Cover not available

Reply published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 42:4 (2018) ► pp.967–969

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Reply

Response

Fleischhauer and Czardybon evade the burden of proof

 | Independent Researcher
Published online: 4 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.00012.kab
References (8)
References
Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss. 2012. The case differential: syntagmatic versus paradigmatic case – its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110.3. 316–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulatović, Vesna. 2013. Modern theories of aspect and Serbian EL2 learners. Belgrade English Language & Literature Studies V1. 65–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens & Adrian Czardybon. 2016. The role of verbal prefixes and particles in aspectual composition. Studies in Language 40.1. 176–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kabakčiev, Krasimir. 1984. The article and the aorist/imperfect distinction in Bulgarian: an analysis based on cross-language ‘aspect’ parallelisms. Linguistics 221. 643–672.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Aspect in English: a “common-sense” view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue