Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:47:43.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2011

M. Rita Manzini  and
Leonardo M. Savoia
M. Rita Manzini
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy
Leonardo M. Savoia
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Grammatical Categories
Variation in Romance Languages
 , pp. 331 - 344
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquaviva, Paolo 1994. ‘The representation of operator-variable dependencies in sentential negation’, Studia Linguistica 48: 91–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David and Quer, Joseph 2001. ‘The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions’, Language 77: 107–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian 2005. ‘Merge and move: wh–dependencies revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 161–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena 2004. ‘Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M. (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, pp. 114–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena 2003. ‘Participles and voice’, in Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M. and Stechow, A. (eds.), Perfect Explorations. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp.1–36.Google Scholar
Arsenijevic, Boban 2009. ‘Clausal complementation as relativization’, Lingua 119: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastiaansen, Marcel C., Oostenveld, Robert, Jensen, Ole and Hagoort, Peter 2008. ‘I see what you mean: theta-power increases are involved in the retrieval of lexical semantic information’, Brain and Language 106: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Marc 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef 2006. ‘Nothing/nichts as negative polarity survivors?’, in Gärtner, H.-M., Beck, S., Eckardt, R., Musan, R. and Stiebels, B. (eds.), Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka: a web festschrift for Manfred Krifka. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS), pp. 5–30.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana 1988. ‘The case of unaccusatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–35.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana 2000. ‘Speculations on the possible source of expletive negation in Italian comparative clauses’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana 2004. ‘Aspects of the Low IP Area’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume II. Oxford University Press, pp. 16–51.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana 2008. ‘Answering strategies: new information subjects and the nature of clefts’, in Belletti, A., Structures and Strategies. New York: Routledge, pp. 242–65.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi 1981. ‘The syntax of ne: some theoretical implications’, The Linguistic Review 1: 117–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belvin, Robert and Dikken, Marcel 1997. ‘There, happens, to, be, have’, Lingua 101: 151–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola 2001. ‘On the position of Topic and Focus in the left periphery’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola 2006. ‘A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance’, in Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herberger, E. and Portner, P. (eds), Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture: Crosslinguistic Investigations. Georgetown University Press, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia 2004. ‘Topic, focus and V2: defining the CP sublayers’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume II. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–75.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia 2001. Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance', in Brinton, L. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia 2003. ‘Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity’, Lingua 114: 447–71.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Besten, Hans 1984. ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’, in Abraham, W. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of West-Germania, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 47–131.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh and Pancheva, Roumyana 2006. ‘Conditionals’, in Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Volume 1. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 638–87.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan 2008. ‘Missing persons: a case study in morphological universals’, The Linguistic Review, special issue Examples of Linguistic Universals 25: 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Michael 2003. Towards an Elegant Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa 2004. A Unification of Focus. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand and Bruneau, Charles 1969. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tromsoe.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea 1998. ‘Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance’, in Lema, J. and Trevino, E. (eds.), Theoretical Advances on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–126.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea 2008. ‘On absolute and contextual syncretism: remarks on the structure of paradigms and on how to derive it’, in Nevins, A. and Bachrach, A. (eds.), The Bases of Inflectional Identity. Oxford University Press, pp. 156–205.Google Scholar
Camaj, Martin 1984. Albanian Grammar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano and Polinsky, Maria 2008. ‘Everything is relative: evidence from Northwest Caucasian’, paper presented at the GLOW 31 Colloquium, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2001. ‘L'inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane, teorie e dati a confronto’, in Albano Leoni, F., Krosbakken, E. Stenta, Sornicola, R. and Stromboli, C. (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXXIII congresso internazionale di studi della SLI. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 427–53.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2002. ‘La selezione degli ausiliari perfettivi in napoletano antico: fenomeno sintattico o sintattico-semantico?’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87: 175–222.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2008. ‘The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: the Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 115–42.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2010. ‘Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, 210–24.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela and Sorace, Antonella 2007. ‘Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexicon interface: evidence from Paduan’, in Aranovich, R. (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems: a Cross–linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 65–100.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa 1991. On the Typology of Wh–questions. