[Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.10.1017/S0022226700011567]Search in Google Scholar
[Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ariel, Mira. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30: 3-42.10.1017/S0022226700016170]Search in Google Scholar
[Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord and W. Spooren (eds.). Text representation, 29-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.8.04ari]Search in Google Scholar
[Bao, Zhiming. 2001. The origins of empty categories in Singapore English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 16: 275-319.10.1075/jpcl.16.2.03zhi]Search in Google Scholar
[Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2004. Indian English: Syntax. In B. Kortmann and E. Schneider et al. (eds.). A handbook of varieties of English, 1116-1130. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. 1998. The emergent lexicon. In M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. S. Olson and T. Wysocki (eds.). CLS 34: The panels, 421-435. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Frequency effects on French liaison. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (eds.). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.17byb]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261-290.10.1017/S0954394502143018]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711-733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in American English. Linguistics 37: 575-596.10.1515/ling.37.4.575]Search in Google Scholar
[Bybee, Joan L. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In M. Juge and J. Moxley (eds.). Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14-17, 1997: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378-388. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cole, Melvyn D. 2009. Null subjects: A reanalysis of the data. Linguistics 47: 559-587.10.1515/LING.2009.019]Search in Google Scholar
[Cole, Melvyn D. 2010. Thematic null subjects and accessibility. Studia Linguistica 64: 271-320.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2010.01172.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.]Search in Google Scholar
[Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (ed.). Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3-28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.109.07hai]Search in Google Scholar
[Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.]Search in Google Scholar
[Huang, Yan. 1992. Against Chomsky’s typology of empty categories. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 1-29.10.1016/0378-2166(92)90026-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530]Search in Google Scholar
[Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.). 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3]Search in Google Scholar
[Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.12]Search in Google Scholar
[Krug, Manfed. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 286-320.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lange, Claudia. 2012. The syntax of spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g45]Search in Google Scholar
[Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2013. Singapore English: Structure, variation, and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139225755]Search in Google Scholar
[Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[MacWhinney, Brian. 2001. Emergentist approaches to language. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (eds.). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 449-470. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.23mac]Search in Google Scholar
[Moag, Rodney F. and Robert Poletto. 1991. Discourse level evidence for South Asia as a linguistic area. Language Sciences 3: 229-254.10.1016/0388-0001(91)90016-T]Search in Google Scholar
[Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35: 157-187.10.1177/0075424207301888]Search in Google Scholar
[Neeleman, Ad and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671-716.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671]Search in Google Scholar
[Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-558.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ruppenhofer, Josef and Laura A. Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2: 158-184.10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup]Search in Google Scholar
[Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105-124.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618901]Search in Google Scholar
[Speas, Margaret. 1994. Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection. In E. Benedicto and J. T. Runner (eds.). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Functional projections, 179-208. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts.]Search in Google Scholar
[Speas, Margaret. 2006. Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Shoorlemmer and F. Weerman (eds.). Arguments and agreement, 35-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Taraldsen, Knut T. 1980. On the nominative island condition, vacuous application, and the that-trace filter. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wee, Lionel. 2004. Singapore English: Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann and E. Schneider et al. (eds.). A handbook of varieties of English, 1116-1130. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar