Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015
Edited by Michela Cennamo and Claudia Fabrizio
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348] 2019
► pp. 343–384

Chapter 17
Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection

This paper undertakes a synchronic comparison of auxiliary selection across a number of different Romance varieties that show how minimal differences among otherwise highly homogenous ‘systems’ can be used to investigate microvariation along the diachronic axis in order to better understand what precisely may vary and how such variation may be implicationally structured in relation to the predictions of parametric hierarchies. Modelling changes in different auxiliary patterns in terms of parametric hierarchies, I argue that the structural organization of such hierarchies and the predictions they make about markedness relations between different linguistic choices can be profitably used, especially when earlier stages of languages are not documented, to understand the direction of change, what precisely may change, and how such diachronic variation may be implicationally structured.

Keywords: auxiliary selection, parameters, Romance, mood, tense, person, microvariation, features, parameter hierarchies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Romance auxiliary selection: Mesoparametric variation
  • 3.Microparametric variation: Person-driven systems
    • 3.1Modal and temporal distinctions
    • 3.2Number restrictions
    • 3.3Saliency of individual discourse participants
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.Microparameric variation: Argument-driven systems
    • 4.1Modal and temporal restrictions
    • 4.2Person and number restrictions
    • 4.3Restrictions on stative subjects (SO)
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.17led
References
Adams, James
1976 A typological approach to Latin word order. Indogermanische Forschungen 81. 70–99.Google Scholar
Adams James
2013 Past participle + habeo . In James Adams, Social variation and the Latin language, 615–651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alturo Monné, Núria.
1995 La variació d’haver auxiliar en el català nord-occidental. In Maria Teresa Turell Julià (ed.), La sociolingüística de la variació, 221–255. Barcelona: PPU.Google Scholar
Andriani, Luigi
2017 The syntax of the dialect of Bari. University of Cambridge: unpublished thesis.Google Scholar
Aub-Büscher, Gertrud
1962 Le Parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas Rhin). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa
1994 Auxiliary configurations in English and Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique 5–6. 493–510.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa & Virginia Hill
2007 An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian. In Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective, 47–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
1996 The Polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008a The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauche, Henri
1946 Le Langage populaire. Grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu’on le parle dans le peuple avec tous les termes d’argot usuel. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola, Mair Parry, Mair & Diego Pescarini
2016 The dialects of northern Italy. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford Univrsity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia
2006 Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Principles of subject markedness in Romance. Archivio glottologico italiano 95. 152–189.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2001 Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance. In Laura Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, 63–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114. 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1950 Actif et moyen dans le verbe. Journal de Psychologie 43. 119–127. Reprinted in Benveniste, Émile 1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale I, 168–175. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
1960 “Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris 55. 113–134. Reprinted in Benveniste, Émile 1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale I, 187–207. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
1965 Structure des relations d’auxiliarité. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 9. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Robert
2017 Conditional inversion and types of parametric change. In Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan (eds). Verb-second languages: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade 55-77. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan
2014 No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation, in Robert Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31, 46–55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1984 Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela
1999 Inaccusatività tardo-latina e suoi riflessi in testi italiani antichi centro-meridionali. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 115. 300–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 L’inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane: Teorie e dati a confronto. In Albano Leoni et al.. (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXIII congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, 427–453. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
2002 La selezione degli ausiliari perfettivi in napoletano antico: Fenomeno sintattico o sintattico-semantico. Archivio glottologico italiano 87. 175–222.Google Scholar
2008 The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance. In Þórhallur EyÞórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the Rosendal papers, 115–142 Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 210–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela & Antonella Sorace
2007 Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexicon interface: Evidence from Paduan. In Raul Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective, 65–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiominto, Cesare
1984 Lo parlà forte della pora ggente. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colasanti, Valentina
2019. A comparative approach to morphosyntactic microvariation. The dialects of southern Lazio. University of Cambridge: doctoral thesis.
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Cocchi, Gloria
1995 La selezione dell’ausiliare. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway
2010 The Abruzzese T-v system: Feature spreading and the double auxiliary construction. In Roberta D’Alesssandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, 201–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts
2010 Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null‐subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dauby, Jean
1979 Le livre du “rouchi”. Parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Descusses, Martine
1986 Le Patois ardennais de Gespunsart. Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeriy Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina
2010 Ergativitatea. Tipologie, sintaxă, semantică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina & Alexandru Nicolae
2009 Relics of auxiliary selection in Romanian. Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest and University of Bucharest: unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Flutre, Louis-Fernand
1955 Le Parler picard de Mesnil-Martinsart (Somme). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley
2005 Flavours of v. Consuming results in Italian and in English. In Paul Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray
1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language 68. 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganzoni, Gian Paul
1983 Grammatica ladina: Grammatica sistematica dal rumantsch d’Engiadina Bassa per scolars e creschüts da lingua rumantscha e francesa. Samedan: Lia Romantscha.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly, Michela Cennamo & Johanna Barðdal
(eds) 2013 Argument structure in flux. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giancarli, Pierre-Don.
2011  Les auxiliaires être et avoir: Étude comparée corse, français, acadien et anglais . Rennes: Presses Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Guiraud, Pierre
1969 Le Français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken
1981 On the position of Warlpiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington, IN: IULC.Google Scholar
1982 Preliminary remarks on configurationality. North East Linguistic Society 12. 86–96.Google Scholar
1983 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1. 5–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter
2002 A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language 78. 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John
1983 Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heap, David & Michèle Oliviéri
2013 On the emergence of nominative clitics in Romance dialects. Presentation at the workshop European Dialect Syntax VII, University of Constance, 13–15 juin 2013.Google Scholar
Hendschel, Lorint
2012 Li Croejhete walone: Contribution à une grammaire de la langue wallonne. [URL]
Huang, James
1982 Logic relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Iannace, Gaetano
1983 Interferenza linguistica ai confini fra Stato e Regno. Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine
2000 The grammatical ingredients to counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1993 Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47. 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Microparametric syntax. Some introductory remarks. In James Black & Virginia Montapanyane (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialectal variation, ix–xviii Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005a Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), Handbook of comparative syntax, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Ruth & Terry Nadasdi
2005 Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient mourir en français acadien. In Patrice Brasseur & Anika Falkert (eds.), Français d’Amérique: Approches morphosyntaxiques, 103–111. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lacetera, Michele
1982 Zagarolo. Un dialetto, una cultura, un modo di essere. Rome: Trevi.Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio
1988 Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
1997 Per una teoria grammaticale del mutamento morfosintattico. Dal latino verso il romanzo. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2003 L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo avere nell’antico napoletano: Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali. Archivio glottologico italiano 88. 27–71.Google Scholar
2009 Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change in Latin and Romance. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, 382–471, 724–734. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012a From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b From Latin to Romance: The rise of configurationality, functional categories and head-marking. In Johanna Barδdal, Michela Cennamo & Elly van Gelderen (eds.), Variation and change in argument realisation. Oxford: Blackwell. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society 110. 422–442.Google Scholar
2013 Greek disguised as Romance? The case of southern Italy. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph, Angela Ralli & Metin Bagriacik (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Greek dialects and linguistic theory, 184–228. Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras. [URL].Google Scholar
2014a Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula & Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian, 3–35. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2014b Parametrului poziţiei centrului şi efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romance. In Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu & Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române, 11–26. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
2015 Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation. Revue roumaine de linguistique LX. 105–127.Google Scholar
2016a Functional categories. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 761–771. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b Grammatiche diacroniche e teoria linguistica. In Marina Benedetti, Carla Bruno & Liana Tronci (eds), Grammatiche e Grammatici. Teorie, Testi e Contesti. Atti del XXXIX Convegno Annuale della Società Italiana di Glottologia, 39–51 (Università per Stranieri di Siena 23–25 ottobre 2014). Rome: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
2017a Syntheticity and analyticity. In Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 837–884. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. Parameters in Romance adverb agreement. In Martin Hummel & Salvador Valera eds. Adjective–adverb interfaces in Romance Amsterdam Benjamins
