Oblieke subjecten in het Nederlands?

References

1. Andrews, Avery D. (1976). The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North Eastern Linguistic Society6, 1–21.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barðdal, Jóhanna (2001). The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics2, 47–70.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barðdal, Jóhanna (2004). The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In: W.Abraham (red.), Focus on Germanic typology. Berlijn: Akademie Verlag, 105–137.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barðdal, Jóhanna, CarleeArnett, StephenMark Carey, ThórhallurEythórsson, Gard B.Jenset, GuusKroonen & AdamOberlin (2016). Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. Language Typology and Universals69(1), 49–84.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bouma, Gerlof (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject and object fronting. Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Broekhuis, Hans (2020). 8.1.2. Noun phrases in clause-initial position. Taalportaal. <https://www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/link/syntax__Dutch__np__n8__nouns8_Syntactic.8.1.2.xml> (geraadpleegd 29september2023).
   [Google Scholar]
7. Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: Charles N.Li (red.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–55.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Detges, Ulrich (2009). How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of Preferred Argument Structure. In: J.Barðdal & S.L.Chelliah (red.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 93–122.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Du Bois, John W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4), 805–855.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Givón, Talmy (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In: J.H.Greenberg (red.), Universals of human language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 149–188.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Haeseryn, Walter, KirstenRomijn, GuidoGeerts, Jaapde Rooij & Maartenvan den Toorn (red.) (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Haspelmath, Martin (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In: A.Y.Aikhenvald, R.M.W.Dixon & M.Onishi (red.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–83.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A.Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2), 251–299.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (1996). Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Proefschrift, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Keenan, Edward L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In: C.N.Li (red.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 303–333.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Kilgarriff, Adam, PavelRychlý, PavelSmrž, DavidTugwell (2004). The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, 105–116.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kilgarriff, Adam, VítBaisa, JanBušta, MilošJakubíček, VojtěchKovář, JanMichelfeit, PavelRychlý, VítSuchomel (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography1, 7–36.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Lambrecht, Knud (1986). Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. Proefschrift, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Lamers, Monique (2007). Verb type, animacy and definiteness in grammatical function disambiguation. Linguistics in the Netherlands24, 125–137.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lamers, Monique J.A. & Helende Hoop (2014). Animate object fronting in Dutch: A production study. In: B.MacWhinney, A,Malchukov & E.Moravcsik (red.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–53.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mikkelsen, Line (2002). Reanalyzing the definiteness effect. Evidence from Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax69, 1–75.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Schütze, Carson T. (2011). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science2(2), 206–221.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Proefschrift, Lunds Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax49, 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Somers, Joren (2021). Onpersoonlijke datief-nominatiefwerkwoorden in het hedendaagse Duits: Definitie, inventaris en semantische classificatie. Handelingen - Koninklijke-Zuid Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis75, 211–238.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Somers, Joren, TorstenLeuschner, LudovicDe Cuypere & JóhannaBarðdal (ingediend). A corpus-based analysis of the Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat alternation in German.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1979). On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Tomlin, Russell S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. Londen: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Vandeweghe, Willy. 2013. Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
    [Google Scholar]
31. WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. <gtb.ivdnt.org>
    [Google Scholar]
32. Zaenen, Annie, JoanMaling & HöskuldurThráinsson (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3, 441–483.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]