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-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T00:50:07.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part Four - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2022

Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Martin Maiden
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martin Maiden
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
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
The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics , pp. 489 - 670
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Selected References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Acedo-Matellán, V. and Mateu, J. (2013). ‘Satellite-framed Latin vs verb-framed Romance: a syntactic approach’, Probus 25: 227–65.Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, V. and Pineda, A. (2019). ‘Light verb constructions in Basque and Romance’. In Ortiz de Urbina, J., Fernández, B., and Berro, A. (eds), Basque and Romance. Aligning Grammars. Leiden: Brill, 176–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L. (1988). ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: the Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J. and Rigau, G. (2010). ‘Verb-particle constructions in Romance: a lexical-syntactic account’, Probus 22: 241–69.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. (2016). Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc.Google Scholar
Real-Puigdollers, C. (2013). Lexicalization by Phase: The Role of Prepositions in Argument Structure and Its Cross-linguistic Variation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Rigau, G. (1997). ‘Locative sentences and related constructions in Catalan: ésser/haver alternation’. In Mendikoetxea, A. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds), Theoretical Issues at the Morphology–Syntax Interface. Bilbao/Donosti/San Sebastián: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Gipuzkoa Foru Aldundia, 395–421.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (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: Oxford University Press, 243–68.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Selected References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Barbosa, P. (1994). ‘A new look at the null subject parameter’, paper presented at Console III, Venice.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P., Duarte, I., and Kato, M. (2005). ‘Null subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (1982). ‘Morphological passive and pro-drop: the impersonal construction in Italian’, Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 1–34.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2015). ‘Null subjects’. In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. (eds), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Press, 201–26.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2017). ‘When you have too many features: auxiliaries, agreement, and clitics in Italian varieties’, Glossa 2(1): 50. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.102.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Pescarini, D. (2016). ‘Agreement restrictions and agreement oddities in Romance’. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin: De Gruyter, 267–94.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. (2008). ‘Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases’, Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–91.Google Scholar
Duarte, M. E. and Varejão, F. (2013). ‘Null subjects and agreement marks in European and Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 12: 101–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. (1989). ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 85–103 (Reprinted in: Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–38).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammoglia Duarte, M. E. (1995). A perda do princípio ‘Evite Pronome’ no português brasileiro. Doctoral thesis, UNICAMP, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2012). ‘From Latin to Romance: configurationality, functional categories and head-marking’, Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. (2012). ‘A paradox? The morphological history of the Romance present subjunctive’. In Gaglia, S. and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selected References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Alboiu, G., Barrie, M., and Frigeni, C. (2004). ‘SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox’. In Coene, M., de Cuyper, G., and D’Hulst, Y. (eds), Antwerp Working Papers in Linguistics: Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics 107: 109–39.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2000). ‘Patterns of active syntax in late Latin pleonastic reflexives’. In Smith, J. C. and Bentley, D. (eds), Historical Linguistics 1995: Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35–56.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). ‘On si constructions and the theory of arb’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–81.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. (2010). ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C. (2010). ‘I verbi deponenti latini e l’unità della flessione in -r’. Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica VIII, 2008–09. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 23–49.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Challenge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (2007). ‘On triple auxiliation in Romance’. Linguistics 45: 173–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migliori, L. (2016). Argument Structure, Alignment and Auxiliaries between Latin and Romance. A Diachronic Syntactic Account. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1989). ‘Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: the perfect auxiliary in Italian’, Probus 1: 63–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. UiL OTS Dissertation Series. Utrecht: LED.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. (1982). ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’. In Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds), Studies in the Romance Verb. London: Croom Helm, 71–96.Google Scholar

Selected References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Adams, J. N. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Shlonsky, U. (2004). ‘Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 519–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2016). ‘Voice’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 967–80.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2004). ‘Restructuring and functional structure’. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 132–91.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2021a). ‘Passive periphrases in the Romance Languages’. In Gardani, F. and Loporcaro, M. (eds), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Romance Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.639.Google Scholar
Monachesi, P. (2005). The Verbal Complex in Romance: A Case Study in Grammatical Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1978). ‘A restructuring rule in Italian syntax’. In Keyser, S. J. (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 113–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2013). ‘Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect’. Revue roumaine de linguistique 58: 3–30.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. (1987). ‘Syntactic restructuring in the evolution of Romance auxiliaries’. In Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds), Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 225–36.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2016). ‘Complex predicates’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 981–93.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2008). ‘Complex predicates and the functional sequence’, Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 35: 47–88.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1987). ‘The interaction of periphrasis and inflection: some Romance examples’. In Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds), Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 237–56.Google Scholar

Selected References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (2004). ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, II. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 115–65.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999). ‘The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns’. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton, 145–233.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1994). ‘On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L., and Zanuttini, R. (eds), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 85–110.Google Scholar
Costa, J. (2004). Subject Positions and Interfaces: the Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, G. (2006). ‘Parallels in clausal and nominal periphery’. In Frascarelli, M. (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–84.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991). ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85: 211–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2011). ‘Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change’. In Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., and Ledgeway, A. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Vol. 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 382–471.Google Scholar
Picallo, C. (1994). ‘Catalan possessive pronouns: the avoid pronoun principle revisited’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 259–99.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). ‘Verb-movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). ‘The fine structure of the Left Periphery’. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Below you can find selected references for this chapter. The full references can be found online at the following page: www.cambridge.org/Romancelinguistics

Baker, M. (2008b). ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 351–74.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. (2005). ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’. In Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-Ll., Picallo, C., and Roca, F. (eds), Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–74.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2015). ‘Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 60: 105–27.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2019). ‘Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection’. In Cennamo, M. and Fabrizio, C. (eds), Historical Linguistics 2015. Selected Papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 343–84.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (1998). Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 vols). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2016a). ‘Negation’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 833–46.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. and Tortora, C. (2016). ‘Subject clitics: Syntax’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 772–85.Google Scholar
Schifano, N. (2018). Verb Movement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.

  • Syntax
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Martin Maiden, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580410.019
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.

  • Syntax
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Martin Maiden, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580410.019
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.

  • Syntax
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Martin Maiden, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics
  • Online publication: 23 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580410.019
Available formats
×