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro 1995. ‘Impersonal subjects’, in Bach, E., Jellinek, E., Kratz, A. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 107–43.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro 1998. ‘Reference to kinds across language’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro 2004. ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M. (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, pp. 22–59.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1973. ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 232–86.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1975 [1955]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1986. Knowledge of Language, New York: Praeger.Google ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2000a. ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2000b. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2008. ‘On Phases’, in Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 133–66.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard 1977. ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1990. Types of A'-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1995. Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 4. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo and Rizzi, Luigi 2008. ‘The cartography of syntactic structures’, Studies in Linguistics 2, University of Siena, pp. 42–58.Google Scholar
Cocchi, Gloria 1995. La selezione dell'ausiliare. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cocchi, Gloria and Poletto, Cecilia 2002. ‘Complementizer deletion in Florentine’, in Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F. and Monachesi, P. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra 1995. ‘Rumanian genitive constructions’, in Cinque, G. and Giusti, G. (eds.), Advances in Rumanian Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio 2010 ‘Fronting as focalization in Sicilian’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–60.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María C. 2003. Datives at Large. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter and Jackendoff, Ray 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter and Jackendoff, Ray 2006. ‘The simpler syntax hypothesis’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 413–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Alessandro, Roberta and Ledgeway, Adam 2010. ‘At the C-T boundary: investigating Abruzzese complementation’, Lingua 120: 2040–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Alessandro, Roberta and Roberts, Ian 2010. ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damonte, Federico 2006. ‘Complementatori e complementi congiuntivi in alcuni dialetti sardi’, Quaderni di lavoro dell'ASIt 6: 71–95.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 1997 [1968]. ‘On saying that’, in Ludlow, P. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 817–32.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry 1999. ‘Subject inflection in Salish’, UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 1, University of British Columbia, pp. 181–241.Google Scholar
Dardel, Robert and Gaeng, Paul 1992. ‘La déclinaison nominale du latin non classique: essai d'une méthode de synthèse’, Probus 4: 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, Izard, Veronique, Pica, Pierre and Spelke, Elizabeth 2006. ‘Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group’, Science 311: 381–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language 57: 626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanţa R. and Rivero, María Luisa 2007. ‘An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian’, Probus 19: 209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Giusti, Giuliana 1998. ‘Fragments of Balkan nominal structure’, in Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 333–60.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel 1998. ‘Predicate inversion in DP’, in Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 177–214.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1987. ‘A propos de la structure du groupe nominal en Roumain’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 12: 123–52.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1998. ‘Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 399–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David 2000. ‘Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel and Seely, T. Daniel 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fici, Francesca, Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2001. ‘Clitics in Macedonian’, in Zybatov, G., Junghanns, U., Melhorn, G. and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 148–58.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles 1968. ‘The case for case’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Formentin, Vittorio 1998. ‘Commento Linguistico’, in Loise De Rosa, Ricordi, Tomo I. Rome: Salerno Editrice.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara and Hinterhölzl, Roland 2007. ‘Types of topics in German and Italian’, in Winkler, S. and Schwabe, K. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 87–116.Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray 1992. ‘Existentials and other locatives’, Language 68: 553–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, Jacopo and Poletto, Cecilia 2009. ‘Quantifiers as negative markers in Italian dialects’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, M. 1970. Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non-)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra and Pianesi, Fabio 1998. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra and Pianesi, Fabio 2004. ‘Complementizer deletion in Italian’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume 2. Oxford University Press, pp. 190–210.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana 1995. ‘A unified structural representation of (abstract) case and article’, in Haider, H., Olsen, S. and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 77–93.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana 2001. ‘The rise of a functional category from Latin ILLE to the Romance article and personal pronouns’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 265–86.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana and Turano, Giuseppina 2007. ‘Case assignment in the pseudo-partitives of Standard Albanian and Arbëresh: a case for micro-variation’, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell'Università di Firenze 17: 33–51.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane 1979. ‘Complement selection and the lexicon’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 279–326.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 2007. ‘Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses’, Folia Linguistica 41: 279–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 2009. ‘The movement derivation of conditional clauses’, ms., University of Ghent.
Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella 1991. ‘Negative heads and the NEG criterion’, The Linguistic Review 8: 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John 1988. ‘Rhaeto-Romance’, in Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds.), The Romance Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 351–90.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec 1993. ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Vaux, Bert 1997. ‘Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: the nominal declension of Latin and Armenian’, in Jasanoff, J., Melchert, C. and Olivier, L. (eds.), Mir Curad. A Festschrift in Honor of Calvert Watkins, University of Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi and Ritter, Elizabeth 2002. ‘Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis’, Language 78: 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James and Halle, Morris 2005. ‘Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: reduplication and metathesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam and Fitch, W. Tecumseh 2002. ‘The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?’, Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. GSLA, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachussets at Amherst.Google Scholar
Hespos, Susan and Spelke, Elizabeth 2004. ‘Conceptual precursors to language’, Nature 430: 453–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James 1985. ‘On semantics’, Linguistics Inquiry 16: 547–93.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun and Mulder, René 1990. ‘Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predication’, The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene 1997. Greek Grammar: a Comprehensive Grammar of the Greek Language. London: Routledge [2nd edition, 1999].Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert 1999. ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1994. Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle 1991. ‘Object positions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Jason 1997. Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories: Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina 2006. ‘A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives’, in Bonami, O. and Hofherr, P. Cabredo (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 6, pp. 201–25.
Kayne, Richard 1975. French Syntax: the Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1976. ‘French relative “que”’, in Hensey, F. and Luján, M. (eds.), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 255–99.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1991. ‘Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–86.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1993. ‘Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection’, Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 2006. ‘On the parameters and on principles of pronunciation’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–99.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 2008a. ‘Expletives, datives and the tension between morphology and syntax’, in Biberauer, M. T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 175–217.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 2008b. ‘A note on auxiliary alternations and silent causation’, ms., New York University.
Kayne, Richard 2009. Some silent first person plurals. Merging Features. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs, pp. 276–93.
Kayne, Richard 2010. ‘Why isn't this a complementizer?’, in Comparisons and Contrasts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard and Pollock, Jean-Yves 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion', in Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 107–62.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol 1970. ‘Fact’, in Bierwish, M. and Eidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 143–73.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian 2000. ‘How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers’, Lingua 110: 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 2000. ‘Building statives’, paper delivered at the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GI5MmI0M/kratzer.building. statives.pdf.
Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fauci, Nunzio and Loporcaro, Michele 1989. ‘Passifs, avancements de l'objet indirect et formes verbales périphrastiques dans le dialecte d'Altamura (Pouilles)’, Rivista di linguistica, 1: 161–96.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar 1990. Negation in Syntax: on the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard 1985. ‘On the syntax of disjunction scope’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard 1987. ‘“Missing prepositions” and the analysis of English free relative clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 239–66.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard 1988. ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1984. ‘Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO’, in Jones, C. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 14, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam 2003a. ‘Il sistema completivo dei dialetti meridionali: la doppia serie di complementatori’, Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 27: 89–147.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam 2003b. ‘L'estensione dell'ausiliare perfettivo avere nell'antico napoletano: Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 88: 27–71.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam 2005. ‘Moving through the left periphery: the dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy’, Transactions of the Philological Society 103: 339–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam 2009. ‘Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino’, in Pescarini, D. (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 9), pp. 3–24.
Legendre, Geraldine 2007. ‘Optimizing auxiliary selection in Romance’, in Aranovich, R. (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–80.Google Scholar
Legendre, Geraldine 2010. ‘A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lewis, David 1975. ‘Adverbs of quantification’, in Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip 1991. Uniquely Human: the Evolution of Speech, Thought, and Selfless Behaviour. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian 1989. ‘German schon – erst – noch: an integrated analysis’, Linguistics and Philosopy 12: 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 1992. ‘In defence of the correspondence hypothesis: island effects and parasitic constructions in Logical Form’, in Huang, J. and May, R. (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 149–96.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 1994. ‘Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 1996. ‘The syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 2000. ‘The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters and problems’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism and etymology: the history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele 1988. Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele 2001. ‘La selezione degli ausiliari nei dialetti italiani: Dati e teorie’, in Albano Leoni, F., Krosbakken, E. Stenta, Sornicola, R. and Stromboli, C. (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXXIII congresso internazionale di studi della SLI. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 455–76.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele 2007. ‘On triple auxiliation in Romance’, Linguistics 45: 173–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James 2004. ‘Questions and questioning in a local English’, in Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E. and Portner, P. (eds.), Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross–Linguistic Investigations. Georgetown University Press, pp. 87–126.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas 2007. ‘Auxiliary selection’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 674–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacSwan, Jeff 2000. ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita 1982. ‘Italian prepositions before infinitives’. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 115–22.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita 1986. ‘On Italian si’, in Borer, H. (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics (Syntax and Semantics vol. 18). New York: Academic Press, pp. 241–62.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita 2000. ‘Sentential complementation: the subjunctive’, in Coopmans, P., Everaert, M. and Grimshaw, J. (eds.), Lexical Specification and Insertion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–67.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita 2009. ‘Pro, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations’, in Grohmann, K. (ed.), Phase Theory: Features, Arguments, Interpretations. Amsterdam/Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 131–80.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Roussou, Anna 2000. ‘A minimalist theory of A-movement and control’, Lingua 110: 409–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, Roussou, Anna and Savoia, Leonardo M. forthcoming ‘Voice morphology in Albanian and Greek’, in Özsoy, S. and Gürel, A. (eds.), Current Issues in Mediterranean Syntax.
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 1998. ‘Clitics and auxiliary choice in Italian dialects: their relevance for the Person ergativity split’, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 27: 115–38.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2002. ‘Negative adverbs are neither Adv nor Neg’, in Hirotani, Masako (ed.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 32, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 327–46.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2003. ‘The nature of complementizers’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28: 87–110.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 3 vols.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2007. A Unification of Morphology and Syntax: Studies in Romance and Albanian Dialects. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008a. Work Notes on Romance Morphosyntax: Appunti di morfosintassi romanza, Alessandria, Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008b. ‘Uninterpretable features are incompatible in morphology with other minimalist postulates’, in Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 43–72.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008c. ‘Non-active voice in Albanian: implications for the theory of movement’, in Savoia, L. M., Studi sulle varietà arbëreshe, Università degli Studi della Calabria, Rende.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2009a. ‘Mesoclisis in the imperative: phonology, morphology or syntax?’, in Moscati, V. and Servidio, E. (eds.), Proceedings XXVIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Studies in Linguistics on line 3, Università di Siena, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2009b. ‘Morphology dissolves into syntax: infixation and doubling in Romance languages’, Annali online dell'Università di Ferrara. Sezione di Lettere IV, 1: 1–28.n.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2010. ‘Syncretism and suppletivism in clitic systems: underspecification, silent clitics or neither?’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. to appear. ‘Reducing “case” to “agreement”: nominal inflections in the Geg Albanian variety of Shkodër’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook.
Manzini, M. Rita and Wexler, Kenneth 1987. ‘Binding theory, parameters and learnability’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–44.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec 1997. ‘No escape from syntax: don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, in Dimitriadis, A., Sieger, L., Surek-Clark, Cl. and Williams, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, pp. 201–25.
Mensching, Guido and Remberger, Eva-Maria 2010. ‘Focus fronting and the left periphery in Sardinian’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 261–76.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm 1899. Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen. Dritter Band: Syntax. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura 1996. ‘On the use and meaning of already’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mioto, Carlos 2003. ‘Focalização e quantificação’, Revista Letras 61: 169–89.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick 2005. ‘On split CPs, uninterpretable features and the “perfectness” of language’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35, pp. 399–422.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, Øystein 2003. Eliminating Positions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Origgi, Gloria and Sperber, Dan 2000. ‘Evolution communication and the proper function of language’, in Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A. (eds.), Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–69.Google Scholar
Paoli, Sandra 2007. ‘The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and Subjects. Evidence from Romance’, Lingua 117: 1057–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoli, Sandra 2010. ‘In focus: an investigation of information and contrastive constructions’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–91.Google Scholar
Parry, M. Mair 1995. ‘Some observations on the syntax of clitic pronouns in Piedmontese’, in Maiden, M. and Smith, J. C. (eds.), The Romance Languages and Contemporary Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 133–60.Google Scholar
Parry, M. Mair 1997. ‘Preverbal negation and clitic ordering, with particular reference to a group of North-West Italian dialects’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 113: 244–70.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1985. ‘Morphology and logical form’, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 193–246.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1991. Zero Syntax vol. 2: Infinitives. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 2008. ‘Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories’, paper delivered at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting – II, Bogazici University, Istanbul, 16 October.
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther 2007. ‘The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features’, in Karimi, S., Samiian, V. and Wilkins, W. (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 262–94.Google Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene 1973. ‘Modern Greek verb conjugation: inflectional morphology in a transformational grammar’, Lingua 32: 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia 2000. The Higher Functional Field. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia 2001. ‘Complementizer deletion and verb movement in standard Italian’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 265–86.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia and Vanelli, Laura 1995. ‘Gli introduttori delle frasi interrogative nei dialetti italiani settentrionali’, in Banfi, E., Bonfadini, G., Cordin, P. and Iliescu, M. (eds.), Italia settentrionale: crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 145–58.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989. ‘Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric 2006. ‘Expanding the scope of control and raising’, in Davies, B. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), Special Issue on Raising and Control. Syntax 9: 171–9.
Postal, Paul 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann 1999. ‘Words in the brain's language’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 253–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylkkänen, Liina 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angeliki 1988. Eléments de la morphologie du Grec Moderne: La structure du verbe. Doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angeliki 2005. Morfologia. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya 1997. Syntactic Effects of Lexical Operations: Reflexives and Unaccusatives. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya and Siloni, Tali 2005. ‘The Lexicon-Syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo 1987. ‘Le développement de l'article en roman’, in Buridant, C. (ed.), Romanistique – Germanistique: une confrontation. University of Strasbourg, pp. 297–317.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa 1994. ‘Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1986. ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1996. ‘Residual verb second and the wh–criterion’, in Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1997. ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 2001. ‘On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 287–96.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 2004. ‘Locality and left periphery’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Volume 3: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford University Press, pp. 223–51.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian 1993. ‘The nature of subject clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdotain’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 319–53.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic Change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard 1969[1954]. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard 1977. Le guascon. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronjat, Jules 1937. Grammaire Istorique des Parlers Provençaux Modernes. t.III. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan 2009. ‘A compositional analysis of French negation’, ms., University of Leiden.
Rosenbaum, Peter 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna 1994. The Syntax of Complementizers. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna 2008. ‘Voice morphology and ergativity in Modern Greek’. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL8), University of Ioannina.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna 2009. ‘In the mood for control’, in Quer, J. (ed.), Lingua 119 (Special Issue on Mood): 1811–36.
Roussou, Anna 2010. ‘Subjects on the edge’, in Ph. Panagiotidis, (ed.), The Complementizer Phase. Oxford University Press, pp. 76–116.Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella 1992. VP-internal arguments and locative subjects. Proceedings of NELS 22, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 383–97.
Santorini, Beatrice 1989. The Generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the History of English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008. Studi sulle varietà arbёreshe. Università della Calabria, Rende.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. and Manzini, M. Rita 2007. ‘Variazione sintattica nel costrutto ausiliare Arbёresh: la variazione come problema teorico’, in Minoranze Linguistiche. Prospettive, strumenti, territori. Rome: Carocci, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. and Manzini, M. Rita 2010. ‘Lexicalization of 3rd person object clitics: clitic enclisis and clitic drop’, in D'Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Syntactic Variation: the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press: 102–18.Google Scholar
Schmid, Heinrich 1951/52. ‘Zur Geschichte der rätoromanischen Deklination’, Vox Romanica 12: 21–81.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie and Vikner, Sten 1996. ‘The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses’, in Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 11–62.Google Scholar
Sgrilli, Paola 1983. Il “Libro di Sidrac” salentino. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur 1994. ‘Agreement in comp’, The Linguistic Review 11: 351–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solano, Francesco 1972. Manuale di lingua albanese. Corigliano Calabro.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella 2000. ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella 2004. ‘Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M. (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, pp. 243–87.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal 2004. ‘On the inexistence of Specifiers and the nature of heads’, in Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal 2009. ‘Nanosyntax: a short primer to a new approach to language’, Nordlyd (Tromsoe University Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 36.1: 1–6.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter 2002. ‘Subject positions and the placement of adverbials’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP. Oxford University Press, pp. 201–42.Google Scholar
Swart, Henriëtte 1993. Adverbs of Quantification. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna 1994. ‘The noun phrase’, in Kiss, K. and Kiefer, F. (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27. New York: Academic Press, pp. 179–274.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald 1978. ‘On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-t Filter’, ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Taraldsen, K. Tarald 1990. ‘D-projections and N-projection in Norwegian’, in Mascaró, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in Progress: Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht : Foris, pp. 419–31.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald 2002. ‘The que/qui alternation and the distribution of expletives’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP. Oxford University Press, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto and Wexler, Ken 2002. ‘A-chains and S-homophones in children's grammar’, in Hirotani, M. (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 32, GLSA; University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 519–37.Google Scholar
Morais, Torres, Aparecida, M. and Salles, Heloisa to appear. ‘Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese’, Probus.
Tortora, Christina 2002. ‘Romance enclisis, prepositions, and aspect’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 725–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen 2005. ‘Closest c-command in Albanian non-active constructions’, paper presented at Morphosyntax Workshop, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Turano, Giuseppina 2002. ‘On modifiers preceded by the article in Albanian DPs’, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 169–215.Google Scholar
Turano, Giuseppina 2003. ‘Similarities and differences between standard Albanian and Arbëresh numerals: A case of micro-parametric variation’, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 13: 155–77.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel 1997. ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’, in Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–69.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas 1977. ‘Transformations and the lexicon’, in Culicover, P., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 327–60.Google Scholar
Weiss, Helmut 2002. ‘Three types of negation: a case study in Bavarian’, in Barbiers, S., Cornips, L. and dee Kleij, S. (eds.), Syntactic Variation. Meertens Institut Electronic Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Whitman, John 2000. ‘Relabelling’, in Pintzuk, S., G.Tsoulas, and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–38.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto 1990. ‘Premesse morfologiche e tipologiche del composto italiano “capinera”, “pettirosso”’. In Parallela 4: Morfologia/ Morphologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 97–109.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto 1998. ‘Cambiamento di lingua o cambiamento di sistema? Per un bilancio cronologico della transizione’, in Herman, J. (ed.), La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 99–127.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • M. Rita Manzini, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy, Leonardo M. Savoia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy
  • Book: Grammatical Categories
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • M. Rita Manzini, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy, Leonardo M. Savoia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy
  • Book: Grammatical Categories
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • M. Rita Manzini, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy, Leonardo M. Savoia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy
  • Book: Grammatical Categories
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489.011
Available formats
×