Auxiliary choice with particle verbs of motion in Dutch

References

• Beliën, Maaike. 2008. Constructions, Constraints, and Construal: Adpositions in Dutch. PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Beliën, Maaike. 2012. “Dutch Manner of Motion Verbs: Disentangling Auxiliary Choice, Telicity and Syntactic Function.” Cognitive Linguistics 23 (1): 1–26.10.1515/cog-2012-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beliën, Maaike. 2014. “Auxiliary Choice with Dutch Verbs of Directed Motion.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2014, edited by Anita Auer and Björn Köhnlein, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Booij, Geert. 1990. “The Boundary between Morphology and Syntax: Separable Complex Verbs in Dutch.” Yearbook of Morphology 3: 45–63.
   Google Scholar
• Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Riet Vos. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases. vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.10.5117/9789089647306
   Google Scholar
• Coussé, Evie. 2014. “Lexical Expansion in the HAVE and BE Perfect in Dutch: A Constructionist Prototype Account.” Diachronica 31 (2): 159–191.10.1075/dia
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7
   Google Scholar
• Ebeling, Carl L. 2006. Semiotaxis: Over Theoretische en Nederlandse Syntaxis [Semiotaxis: On Theoretical and Dutch Syntax]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Grammar of Dutch]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. “Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in ‘Degree Achievements’.” SALT 9: 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, Eric. 2016. “Preference for Hawwe ‘Have’ as the Auxiliary of the Perfect in Irrealis Contexts.”Taalportaal. Accessed November 1, 2016. https://www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14111160077323874
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Honselaar, Wim. 1987. “Zijn vs. Hebben in het Samengesteld Perfectum.” [Zijn ‘be’ vs. hebben ‘have’ in the composite perfect.] De Nieuwe Taalgids 80 (1): 55–68.
   Google Scholar
• van Hout, Angeliek. 1993. “On Accusativity: The Relation between Argument Structure and Aspect.” Paper presented at the Arbeitsgruppe Strukturelle Grammatik, MPG, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. “Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations: A Case Study of Dutch and Its Acquisition.” Ph.D. diss, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
   Google Scholar
• van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. “Unaccusativity as Telicity Checking.” In The Unaccusative Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface, edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert, 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• van Hout, Angeliek. 2008. “Projection Based on Event Structure.” In Lexical Specification and Insertion, edited by Peter Coopmans, Martin B. H. Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 403–427. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kern, Johan H. 1912. De met het Participium Praeteriti Omschreven Werkwoordsvormen in ‘t Nederlands [Forms of the Verb Described with the Preterite Participle in Dutch]. Amsterdam: Müller.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lieber, Rochelle, and Harald Baayen. 1997. “A Semantic Principle of Auxiliary Selection.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15 (4): 789–845.10.1023/A:1005897301225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnussen, Erik R. 1939. Syntax des Prädikatsverbums im Mittelniederdeutschen von der Ältesten Zeit bis zum Anfang des Fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts [The Syntax of the Verb in Middle Low German from the Oldest Period to the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century]. Lund: Gleerup.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, Thomas, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2010. “Counterfactuals and Be in the History of English.” In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by John Alderete, Chung-hye Han, and Alexei Kochetov, 272–280. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• de Rooij, Jaap. 1988. Van Hebben naar Zijn: Het Gebruik van Hebben en Zijn in de Voltooide Tijden (Actief) van Zijn, Gaan, Vergeten en Verliezen in Standaardtaal, Ouder Nederlands en Dialect [From Hebben ‘Have’ to Zijn ‘Be’: The Use of Hebben ‘Have’ and Zijn ‘Be’ in the Perfect Tenses (Active) of Zijn ‘Be’, Gaan ‘Go’, Vergeten ‘Forget’, and Verliezen ‘Lose’ in Standard Dutch, Older Dutch and Dialects]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, Thomas F. 1990. “The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the History of the Perfect Auxiliary in Germanic and Romance.” In Historical Linguistics 1987, edited by Henning Andersen and Konrad Koerner, 461–488. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, Thomas F. 1995. “Toward a Cognitive Explanation of Perfect Auxiliary Variation: Some Modal and Aspectual Effects in the History of Germanic.” American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7 (2): 129–163.10.1017/S1040820700001578
   Google Scholar
• Sorace, Antonella. 2000. “Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs.” Language 76 (4): 859–890.10.2307/417202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolova, Natalya I. 2006. “Split Intransitivity in Old Spanish: Irrealis and Negation Factors.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 51 (2): 301–320.
   Google Scholar
• de Vooys, Cornelis G. N. 1947. Nederlandse Spraakkunst [Grammar of Dutch]. Groningen: Wolters.
   Google Scholar
• te Winkel, Lambert A. 1837. “Iets over het Gebruik der Hulpwerkwoorden Hebben en Zijn.” [Something about the use of the auxiliaries hebben ‘have’ and zijn ‘be’]. In Taalkundig Magazijn, of Gemengde Bijdragen tot de Kennis der Nederduitsche Taal (Tweede Deel) [Linguistic Magazine, or Miscellaneous Contributions to the Knowledge of the Dutch Language (Second Volume)], edited by Arie de Jager, 313–328. Rotterdam: Wijnhoven Hendriksen.
   Google Scholar
• Zaenen, Annie. 1988. “Unaccusative Verbs in Dutch and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.” CSLI Report 88 (123). Stanford: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Zaenen, Annie. 1993. “Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics.” In Semantics and the Lexicon, edited by James Pustejovsky, 129–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6
   Google Scholar
• Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar