. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32: 233–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Covert patterns of definiteness/indefiniteness and aspectuality in Old Icelandic, Gothic, and Old High German.In: E. Stark, E. Leiss & W. Abraham (Eds.), Nominal Determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence (pp. 73–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E. & Abraham, W.
(Eds.) (2014) Modes of modality. Modality, typology, and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
[ p. 142 ]
Müller, G.
(2004) On decomposing inflection class features: syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In G. Müller, L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 189–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology 17: 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Opitz, B. & Friederici, A. D.
(2004) Brain correlates of language learning: The neuronal dissociation of rule-based versus similarity-based learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24(39): 8436–8440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ranganath, Ch. & Ritchey, M.
(2012) Two cortical systems for memory guided behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13: 713–726. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H.
(1948) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(2010) On the nature of linguistic computations: complexity, development and evolution. Paper presented at Summer Institute on the Origins of language, UQÀM, Montreal, Canada, June 21th-30th.
Sokolov, J. & Snow, C.
(2010) Handbook of research in language development using CHILDES. Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Szagun, G.
(2013) Sprachentwicklung beim Kind. Ein Lehrbuch. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
Tulving, E.
(1972) Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory, 381–403. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Episodic memory and autopoiesis. Uniquely human? In H. S. Terrace & J. Metcalfe (Eds.), The missing link in cognition. Origins of self-reflexive consciousness (pp. 3–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J.
(2005) Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6): 739–779. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Aspects of a typology of direction. In S. D. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar