Álvarez, Rosário, Monteagudo, Henrique and Regueira, Xosé Luís 1986. Gramática galega. Vigo: Galaxia.Google Scholar

Álvarez Álvarez, M. 1990. Estudio de la flexión verbal en la obra de Gonzalo de Berceo (siglo XIII). Logroño: Instituto de estudios riojanos.Google Scholar

Abel, Fritz 1971. L'adjectif démonstratif dans la langue de la Bible latine. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abete, Giovanni 2006. ‘Sulla questione della sillaba superpesante: i dittonghi discendenti in sillaba chiusa nel dialetto di Pozzuoli’, in Savy, R. and Crocco, C. (eds.), Analisi prosodica. Teorie, modelli, sistemi di annotazione (Atti del 2° Convegno Nazionale AISV). Torriana: EDK Editore, pp. 379–98.Google Scholar

,Academia de la llingua asturiana 1995. La llingua asturiana. Xixón: Academia de la llingua asturiana.

Acquati, Anna 1971. ‘Il vocalismo latino-volgare nelle iscrizioni africane’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università degli studi di Milano 24:155–84.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo 2002. ‘Il plurale in –a come derivazione lessicale’, Lingue e linguaggio 2:295–326.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo 2005. ‘The morphosemantics of transnumeral nouns’, in Booij, Geert, Guevara, E., Ralli, A., Sgroi, S. and Scalise, S. (eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology: On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, pp. 251–65 (http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm/mmm-proc/MMM4/251–265-Acquaviva-MMM4.pdf).Google Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo 2008. Lexical Plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Adam, Jean-Michel 1990. éléments de linguistique textuelle. Théorie et pratique de l'analyse textuelle. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar

Adams, James 1976. ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, IF 81:70–99.Google Scholar

Adams, James 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Adams, James 1991. ‘Some neglected evidence for Latin habeo with infinitive: the order of the constituents’, TPS 89:131–96.Google Scholar

Adams, James 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, James 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aebischer, Paul 1948. ‘Contribution à la protohistoire des articles ille et ipse dans les langues romanes’, CN 8:181–203.Google Scholar

Agard, Frederick 1958. Structural Sketch of Romanian. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Ageno, Franca 1957. ‘Per una semantica del gergo’, SFI 15:401–37.Google Scholar

Ageno, Franca 1962. ‘La lettera in furbesco di Luigi Pulci’, ‘Tre studi quattrocenteschi’, SFI 20:75–98.Google Scholar

Ageno, Franca 1964. Il verbo nell'italiano antico. Ricerche di sintassi. Milan-Naples: Ricciardi.Google Scholar

Agostiniani, Luciano 1998. ‘La defixio di Carmona (Siviglia) e lo sviluppo dei nessi consonantici con /j/’, in Salazar, Navarro, Teresa, María (ed.), Italica Matritensia. Atti del IV convegno SILFI. Florence: Cesati, pp. 25–35.Google Scholar

Alameda, José Ramón and Cuetos, Fernando 1995. Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar

Alarcos Llorach, Emilio 1951. ‘Esbozo de una fonología diacrónica del español’, in Estudios dedicados a Ramón Menéndez Pidal, II. Madrid: CSIC, pp. 9–39.Google Scholar

Alarcos Llorach, Emilio 1994. Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

Alboiu, Gabriela 1999. ‘(De-)Focussing and object raising in Romanian’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics-Revue canadienne de linguistique 44:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alboiu, Gabriela and Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.) 2000a. Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Alboiu, Gabriela and Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.) 2000b. ‘The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview’, in Alboiu, and Motapanyane, (eds.), pp. 1–48.

Alcover, Antoni 1925–26. ‘Lo sistema de contar per vints a Catalunya’, Bolletí del Diccionari de la llengua catalana 14:279–88.Google Scholar

Alcover, Antoni and Moll, Francesc 1929/30/32. ‘La flexió verbal en el dialectes catalans’, Anuari de l'Oficina romànica de lingüística i literatura 2:79–184; 3:73–168; 4:9–104; 5:9–72.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena 1998. ‘Parametrizing AGR: word order, verb-movement and EPP checking’, NLLT 16:491–539.Google Scholar

Alfonsi, Tommaso 1932. Il dialetto còrso nella parlata balanina. Livorno: Giusti.Google Scholar

Alibèrt, Loïs 1976. Gramatica occitana. Montpellier: Centre d'Estudis Occitans.Google Scholar

Alisova, Tatiana 1967. ‘Studi di sintassi italiana. II. Le posizioni dell'aggettivo nel gruppo sintattico del sostantivo’, SFI 25:250–313.Google Scholar

Allen, Joseph 1941. Portuguese Word Formation with Suffixes. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Allen, W. Sidney 1973. Accent and Rhythm. Prosodic Features of Latin and Greek: a Study in Theory and Reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Almeida, Maria Elisete 2000. La deixis en portugais et en français. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar

Alonso, Dámaso 1962. ‘Metafonía, neutro de materia y colonización suditálica en la Península Hispánica’, in Enciclopedia lingüística hispánica, vol. I. Madrid: CSIC, pp. 105–54.Google Scholar

Alonso Garrote, S. 1947. El dialecto vulgar leonés hablado en Maragatería y tierra de Astorga. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar

Alsina, Alex 1992. ‘On the argument structure of causatives’, LI 23:517–55.Google Scholar

Alsina, Alex 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Alton, J. B. and Vittur, Franz 1968. L ladin dla val Badia. Beitrag zu einer Grammatik des Dolomitenladinischen. Bressanone: Weger.Google Scholar

Alvar, Manuel 1948. El habla del Campo de Jaca. Salamanca: CSIC.Google Scholar

Alvar, Manuel, Alvar, C. and Mayoral, J. A. 1995. Atlas lingüístico y etnográfico de Cantabria. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

Alvar, Manuel and Pottier, Bernard 1983. Morfología histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Amsterdamski, Stefan 1981. ‘Spiegazione’, in Romano, Ruggiero (director), Enciclopedia Einaudi 13. Turin: Einaudi, pp. 358–95.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen 2008. ‘Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch)’, Word Structure 1:109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

André, Jacques 1971. Emprunts et suffixes nominaux en latin. Geneva-Paris: Droz and Minard.Google Scholar

Andreini, Luc 1985. Le Verlan. Petit dictionnaire illustré. Paris: Veyrier.Google Scholar

Anglade, Joseph 1921. Grammaire de l'ancien provençal ou ancienne langue d'oc. Phonétique et morphologie. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Araujo, Frank 1975. ‘Counting sheep in Basque’, Anthropological Linguistics 17:139–45.Google Scholar

Arias Cabal, álvaro 1999. El morfema de ‘neutro de materia’ en asturiano. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1988. ‘Referring and accessibility’, JL 24:65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Aristotle 1993 (2nd edn). Aristotle'sMetaphysics. Books γ, δ, and E. Translated with Notes by Kirwan, Christopher. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Arnal Purroy, M. 1998. El habla de la Baja Ribagorzana occidental. Zaragoza: CSIC.Google Scholar

Arnholdt, Karl 1916. Die Stellung des attributiven Adjektivs im Italienischen und Spanischen. Greifswald: Von Bruncken.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Arquint, Jachen 1964. Vierv ladin. Tusan: Lia rumantscha.Google Scholar

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 1861. ‘Studj critici’, Studj orientali e linguistici 3:379–420.Google Scholar

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 1864. ‘Lingue e nazioni’, Politecnico 21:77–102.Google Scholar

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 1873. ‘Saggi ladini’, AGI 1:1–556.Google Scholar

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 1876. ‘Sull'origine dell'unica forma flessionale del nome italiano, studio di Francesco D'Ovidio’, AGI 2:416–38.Google Scholar

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia 1882. ‘Lettere glottologiche: prima lettera’, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 10:1–71.Google Scholar

Ashby, William 1992. ‘The variable use of on versus tu/vous for indefinite reference in spoken French’, Journal of French Language Studies 2:135–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ashdowne, Richard and Smith, John Charles 2007. ‘Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of case-loss in Old French’, in Salmons, Joseph and Dubenion-Smith, Sharon (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aski, Janice 1995. ‘Verbal suppletion: an analysis of Italian, French, and Spanish “to go”’, Linguistics 33:403–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

González, Cano, María, Ana 1992. ‘Asturiano. Evolución lingüística interna’, LRL (VI, 1), pp. 652–80.Google Scholar

Atanasov, Petar 2002. Meglenoromâna astăzi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar

Audollent, Auguste 1904. Defixionum Tabellae. Frankfurt: Minerva.Google Scholar

Austin, Peter and Bresnan, Joan 1996. ‘Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages’, NLLT 14:215–68.Google Scholar

Avolio, Francesco 1995. Bommèsprә. Profilo linguistico dell'Italia centro-meridionale. San Severo: Gerni.Google Scholar

Avolio, Francesco 1996. ‘Il “neutro di materia” nei dialetti centro-meridionali: fonti, dati recenti, problemi aperti’, Contributi di filologia dell'Italia mediana 10:291–337.Google Scholar

Avram, Laris and Hill, Virginia 2007. ‘An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian’, in Aranovich, Raúl (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, Wendy 1996. A History of the French Language through Texts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, Wendy 2004. Sociolinguistic Variation in Seventeenth-Century France. Methodology and Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, Wendy and Carruthers, Janice 2001. Problems and Perspectives. Studies in the Modern French Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Azaretti, Emilio 1982. L'evoluzione dei dialetti liguri esaminata attraverso la grammatica storica del ventimigliese. Sanremo: Casablanca.Google Scholar

Azevedo, Milton 2005. Portuguese. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bédier, Joseph 1927. La Chanson de Roland. Commentée par Joseph Bédier. Paris: Piazza.Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar

Bachmann, Christian and Basier, Luc 1984. ‘Le verlan: argot d'école ou langues des keums?’, Mots 8:169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bachmann, Iris 2008. ‘Norm and variation in Brazilian TV: the case of hidden clitics’. Paper presented at XXXVI Romance Linguistics Seminar, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, January, 2008.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise 1962. La formation des composés nominaux du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1950. El habla del Valle de Bielsa (Pirineo aragonés). Barcelona: Instituto de Estudios Pirenaicos.Google Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1951. Gramática histórica catalana. Barcelona: Noguer.Google Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1962. Gramática catalana. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1984 (2nd edn). Gramàtica històrica catalana. Valencia: Climent.Google Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1991. ‘Le catalan: evolución lingüística interna I. Grámatica’, LRL (V, 2), pp. 127–52.Google Scholar

Badia i Margarit, Antonio 1995. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Descriptiva, normativa, diatòpica, diastràtica. Barcelona: Biblioteca universitària Edicions Proa.Google Scholar

Baehr, Rudolf 1958. ‘Zu den romanischen Wochentagsnamen’, in Lausberg, Heinrich and Weinrich, Harald (eds.), Romanica. Festschrift für Gerhard Rohlfs. Halle: Niemeyer, pp. 26–56.Google Scholar

Bailly, René 1947. Dictionnaire des synonymes de la langue française. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

Baist, Gustav 1888. ‘Die spanische Sprache’, in Gröber, G. (ed.), Grundriss der romanischen Philologie. Strasbourg: Trübner, pp. 698–714.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark 1995. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baldi, Philip 1976. ‘Remarks on the Latin R-form Verbs’, Zeitschfrit für vergleichende Sprachforschungen 90:222–57.Google Scholar

Baldinger, Kurt 1968. ‘Post- und Prädeterminierung im Französische’, in Baldinger, Kurt (ed.), Festschrift Walther von Wartburg zum 80. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar

Baldinger, Kurt 1989. ‘Le problème du changement de sens: nouvelles perspectives’, Alfa 2:3–25.Google Scholar

Baldinger, Kurt 1991. ‘Le changement de sens: problèmes anciens et perspectives nouvelles’, Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, 6e série 2:63–102.Google Scholar

Baldinger, Kurt 1993. ‘Ist die unsichtbare Hand wirklich unsichtbar? Kritische Betrachtungen zum Bedeutungswandel’, in Schmidt-Radefeldt, , Jürgen, and Harder, Andreas (eds.), Sprachwandel und Sprachgeschichte. Festschrift für Helmut Lüdtke zum 65. GeburtstagTübingen: Narr, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Banniard, Michel 1992. VIVA VOCE. Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut des Etudes Augustiniennes.Google Scholar

Barbato, Marcello (ed.) 2001. Il libro VIII del Plinio napoletano di Giovanni Brancati. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar

Barbato, Marcello (ed.) 2002. ‘La formazione dello spazio linguistico campano’, Bollettino Linguistico Campano 2:29–64.Google Scholar

Barbato, Marcello (ed.) 2005–6. ‘Un'ipotesi sul vocalismo corso’, ID 66–67:7–27.Google Scholar

Barbato, Marcello (ed.) 2008. ‘Sistemi vocalici a contatto in area italo-romanza’, in Heinemann, S. and Videsott, P. (eds.), Sprachwandel und (Dis-)Kontinuität in der Romania. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 139–52.Google Scholar

Barbato, Marcello (ed.) 2009. ‘Metafonia napoletana e metafonia sabina’, in De Angelis, A. (ed.), I dialetti italiani meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Dialettologia (Messina, 4–6 giugno 2008), Palermo: Centro di Studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, pp. 275–89.Google Scholar

Baroni, Marco and Vanelli, Laura 2000. ‘The relationship between vowel length and consonantal voicing in Friulian’, in Repetti, (ed.), pp. 13–44.

Bartoli, Matteo 1906. Das Dalmatische. Altromanische Sprachreste von Veglia bis Ragusa und ihre Stellung in der Apennino-Balkanischen Romania, 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder.Google Scholar

Bartoli, Matteo 1925. Introduzione alla neolinguistica. Principi, scopi, metodi. Geneva: Olschki.Google Scholar

Bartoli, Matteo 1929 ‘La norma linguistica dell'area maggiore’, Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione classica 57:333–45.Google Scholar

Bartoli, Matteo 1933. ‘Le norme neolinguistiche e la loro utilità per la storia dei linguaggi e dei costumi’, Atti della Società italiana per il progresso delle scienze 21:157–67.Google Scholar

Bartoli, Matteo 1943. Lineamenti di linguistica spaziale. Milan: Le Lingue Estere.Google Scholar

Bastardas Parera, Juan 1953. Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Barcelona: Escuela de filología.Google Scholar

Battaglia, Salvatore (ed.) 2003. Grande dizionario della lingua italiana. Turin: UTET.Google Scholar

Battaglia, Salvatore and Pernicone, Vincenzo 1965. La Grammatica Italiana. Turin: Loescher.Google Scholar

Battistella, Edwin 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Battistella, Edwin 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Battisti, Carlo 1926, ‘Le premesse fonetiche e la cronologia dell'evoluzione di á in é nel ladino centrale’, ID 2:50–84.Google Scholar

Battisti, Carlo and Alessio, Giovanni 1950–57. Dizionario etimologico italiano, 5 vols. Florence: Barbera.Google Scholar

Battye, Adrian and Hintze, Marie-Anne 1992. The French Language Today. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian (eds.) 1995. Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 2001a. ‘Variability in word order: adjectives and comparatives in Latin, Romance and Germanic’, Southwest Journal of Linguistics 20:19–50.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 2001b. ‘Syntactic innovation in Latin poetry? The origins of the Romance adverbial formation in -ment(e)’, in Orbán, A. and van der Poel, M. (eds.), Ad Literas. Latin Studies in Honour of J. H. Brouwers. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 2003. ‘The adverbial formation in mente in Vulgar and Late Latin: a problem in grammaticalization’, in Solin, H., Leiwo, M. and Halla-aho, H. (eds.), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif VI. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 439–57.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 2004. ‘Vigesimal numerals in Romance: an Indo-European perspective’, General Linguistics 41:21–46.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte 2007. ‘The definite article in Indo-European: emergence of a new category?’, in Stark, E., Leiss, E. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Nominal Determination. Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 103–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baurens, Maryvonne 2007. Du ‘jargon' aux ‘parlers des cités’. Macerata: EUM.Google Scholar

Bazzanella, Carla 1991. ‘Il passivo personale con e senza cancellazione d'agente: verso un approccio multidimensionale’, in Giannelli, L., Maraschio, N., Poggi Salani, T. and Vedovelli, M. (eds.), Tra Rinascimento e strutture attuali. Saggi di linguistica italiana. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 371–85.Google Scholar

Bec, Pierre 1967. La langue occitane. Montpellier: PUF.Google Scholar

Bec, Pierre 1973. Manuel pratique d'occitan moderne. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar

Beck, Doreen 1973. The Book of Bottle Collecting. London: Hamlyn.Google Scholar

Belardi, Walter 1983. ‘La formazione del plurale nominale in gardenese attraverso la documentazione scritta’, Ladinia 7:129–91.Google Scholar

Belletti, Adriana 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

Bello, Andrés 1982. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: EDAF Universitaria.Google Scholar

Bendel, Hugo 1934. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Mundart von Lescun (Basses Pyrénées). Biberach: Biberacher Verlag.Google Scholar

Bender, Byron, Francescato, G. and Salzmann, Z. 1952. ‘Friulian phonology’, Word 8:216–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benincà, Paola 1988. ‘L'ordine degli elementi della frase: costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi’, in Renzi, Lorenzo (ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione I. Bologna: il Mulino, pp. 129–94.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola 1994. La variazione sintattica. Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola 1995. ‘Complement clitics in medieval Romance: the Tobler-Mussafia law’, in Battye, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 325–44.

Benincà, Paola 1996. ‘La struttura della frase esclamativa alla luce del dialetto padovano’, in Benincà, Cinque, Vincent, Mauro (eds.), pp. 23–43.

Benincà, Paola 2001. ‘The position of topic and focus in the left periphery’, in Cinque, and Salvi, (eds.), pp. 39–64.

Benincà, Paola 2006. ‘A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance’, in Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herberger, E. and Portner, P. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics. Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola, Cinque, G., De Mauro, T. and Vincent, N. (eds.) 1996. Italiano e dialetto nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola, Mioni, Alberto and Vanelli, Laura (eds.) 1999. Fonologia e morfologia dell'italiano e dei dialetti d'Italia, Atti del XXXI Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia 2004. ‘Topic, focus, and V2. Defining the CP sublayers’, in Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 52–75.Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola and Vanelli, Laura 1978. ‘Il plurale friulano’, RLiR 42:241–91.Google Scholar

Benjamin, Walter 1997. Sul concetto di storia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar

Bennett, Charles 1910–14. Syntax of Early Latin. I–II. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1982.)Google Scholar

Bentley, Delia 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, Delia 2007. ‘Relazioni grammaticali e ruoli pragmatici: siciliano e italiano a confronto’, in Bentley, and Ledgeway, (eds.), pp. 48–62.

Bentley, Delia and Eyþórsson, þórhallur 2001. ‘Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance’, in Brinton, Laurel (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, Delia and Ledgeway, Adam (eds.) 2007. Sui dialetti italoromanzi. Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent, The Italianist 27, Special supplement 1. Norfolk: Biddles.Google Scholar

Benveniste, émile 1956. ‘La nature des pronoms’, in Halle, M., Lunt, H., McLean, H. and van Schooneveld, C. (eds.), For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 34–37 (Reprinted in émile Benveniste, 1966, pp. 251–57).Google Scholar

Berlin, Brent 1992. Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernat i Baltrons, Francesc 2007. Un estudi de dialectologia catalana al segle XIX. Les notes de Manuel Milà i Fontanals sobre el maonès. Barcelona: Abadia de Montserrat.Google Scholar

Berruto, Gaetano 1986. ‘Le dislocazioni a destra in italiano’, in Stammerjohann, (ed.), pp. 55–69.

Berruto, Gaetano 1998. ‘Sulla posizione prenominale dell'aggettivo in italiano’, in Bernini, G., Cuzzolin, P. and Molinelli, P. (eds.), Ars linguistica. Studi offerti a Paolo Ramat. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco 1977. ‘Syllabic blood, ovvero l'italiano come lingua ad isocronismo sillabico’, Studi di Grammatica Italiana 6:69–96.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco 1981. Strutture prosodiche dell'Italiano. Florence: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco 1999. ‘La sillabazione dei nessi /sC/ in italiano: un'eccezione alla regola generale?’, in Benincà, et al. (eds.), pp. 71–96.

Bertinetto, Pier Marco 2001. ‘Il verbo’, in Renzi, Salvi and Cardinaletti, (eds.), 13–163.

Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Bertini, Chiara 2008a. ‘Modelización del ritmo y estructura silábica, con aplicación al italiano’, in Sánchez Miret, F. (ed.), Romanística sin complejos. Homenaje a Carmen Pensado. Bern: Lang, pp. 259–87.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Bertini, Chiara 2008b. ‘On modeling the rhythm of natural languages’, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil, May 2008, pp. 427–30.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Loporcaro, Michele (eds.) 1988. Certamen Phonologicum. Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Vékás, Domokos 1991. ‘Controllo vs. compensazione: sui due tipi di isocronia’, in Magno Caldognetto, E. and Benincà, P. (eds.), L'interfaccia tra fonologia e fonetica. Padua: Unipress, pp.155–62.Google Scholar

Bertocchi, Alessandra 1989. ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’, in Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.), Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 441–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertoni, Giulio 1909. ‘Per la cronologia di “ä” da “á” nell'Emilia’, ZRPh 33:581–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beyrer, Arthur, Bochmann, K. and Bronsert, S. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: VEB.Google Scholar

Bichakjian, Bernard 1982. ‘La genèse de la subordination de l'indo-européen au français’, in Ignatius, Quirinus, Mok, Maria, Spiele, Ina and Verhuyck, Paul (eds.), Mélanges de linguistique. De littérature et de philologie médiévales. Leiden: Brill, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar

Bichakjian, Bernard 1987. ‘The evolution of word order: a paedomorphic explanation’, in Giacalone Ramat, A., Carruba, O. and Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bichelli, Pirro. 1974. Grammatica del dialetto napoletano. Bari: Pegaso.Google Scholar

Billington, Michael 2005. ‘I sayeth, I sayeth, I sayeth: Ken Dodd tells Michael Billington why Shakespeare was a stand-up comic at heart’. The Guardian (London), Culture section, 15 September 2005, p. 22.Google Scholar

Biondelli, Bernardino 1846. Studi sulle lingue furbesche. Milan: Stabilmento di Civelli.Google Scholar

Birdsong, David and Montreuil, Jean-Pierre (eds.) 1988. Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Bjerrome, Gunnar 1957. Le patois de Bagnes (Valais). Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell.Google Scholar

Blake, Barry 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Blank, Andreas 1996. ‘Der Beitrag Eugenio Coserius zur historischen Semantik: “Für eine strukturelle diachrone Semantik” – 30 Jahre danach’, in Weigand, Edda and Hundsnurscher, Franz (eds.), Lexical Structures and Language Use. Proceedings of the International Conference on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics, 2. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 341–54.Google Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1997a. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1997b. ‘Les adjectifs temporels du type long/court dans les langues romanes: un cas de “métaphoricité étroite”. L'organisation lexicale et cognitive des dimensions spatiale et temporelle’, in Dupuy-Engelhardt, Hiltraud and Montibus, Marie-Jeanne, Actes d'EUROSEM 1996. Rheims: Presses Universitaires de Reims, pp. 15–37.Google Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1998. ‘Topo et al. Onomasiologie, Semasiologie und Kognition am Beispiel der bezeichnungen von Maus, Ratte und Maulwurf in der Italoromania’, ZRPh 114:505–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1999. ‘Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivation for semantic change’, in Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas 2001. Einführung in die lexikalische Semantik für Romanisten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas 2003. ‘Problemgeschichte der romanischen historischen Semantik’, in al., Ernst et (eds.), pp. 318–29.

Blank, Andreas, and Koch, Peter 1999. ‘Onomasiologie et étymologie cognitive: l'exemple de la TETE’, in Actas do 1.0 Encontro internacional de lingüística cognitiva. Porto: Facultade de Letras do Porto, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar

Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter (eds.) 2003. Kognitive romanische Onomasiologie und Semasiologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas, Koch, Peter and Gévaudan, Paul 2000. ‘Onomasiologie, sémasiologie et l'étymologie des langues romanes: esquisse d'un projet’, in Englebert, Annick, Piessard, Michel, Rosier, Lawrence and van Raemdonck, Dan (eds.), Actes du XXIIe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes. IV. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 103–14.Google Scholar

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1984a. Grammatica storica del catalano e dei suoi dialetti con speciale riguardo all'algherese. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1984b. Storia linguistica della Sardegna. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1986. La lingua sarda contemporanea. Cagliari: Edizioni della Torre.Google Scholar

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1988. ‘Sardisch: Interne Sprachgeschichte I. Grammatik’, in LRL (IV), pp. 836–53.Google Scholar

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1994. Ello, ellus. Nuoro: Poliedro.Google Scholar

Blatt, Franz 1957. ‘Latin influence on European syntax’, TCLC 11:33–69.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard 1935 [1933]. Language. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Bolelli, Tristano 1940. ‘Contributo allo studio dell'elemento celtico nella fonetica romanza’, Archivum romanicum 24:188–205.Google Scholar

Bolkestein, Machtelt 2001. ‘Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases’, in Moussy, Claude (ed.), De lingua latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xe colloque international de linguistique latine. Louvain-Paris: Petters, pp. 245–58.Google Scholar

Bollée, Annegret 1978. ‘Reduplikation und Iteration in den romanischen Sprachen’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 215:318–36.Google Scholar

Bolognesi, Roberto 1998. The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. Dordrecht: HIL.Google Scholar

Bonfadini, Giovanni 1987. ‘Il dialetto della Val Cavallina e zone adiacenti’, in Sanga, G. (ed.), Lingua e dialetti di Bergamo e delle valli, 3 vols. Bergamo: Lubrina, pp. 317–95.Google Scholar

Bonfante, Giuliano 1968. ‘Quando si è incominciato a parlare italiano? Criterii fonologici’, in Baldinger, K. (ed.), Festschrift Walther von Wartburg zum 80. Geburtstag, vol. I. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar

Bonfante, Giuliano 1983. ‘La lingua latina parlata in età imperiale’, in Haase, W. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. II. Principat. 29.1. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, pp. 413–52.Google Scholar

Bonfante, Giuliano 1998. The Origin of the Romance Languages. Stages in the Development of Latin. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Bonnet, Max 1890. Le Latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Borello, Enrico 1976. ‘Meccanismi semantici del lessico gergale’, LN 37:110–15.Google Scholar

Borello, Enrico 1978. ‘Aspetti semantici del gergo’, Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 7:383–407.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit 1984. Parametric Syntax. Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Born, Joachim 1992. ‘Leonesisch’ in LRL (VI, 1), pp. 693–700.Google Scholar

Bortolini, Umberto, Tagliavini, C. and Zampolli, A. 1972. Lessico di frequenza della lingua italiana contemporanea. Milan: Garzanti.Google Scholar

Bosque, Ignacio and Demonte, Violeta (eds.) 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua españ ola, I–III. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg 1991. ‘Differential object marking in Romance and beyond’, in Wanner, and Kibbee, (eds.), pp. 143–71.

Bourciez, édouard 1937 (8th edn). Précis de phonétique française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Bourciez, édouard 1956 (4th edn). Eléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Bourciez, édouard 1967 (5th edn). Eléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Boyer, Henri 1997. ‘Le statut de la suffixation en -os’, Langue française 114:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brüch, Josef 1921. ‘Zur Entwicklung der betonten Vokale im Volkslatein’, ZRPh 41:574–82.Google Scholar

Braudel, Fernand 1967–68. Introduction auTraité de sociologie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Braudel, Fernand 1969. ‘Histoire et sociologie’, in écrits sur l'histoire 1. Paris: Flammarion, pp. 97–122.Google Scholar

Brekke, K. 1884. étude sur la flexion dans le voyage de S. Brandan. Paris:Vieweg.Google Scholar

Brero, Camillo 1971. Gramàtica piemontèisa. Turin: Ij Brandé.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian and Yule, George 1984. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’, in Sebeok, Thomas (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–76.Google Scholar

Brugmann, Karl 1890. ‘Die Bildung der Zehner und der Hunderter in den indogermanischen Sprachen’, Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 5:1–61.Google Scholar

Brugmann, Karl 1892. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanishcen Sprachen 2.2. Strasbourg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Brunel, Clovis 1926. Les plus anciennes chartes en langue provençale. Recueil des pièces originales antérieures au XIIIe siècle, publiées, avec une étude morphologique. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar

Brunet, Jacqueline 1994. Grammaire critique de l'italien, vol. 12: Un si ou deux. Saint-Denis: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Bruni, Francesco 1984. L'italiano. Elementi di storia della lingua e della cultura. Turin: UTET.Google Scholar

Brunot, Ferdinand 1905. Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Tome I: De l'époque latine à la Renaissance. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Brunot, Ferdinand 1906. Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Tome II: Le seizième siècle. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Brunot, Ferdinand 1922. Histoire de la langue française. 2. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Brunot, Ferdinand 1966–79. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nos jours. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Buchholtz, H. 1889. ‘Lockere und straffe italienische Perfektformen’, Archiv für das Studium neuren Sprachen 82:133–66.Google Scholar

Bullock, Barbara 1995a. ‘Prosodic constraints and morphological alignment in French’, Lingua 96:95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bullock, Barbara 1995b. ‘The uneven trochee in French’, Rivista di linguistica 7:273–92.Google Scholar

Bullock, Barbara 1996. ‘Popular derivation and linguistic inquiry: les javanais’, The French Review 70:180–91.Google Scholar

Bullock, Barbara 2001. ‘Double prosody and stress shift in Proto-Romance’, Probus 13:173–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burckhardt, Jacob 1990 [1860]. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Translated by Middlemore, S. G. C.; with a new Introduction by Burke, Peter and Notes by Murray, Peter. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Burger, André 1928. ‘Etudes de phonétique et de morphologie latines’, Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté des Lettres, Université de Neuchâtel, 13.Google Scholar

Buridant, Claude 2001. Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français. Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar

Burke, Peter 1987. ‘The uses of literacy in early modern Italy’, in Burke, Peter and Porter, Roy (eds.), The Social History of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burzio, Luigi 1994. Principles of English Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burzio, Luigi 2004. ‘Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in Italian verbal inflection’, in Auger, J., Clancy Clements, J. and Vance, B. (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bustin-Lekeu, Francine 1973. ‘Tutoiement et vouvoiement chez les lycéens français’, The French Review 46:773–82.Google Scholar

Butt, John and Benjamin, Carmen 1994 (2nd edn)/2000 (3rd edn). A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan 1985. Morphology. The Relation between Form and Meaning. Benjamins: Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Brewer, Mary 1980. ‘Explanation in morphophonemics: changes in Provençal and Spanish preterite forms’, Lingua 52:201–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Pardo, E. 1981. ‘On lexical and morphological conditioning of alternations: a nonce-probe experiment with Spanish verbs’, Linguistics 19:937–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Byck, Jack and Graur, Alexander 1967. ‘Influenta pluralului asupra singularului substantivelor şi adjectivelor în limba română’, in Dimitrescu, F. (ed.) Jack Byck, Studii şi articole. Bucharest: Editura şţiintifică 1967, pp. 49–92.Google Scholar

Caduff, Léonard 1952. Essai sur la phonétique du parler rhétoroman de la Vallée de Tavetsch (Canton des Grisons – Suisse). Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Calabrese, Andrea 1993. ‘The sentential complementation of Salentino: a study of a language without infinitival clauses’, in Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 28–98.Google Scholar

Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) 1989. Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, April 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Callebat, Louis, Bouet, P., Fleury, P. and Zuinghedau, M. (eds.) 1984. Vitruve. De Architectura. Concordance. Hildesheim-Zurich-New York: Olms-Wedmann.Google Scholar

Calvaruso, Giuseppe 1929. 'U baccàgghiu. Catania: Libreria Tirelli di F. Gautolini.Google Scholar

Calvet, Louis-Jean 1993. ‘Le verlan en kit’, Le Français dans le monde 256:42.Google Scholar

Cameron-Faulkner, Thea and Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 2000. ‘Stem alternants as morphological signifiés: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns’, NLLT 18:813–35.Google Scholar

Camilli, Amerindo 1929. ‘Il dialetto di Servigliano’, Archivum Romanicum 13:220–71.Google Scholar

Camilli, Amerindo 1946. ‘Articoli, pronomi, preposizioni articolate’, LN 6:89f.Google Scholar

Campanile, Enrico 1971. ‘Due studi sul latino volgare’, ID 34:1–64.Google Scholar

Campanile, Enrico 1973. ‘Sulla quantità della vocale che precede -m in latino’, ID 36:1–6.Google Scholar

Campos, Héctor and Zampini, Mary 1990. ‘Focalization strategies in Spanish’, Probus 2:47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campos, Odette and Rodrigues, ângela 1992. ‘Flexão nominal: indicação de pluralidade no sintagma nominal’, in Ilari, Rodolfo (ed.), Gramática do português falado, vol. 2: Níveis de análise lingüística. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, pp. 111–34.Google Scholar

Canaes, Maria Piedade and de Pádua, Mariz 1960. A ordem das palavras no português arcaico (frases de verbo transitivo). Coimbra: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra, Instituto de Estudos Românicos.Google Scholar

Canale, Michael, Mougeon, Raymond and Belanger, Monique 1978. ‘Analogical levelling of the auxiliary être in French’, in Suñer, Margarita (ed.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. WashingtonDC: GeorgetownUniversity Press, pp. 41–61.Google Scholar

Capidan, Teofil 1925. Meglenoromânii. I. Istoria şi graiul lor. Bucharest: Cultura naţională.Google Scholar

Capidan, Teofil 1932. Aromânii. Dialectul aromân. Studiu lingvistic. Bucharest: Academia Româna.Google Scholar

Capozzoli, Raffaele 1889. Grammatica del dialetto napoletano. Naples: Chiurazzi.Google Scholar

Caracausi, Girolamo 1986. Lingue in contatto nell'estremo Mezzogiorno d'Italia. Influssi e conflitti fonetici. Palermo: CSFLS.Google Scholar

Caradec, François 1988. N'ayons pas peur des mots. Dictionnaire du français argotique et populaire. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, Anna 1997. ‘Subjects and clause structure’, in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 33–63.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, Anna 2004. ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–65.Google Scholar

Cardona, Giorgio 1988. I sei lati del mondo. Linguaggio ed esperienze. Bari: La Terza.Google Scholar

Carosella, Maria 2005. Sistemi vocalici tonici nell'area garganica settentrionale fra tensioni diatopiche e dinamiche variazionali. Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 1994. ‘Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast’, Language 70:737–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casella, Mario 1922. ‘Studi sui dialetti della Valdarda. Fonologia del dialetto di Fiorenzuola’. Studj romanzi 17:5–71.Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1952. Nuovi testi fiorentini del Dugento. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1961. ‘Sulla formazione del tipo fonetico italiano: fenomeni vocalici’, SLI 2:24–45 [also in Castellani, 1980, I:73–95].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1962. ‘Quelques remarques à propos de la diphtongaison toscane: réponse à M. Schürr’, ZRPh 78:494–502 [also in Castellani, 1980, I:139–45].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1965. ‘Sulla formazione del tipo fonetico italiano. Fenomeni consonantici. I. Raddoppiamento delle consonanti diverse da «r», «s» davanti a «i?»’, SLI 5:88–96 [also in Castellani, 1980, I:95–103].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1970a. ‘Dittongamento senese e dittongamento aretino nei dialetti dell'Italia mediana (in epoca antica)’, in I dialetti dell'Italia mediana con particolare riguardo alla regione umbra. Atti del V Convegno di studi umbri, Gubbio, 28 maggio – 1 giugno 1967. Gubbio: Centro di Studi Umbri Presso la Casa di Sant'Ubaldo-Perugia. di Lettere e filosofia, 311–380 [also in Castellani, 1980, I:358–422].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1970b. ‘Note sul dittongamento toscano’, in Mille I dibattiti del Circolo linguistico fiorentino. Florence: Olschki, pp. 41–53 [also in Castellani, 1980, I:146–155].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1970c. ‘Ancora sul dittongamento italiano e romanzo: seconda risposta a Friedrich Schürr’, CN 30:117–130 [reprinted in Castellani, 1980, I:156–176].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1972. ‘Frammenti d'un libro di conti castellano del Dugento’, Studi di filologia italiana 30:5–58 [also in Castellani, 1980, II:455–513].Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1976. I più antichi testi italiani (2nd edn). Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1980. Saggi di linguistica e filologia italiana e romanza 1946–1976. Rome: Salerno.Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 1985. Capitoli d'un'introduzione alla grammatica storica italiana. II: L'elemento germanico. SLI 11:1–26;151–81 [also in Castellani, 2000:29–94].

Castellani, Arrigo 1991. Sulla scomparsa dell'opposizione di quantità vocalica in latino volgare, in Kremer, Dieter (ed.), Actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, Université de Trèves (Trier) 1986, Tome III, Section V. Grammaire diachronique et histoire de la langue. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 10–21.Google Scholar

Castellani, Arrigo 2000. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana. I. Introduzione. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar

Catalán, Diego 1989. El español. Orígenes de su diversidad. Madrid: Paraninfo.Google Scholar

Cennamo, Michela 1999. ‘Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the unaccusative hypothesis’, TPS 97:103–50.Google Scholar

Cennamo, Michela 2001. ‘L'extended accusative e le nozioni di voce e relazione grammaticale nel latino tardo e medievale’, in Viparelli, Valeria (ed.), Ricerche linguistiche tra antico e moderno. Naples: Liguori, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Chéreau, Olivier 1628. Le Jargon de l'argot réformé comme il est à present en usage parmy les bons pauvres. Paris: Veuve du Carroy.Google Scholar

Chacón Berruga, T. 1981. El habla de la Rocha de la Mancha. Albacete: Instituto de estudios albtecenses.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, Bobby 1981. ‘Lexical similarities of lunfardo and gíria’, Hispania 64:417–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chambers, Jack and Trudgill, Peter 1998 (2nd edn). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chambon, Jean-Pierre 2003. ‘La déclinaison en ancien occitan, ou: comment s'en débarrasser? Une réanalyse descriptive non orthodoxe de la flexion substantivale’, RliR 67:343–63.Google Scholar

Chaurand, Jacques 1977. Introduction à l'histoire du vocabulaire français. Paris: Bordas.Google Scholar

Cherubini, Francesco 1839–43. Vocabolario milanese-italiano. Milan: Regia Stamperia.Google Scholar

Chitoran, Ioana 2002. The Phonology of Romanian. A Constraint-Based Approach. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA-London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1995. ‘Bare phrase structure’, in Webelhuth, Gert (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 383–439.Google Scholar

Cifuentes, José Luis 1989. Lengua y espacio. Introducción al problema de la deixis en español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo 1971. La deissi nella lingua italiana. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo 1976. ‘Appropriateness conditions for the use of passives and impersonals in Italian’, Italian Linguistics 1:11–31.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo 1995. Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo 2001. ‘La frase relativa’, in Renzi, Salvi and Cardinaletti, (eds.), vol. I, pp. 457–517.

Cinque, Gugliemo and Kayne, Richard (eds.) 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo and Salvi, Giampaolo (eds.) 2001. Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Ciorănescu, Alexandru 2002. Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Saeculum I. O.Google Scholar

Claudel, Chantal 2002. ‘De l'utilisation du système d'adresse dans l'interview de Presse écrite française'. Paper given at conference Pronoms de 2e personne et formes d'adresse dans les langues d'Europe, Institut Cervantes, Paris, March 2002. Downloadable from: http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/coloquio_paris/ponencias/pdf/cvc_claudel.pdfGoogle Scholar

Coco, Francesco 1970. Il dialetto di Bologna. Bologna: Forni.Google Scholar

Zorraquino, Martín, Antonia, María 1976. ‘A + objeto directo en el Cantar de Mio Cid’, in Colòn, G. and Kopp, R. (eds.), Mélanges offerts à C. Th. Gossen. Bern–Liège: Francke, pp. 554–66.Google Scholar

Coleman, Robert 1971. ‘The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive’, Classical Quarterly 21:215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, Robert (ed.) 1991a. New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Coleman, Robert 1991b. ‘Latin prepositional syntax in Indo-European perspective’, in Coleman, (ed.), pp. 323–38.

Coleman, Robert 1992. ‘Italic’, in Gvozdanovic, Jadranka (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 389–445.Google Scholar

Como, Paola 2002. ‘Affinità grammaticale e variazione in alcune categorie lessicali del dialetto di Monte di Procida’, Bollettino linguistico campano 1:169–96.Google Scholar

Como, Paola 2007. La variabilità del dialetto. Uno studio su Monte di Procida. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard 1977. ‘In defense of spontaneous demotion: the impersonal passive’, in Cole, P. and Saddock, J. M. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8. Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–58.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard 1989 (2nd edn). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Contini, Gianfranco 1935. ‘Per il trattamento delle vocali d'uscita in antico lombardo’, ID 11:33–60.Google Scholar

Contini, Michel 1987. Etude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du sarde. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar

Contreras, Heles 1976. A Theory of Word Order with Special Reference to Spanish. Amsterdam-New York: North-Holland-Elsevier.Google Scholar

Contreras, Heles 1991. ‘On the position of subjects’, in Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure. Heads and Licensing. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.63–79.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corblin, Francesco 1987. ‘CECI et CELA comme formes à contenu indistinct’, Langue française 75:75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corda, F. 1983. Saggio di grammatica gallurese. Cagliari: Edizioni 3T.Google Scholar

Cornilescu, Alexandra 1992. ‘Remarks on the determiner system of Romanian: the demonstratives al and cel’, Probus 4:189–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cornilescu, Alexandra 2000. ‘The double subject construction in Romanian’, in Motapanyane, (ed.), pp. 83–133.

Corominas, Juan 1954–57. Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Corominas, Juan and Pascual, José Antonio 1980–91. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Coromines, Joan 1997. Lleures i converses d'un filòleg. Barcelona: Club.Google Scholar

Corriente, Federico 1997. Poesía dialectal árabe y romance en Alandalús. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Cortelazzo, Manlio 1976. Avviamento critico allo studio della dialettologia Italiana, vol. 1: Problemi e metodi. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1954. El llamado ‘latín vulgar’ y las primeras diferenciaciones romances. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1964. ‘Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale’, Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 2:139–86.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1968. ‘Sincronía, diacronía y tipología’;. Actas del XI Congreso internacional de lingüística y filología románicas. I. Madrid: CSIC, pp. 269–83.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1973. Sincronía, diacronía e historia. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1981. Sincronia, diacronia e storia. Il problema del cambio linguistico. Turin: Boringhieri.Google Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio 1988. ‘Linguistic change does not exist’, in Albrecht, Jörn, Lüdtke, Jens and Thun, Harald (eds.), Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation –Sprachgeschichte –sprachliche Typologie: Studia in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu, pp. 147–57.Google Scholar

Costa, João 2000. ‘Word order and discourse-configurationality in European Portuguese’, in Costa, João (ed.), Portuguese Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–115.Google Scholar

Costa, R. 1975. ‘A functional solution for illogical reflexives in Italian’, in Grossmand, R. E., San, J. and Vance, T. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Sociey, pp. 112–25.Google Scholar

Couceiro, José Luis 1976. El habla de Feás. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar

Coveney, Aidan 2003. ‘Anything you can do tu can do better’: tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7:164–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crabb, Daniel 1969. Comparative Study of Word Order in Old Spanish and Old French Prose Works. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar

Craddock, Jerry. 1983. ‘Descending diphthongs and the regular preterite in Hispano-Romance’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 60:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cravens, Thomas 1988. ‘Consonant Strength in the Romance Dialects of the Pyrenees’, in Birdsong, D. and Montreuil, J.-P. (eds.), Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 371–409.Google Scholar

Cravens, Thomas 1991. ‘Phonology, phonetics and orthography in Late Latin and Romance: the evidence for early intervocalic sonorization’, in Wright, R. (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. London-New York: Routledge, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar

Cravens, Thomas 2002. Comparative Historical Dialectology. Italo-Romance Clues to Ibero-Romance Sound Change. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cremona, Joseph 1970. ‘L'axe nord-sud de la Romania et la position du toscan’, in Rosetti, Alexandru (ed.), Actele celui de-al XII-lea Congres international de lingvistica şi filologie romanică. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, pp. 155–59.Google Scholar

Crevatin, Franco 1992. ‘Intorno al vocalismo “protoromanzo”’, in Etymologie und Wortgeschichte des Italienischen. LEI. Genesi e dimensioni di un vocabolario etimologico. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar

Croft, William 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William, Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava and Kemmer, Suzanne 1987. ‘Diachronic semantic processes in the middle voice’, in Giacalone Ramat, A., Carruba, O. and Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crupi, Giovanni 1981. La glossa di Bova. Cento favole esopiche in greco calabro: schema grammaticale, lessico. Roccella Ionica: Associazione Culturale Jonica.Google Scholar

Cruschina, Silvio 2006. ‘Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery’, in Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cunha, Celso 1981 (9th edn). Gramática do portugués contemporâneo. De acordo com a Nomenclatura gramatical brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Padrão.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi 1994. Sull'origine della costruzione dicere quod. Aspetti sintattici e semantici. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi 1995. ‘A proposito di sub vos placo e della grammaticalizzazione delle adposizioni’, AGI 80:122–43.Google Scholar

D'Alessandro, Roberta and Roberts, Ian 2005. ‘Split ergativity in Abruzzese and the null-subject parameter’. Paper presented at Going Romance 2005, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 8–10 December 2005.Google Scholar

D'Alessandro, Roberta and Roberts, Ian 2008. ‘Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases’, LI 39:477–91.Google Scholar

D'Hulst, Yves, Coene, Martine and Tasmowski, Liliane 2000. ‘Last resort strategies in DP: article reduplication in Romanian and French’, in Motapanyane, (ed.), pp. 135–75.

D'Imperio, Mariapaola 2000. ‘Acoustic-perceptual correlates of sentence prominence in Italian’, Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 54:59–77.Google Scholar

D'Imperio, Mariapaola and Rosenthall, S. 1999. ‘Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian’, Phonology 16:29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D'Introno, Francesco 1989. ‘Empty and full pronouns in Spanish’, Hispanic Linguistics 3:38–46.Google Scholar

D'Introno, Francesco 2001. Sintaxis generativa del español. evolución y análisis. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar

D'Ovidio, Francesco 1873. ‘Sull'origine dell'unica forma flessionale del nome italiano’, Annali della reale Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Filosofia e Filologia 1 2:153–209.Google Scholar

D'Ovidio, Francesco 1886. ‘Ricerche sui pronomi personali e possessivi neolatini’, AGI 9:25–101.Google Scholar

D'Ovidio, Francesco 1905. ‘Ricerche sui personali e possessivi neolatini’, AGI 9:25–101.Google Scholar

Désirat, Claude and Hordé, Tristan 1967. La Langue française au 20ème siècle. Paris: Bordas.Google Scholar

Díaz González, O. 1979. El habla de Candamo. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar

Dahmen, Wolfgang 1989. ‘Rumänisch: Arealinguistik III. Meglenorumänisch’, LRL (III), pp. 436–47.Google Scholar

Dalbera, Jean-Philippe 1994. Les parlers des Alpes-Maritimes: etude comparative, essai de reconstruction. London: Association internationale d'études occitanes.Google Scholar

Dalbera, Jean-Philippe and Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1998. ‘De la genèse des vocalismes corses’, in Ruffino, G. (ed.), Atti del XXI Congresso di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, 1995, V. Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp. 217–29 [also in Dalbera- Stefanaggi, 2001:149–62].Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1990. ‘L'évaluation de l'affinité en situation dialectale’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Nice 12:51–65 [also in Dalbera- Stefanaggi, 2001:139–48].Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1991. Unité et diversité des parlers corses. Le plan phonologique. Parenté génétique et affinité. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1995a. ‘La partition dialectale de la Corse: des données renouvelées’, Revue de linguistique romane 59:141–58 [also in Dalbera-Stefanaggi, 2001:107–19].Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1995b. ‘Morsiglia et les parlers du Cap Corse: une strate dans l'espace insulaire?’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Nice 17:89–108 [also in Dalbera-Stefanaggi, 2001:121–38].Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 1995c. Nouvel Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Corse. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José 2001. Essais de linguistique corse. Ajaccio: Editions Alain Piazzola.Google Scholar

Damonte, Federico 2005. ‘La diffusione della particella “mi” in alcune varietà messinesi: problemi di metodo’, in Marcato, Gianna (ed.), Dialetti in città. Atti del convegno, Sappada/Plodn (Belluno). Padua: Unipress, pp. 237–42.Google Scholar

Daniliuc, Laura and Daniliuc, Radu 2000. Descriptive Romanian Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Dardano, Maurizio 1978. La formazione delle parole nell'italiano di oggi. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Dardel, Robert 1964. ‘Considérations sur la déclinaison romane à trois cas’, Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 21:7–23.Google Scholar

Dardel, Robert and Wüest, Jacob 1993. ‘Les systèmes casuels du protoroman. Les deux cycles de simplification’, VR 52:25–65.Google Scholar

Dardel, Robert and Zamboni, Alberto 1999. ‘L'interfixe -i- dans les composés protoromans: une hypothèse de travail’, RLiR 63:439–69.Google Scholar

Darmesteter, Arsène 1886. La Vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Paris: Delgrave.Google Scholar

Darmesteter, Arsène 1967 [1875]. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Dauzat, Albert 1900. Morphologie du patois de Vinzelles. Paris: Bouillon.Google Scholar

Dauzat, Albert 1912. La Défense de la langue française. La Crise de la culture française. L'Argot. La Politesse du langage. La Langue internationale. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Dauzat, Albert [1917]1976. Les argots de métiers Franco-Provençaux. Paris: Slatkine.Google Scholar

Dauzat, Albert, Dubois, Jean and Mitterand, Henri 1971 (3rd edn). Nouveau Dictionnaire Etymologique et Historique. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

Davis, Stuart 1990. ‘Italian onset structure and the distribution of il and lo’, Linguistics 28:43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Stuart and Napoli, Donna Jo 1994. A Prosodic Template in Historical Change. The Passage of the Latin Second Conjugation into Romance. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

De Blasi, Nicola 1986. Libro de la destructione de Troya. Volgarizzamento napoletano trecentesco da Guido delle Colonne. Rome: Bonacci.Google Scholar

De Blasi, Nicola 2006. Profilo linguistico della Campania. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

De Blasi, Nicola and Imperatore, Luigi 2002. Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica. Nuova edizione. Naples: Libreria Dante e Descartes.Google Scholar

De Bruyne, Jacques 1995. A Comprehensive Spanish Grammar. Adapted and with Additional Material by Christopher Pountain, J.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

De Garis, Marie 1985. Guernesiais. A Grammatical Survey. Guernsey: La Société Guernesiaise.Google Scholar

De Gregorio, Iolanda 1939. ‘Contributo alla conoscenza del dialetto di Bisceglie (Bari)’, ID 15:31–52.Google Scholar

De Kok, Ans 1985. La Place du pronom personnel régime conjoint en français. Une étude diachronique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

De Lima Coutinho, Ismael 1958. Pontos de gramática histórica. Rio de Janeiro: Académica.Google Scholar

De Mauro, Tullio, Mancini, Federico, Vedovelli, Federico and Voghera, Miriam 1993. Lessico di frequenza dell'italiano parlato. Milan: Etaslibri.Google Scholar

De Poerck, Guy and Mourin, Louis 1961. Introduction à la morphologie comparée des langues romanes basée sur des traductions anciennes des actes des Apôtres ch. XX à XXIV. Tome I: Ancien portugais et ancien castillan. Bruges: De Tempel.Google Scholar

Decurtins, Alexi. 1958. Zur Morphologie der unregelmässigen Verben im Bündnerromanischen. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Dedeck-Héry, V. L. 1952. ‘Boethius' De Consolatione by Jean de Meun’, Medieval Studies 14:165–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dees, Anthonij 1980. Atlas de formes linguistiques des textes littéraires de l'ancien français. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Delatte, Louis, évrard, é., Govaerts, S. and Denooz, J. 1981. Dictionnaire fréquentiel et index inverse de la langue latine. Liège: L.A.S.L.A.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold 1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 3. Strasbourg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Demonte, Violeta 1995. ‘Dative alternation in Spanish’, Probus 7:5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, David 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar

Densusianu, Ovid 1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine. Tome II: Le seizième siècle. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar

Densusianu, Ovid 1961. Istoria Limbii române. 1. Originile 2. Secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura ştiinţifică.Google Scholar

Devine, A. M. and Stephens, Laurence 2006. Latin Word Order. Structured meaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devoto, Giacomo 1957. ‘Le sopravvivenze linguistiche latine nel mondo moderno’, TCLC 11:75–88.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo 2003. ‘Sostrati, adstrati e superstrati e i loro effetti sulle lingue romanze: Italoromania e Alpi orientali’, in Ernst, et al., pp. 578–93.

Diaconescu, Paula 1970. ‘Acuzativul cu pre în textele traduse din secolul al XVIlea’, in Diaconescu, Paula (ed.), Structură şi evoluţie în morfologia substantivului românesc. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, pp. 259–63.Google Scholar

Dias, Augusto Epiphanio Silva 1918. Syntaxe histórica portuguesa. Lisbon: Livraria Clássica.Google Scholar

Diehl, Ernestus (ed.) 1925–31. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Diez, Friedrich 1838. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 2. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar

Dijk, Teun Adrianus 1977. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London-New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Dijk, Teun Adrianus 1979. ‘Pragmatic connectives’, Journal of Pragmatics 3:447–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, Robert 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, Robert 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Donnellan, Keith 1966. ‘Reference and definite description’, The Philosophical Review 75:281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, Mark and Smith, John Charles 1998. ‘What's happened to us? Some developments in the Malay pronoun system’, Oceanic Linguistics 37:65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doria, Mario 1989. ‘Dalmatico: storia linguistica interna’, LRL (III), pp. 522–30.Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London-Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Dresser, Norine 1996. ‘An acorn for stormy weather’, Los Angeles Times, 10 August, Metro, Part B, p. 7.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang 1980. ‘A semiotic model of diachronic process phonology’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 93–131.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang 1985. ‘On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology’, JL 21: 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang 1992. ‘Confronti e contatti fonologici’, in Mocciaro, A. and Soravia, G. (eds.), L'Europa linguistica: contatti, contrasti, affinità di lingue. Atti del XXI congresso internazionale di studi della SLI, Catania, 1987. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 125–37.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang 1997. ‘“Scenario” as a concept for the functional explanation of language change’, in Gvozdanovic, Jadranka (ed.), Language Change and Functional Explanations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 109–42.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Guyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, Matthew 1988. ‘Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: dispelling a myth’, Lingua 74:185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duarte, Inês 1996. ‘A topicalização em português europeu: uma análise comparativa’, in Duarte, Inês and Leira, Isabel (eds.), Actas do congresso internacional sobre o português, vol. 1. Lisbon: Edições Colibri, pp. 327–60.Google Scholar

Duchêne, Nadia 2002. ‘Langue, immigration, culture: paroles de la banlieue française’, Meta 47:30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dufter, Andreas 2004. ‘Ist das Französische eine silbenzählende Sprache?’, in Meiselburg, T. and Selig, M. (eds.), Nouveaux départs en phonologie. Les conceptions sub- et suprasegmentales. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 139–59.Google Scholar

Duncan, S. and Fiske, D. 1977. Face-to-Face Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Duraffour, Antonin 1932. ‘Phénomènes généraux d'évolution phonétique dans les dialectes franco-provençaux étudiés d'après le parler de la commune de Vaux (Ain)’, RLiR 8:1–280.Google Scholar

Durand, Jacques, Slater, Catherine and Wise, Hilary 1987. ‘Observations on schwa in southern French’, Linguistics 25:983–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durante, Marcello 1981. Dal latino all'italiano moderno. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro and Ochs, Elinor 1979. ‘La pipa la fumi? Uno studio sulla dislocazione a sinistra nelle conversazioni’, SGI 8:269–301.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1978. ‘Phonotactic awkwardness as an impediment to sound change’, Forum Linguisticum 3: 47–56.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1981. ‘Phonotactic constraints and lexical loss in old Spanish’, ZRPh 97:86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1982. ‘From “temple” to “cheek”: Old Spanish tienlla reconsidered (with sideglances at carriello and sien)’, RPh 35:573–85.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1983. ‘The fragmentation of the Latin verb tollere in Hispano- (including Luso-) Romance’, RPh 37:166–74.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1985. Etymology and Derivational Morphology. The Genesis of Old Spanish Denominal Adjectives in -ido. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1986. ‘The etymology of hispanic vel(l)ido: a new approach to an old problem’, RPh 40:328–37.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1989a. ‘Factores lingüísticos operantes en la pérdida léxica’, Actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes, vol. 4. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 379–84.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1989b. ‘Studies in lexical loss: the fate of old Spanish postadjectival abstracts in -dad, -dumbre, -eza, and –ura’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 66:335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1990. ‘The role of near-homonymy in lexical loss: the demise of OSp. laido “ugly, repugnant”’, La Corónica 19:32–48.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1992. ‘The demise of old Spanish decir: a case study in lexical loss’, RPh 45:493–502.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1993a. ‘La cuasi-homonimia y la pérdida léxica en el español antiguo’, Lexis 17:57–74.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1993b. ‘Near-homonymy, semantic overlap and lexical loss in medieval Spanish: three case studies’, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 44:271–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1995a. ‘The role of grammatical category and semantic features in lexical loss: old Spanish primary adjectives’, in Hoinkes, Ulrich (ed.), Panorama der lexikalischen Semantik. Thematische Festschrift aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Horst Geckeler. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 159–67.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1995b. ‘Two studies in old Spanish homonymics’, Hispanic Review 63:527–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1997. ‘Semantic change and lexical loss: the case of OSp. luengo “long”’, La Corónica 26:53–65.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1998a. ‘Lexical loss and neologisms in late medieval Spanish: two case studies’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies [Liverpool] 75:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 1998b. ‘Yakov Malkiel's contributions to the study of lexical loss: a critical overview’, Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 5:3–19.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 2002a. ‘La introducción e incorporación de latinismos en el español medieval tardío: algunas cuestiones lingüísticas y metodológicas’, in Saralegui, C. and Casado, M. (eds.), Pulchre, Bene, Recte. Estudios en homenaje al Profesor Fernando González Ollé. Pamplona: EUNSA, pp. 421–33.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven 2002b. ‘Pérdida e integración léxicas: aína vs. rápido en el español premoderno’, in Pöll, B. and Rainer, F. (eds.), Vocabula et vocabularia. Etudes de lexicologie et de (méta-) lexicographie romanes en l'honneur du 60e anniversaire de Dieter Messner. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 109–18.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Steven (ed.) 2003. Historical Romance Linguistics. The Death of a Discipline? La Corónica 31:7–134.

Dworkin, Steven 2006. ‘La naturaleza del cambio léxico’, in Girón Alconchel, José Luis and Tovar, Bustos, Jesús, José (eds.), Actas del VI Congreso internacional de historia de la lengua española I. Madrid: Arco Libros, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar

Eberenz, Rolf 1998. ‘Dos campos semánticos del español preclásico: “fácil” y “difícil”’, in Andrés-Suárez, I. and López Molina, L. (eds.), Estudios de lingüística y de filología españoles: Homenaje a Germán Colón. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 167–83.Google Scholar

Egido Fernández, M. 1996. El sistema verbal en el romance leonés. León: Universidad de León.Google Scholar

Ekblom, R. 1908. Etude sur l'extinction des verbes au prétérit en -si et en -ui en français. Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksell.Google Scholar

Saiz, Conde, Victoria, María 1978. El habla de Sobrescobio. Mieres del Camino: Instituto «Bernal de Quirós».Google Scholar

González, Cano, María, Ana 1981. El habla de Somiedo (Occidente de Asturias). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar

Elcock, William 1938. De quelques affinités phonétiques entre l'aragonais et le béarnais. Paris: Droz.Google Scholar

Elcock, William 1960. The Romance Languages. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Elcock, William 1975. The Romance Languages. Revised with a New Introduction by Green, J. N.. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Elerick, Charles 1989a. ‘Gapping, preemptive markedness, and word order in Latin’, in Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elsner, Alfred von 1886. über Form und Verwendung des Personalpronomens im Altprovenzalischen. Kiel: Fiencke.Google Scholar

Elvira, Javier 1994. ‘Uno en español antiguo’, Verba: Anuario galego de filoloxía 21:167–82.Google Scholar

Elvira, Javier 1998. El cambio analógico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Elwert, W. Theodor 1943. Die Mundart des Fassa-Tals. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Ernout, Alfred 1927/1953 (3rd edn). Morphologie historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Ernout, Alfred and Meillet, Antoine 1959. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Ernout, Alfred and Meillet, Antoine 1967 (4th edn). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Ernout, Alfred and Thomas, François 1953/93. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Ernst, Gerhard 1970. Die Toskanisierung des römischen Dialekts im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Ernst, Gerhard 2004. ‘Lexikalische Analyse historischer Texte und semantische Theorie am Beispiel nonstandardsprachlicher französischer Texte des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Lebsanft, and Gleßgen, (eds.), pp. 153–61.

Ernst, Gerhard, Gleßgen, Martin-D., Schmitt, Christian and Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.) 2003–9. Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen und ihrer Erforschung, 3 vols. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eska, Joseph 2004. ‘Continental Celtic’, in Woodard, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 857–80.Google Scholar

Espinosa, Aurelio 1946. Estudios sobre el español de Nuevo Méjico II. Morfología. Notas de morfología dialectal. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar

Silva, Mattos e, Virgínia, Rosa 1989. Estruturas Trecentistas. Elementos para uma gramática do português arcaico. Lisbon: IN-CM.Google Scholar

Ettinger, Stefan 1974. Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung. Die Diminutiv- und Augmentativmodifikation im Lateinischen, Deutschen und Romanischen. Ein kritscher Forschungsbericht 1900–1970. Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.Google Scholar

Everaert, Martin 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Ewert, Alfred 1935. ‘The Strasbourg Oaths’, TPS16–35.Google Scholar

Ewert, Alfred 1978. The French Language. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Santos, García, Felipe, Juan 1992. ‘Extremeño’. LRL (VI, 1), pp. 701–708.Google Scholar