2018. On the decline of edge-fronting from Latin to Romance. In Adriana Cardosa & Ana Maria Martins eds. Word order change Oxford Oxford University Press
In press a. From Latin to Romance syntax: The great leap. In Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi eds. The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics Oxford Oxford University Press
In press b. Rethinking microvariation in Romance demonstrative systems. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer & Sten Vikner eds Festschrift Open Generative Syntax Series Language Science Press
Ledgeway, Adam & Ian Roberts
2017 Principles and parameters. In Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, 581–628. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine
2010 A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance. In Roberta D’Alesssandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 186–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson
1976 Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
1998 Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
1999 L’ausiliazione perfettiva nelle parlate di Zagarolo e di Colonna e lo studio della sintassi dei dialetti median. Contributi di filologia dell’Italia mediana 13. 203–226.Google Scholar
2007 On triple auxiliation. Linguistics 45. 173–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Auxiliary selection and participial agreement. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 802–818. Oxford: Oxford Univrsity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin
2011 Morphophonological innovation. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 1: Structures, 216–267, 706–613. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden Martin
2016 Morphomes. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 708–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Cecilia Robustelli
2007 A reference grammar of modern Italian. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Manente, Mara
2008 L’aspect, les auxiliaires “être” et “avoir” et l’hypothèse inaccusative dans une perspective comparative français/italien. Universities of Venice and Paris VIII: Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia
2005 I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 vols). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, Jules
1949 L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
1953 L’ordre des mots en latin. Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Migliori, Laura
2016 Argument structure, alignment and auxiliaries between Latin and Romance. A diachronic syntactic account. Utrecth: LOT.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary
2002 Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia
2000, Comparative studies in Romanian syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Nevaci, Manuela & Aida Todi
2009 The grammaticalization of perfect auxiliaries in Romanian. Historical and dialectal aspects. Revue roumaine de linguistique 54. 137–150.Google Scholar
Nordahl, Helge
1977 Assez avez alé: estre et avoir comme auxiliaires du verbe aler en ancient français. Revue romane 12. 54–67.Google Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle.
2011 Typology or reconstruction: The benefits of dialectology for diachronic analysis. In Janine Berns, Heike Jacobs & Tobias Scheer (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009, 239–253. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle Patrick Sauzet
2016, Southern Gallo-Romance (Occitan). In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 319–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oniga, Renato
2004 Il latino. Breve introduzione linguistica. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela
2013 The participle. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The grammar of Romanian, 222––232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990 Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, Jonathan
2010 Hyperbaton and register in Cicero. In Eleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, 163–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rea, Béatrice
2014 Aspects of pronoun and auxiliary morphology in French, with particular reference to spoken Montréal French. University of Oxford: MPhil thesis.Google Scholar
Remacle, Louis
1956 Syntaxe du parler wallon de La Gleize. Paris: Les Belles lettres.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko
2014 The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1331–1386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 The pronominal domain: DP-NP structure, clitics and null subjects. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 3–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012 Macroparameters and minimalism. A programme for comparative research. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopez & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 320–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Revue roumaine de linguistique 58. 3–30.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anders Holmberg
2010 Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation. Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.Google Scholar
Rovai, Francesco
2012 Sistemi di codifica argomentale. Tipologia ed evoluzione. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian & Pierrette Thibault
1977 L’alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal. Langue française 34. 84–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2000 Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection. In Artemis Alexiadou, Martin Everaert & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds), The unaccusativity puzzle, 243–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Gradience in split intransitivity: The end of the Unaccusative Hypothesis? Archivio glottologico italiano 96. 67–86.Google Scholar
Stolova, Natalya
2006 Split intransitivity in old Spanish: Irrealis and negation factors. Revue roumaine de linguistique 2. 301–320.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa
1984 Parameters and effects of word order variation. MIT: Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Tuttle, Edward
1986 The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance. Medioevo romanzo 11. 229–287.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston
1996 Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme) avec considération spéciale du dialecte de Nibas. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Verratti, Vittore
1998 Fonologia e morfologia del volgare abruzzese. Con rimario-glossario. Lanciano: Itinerari.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1985 Reichenbach revisited: One, two, or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19. 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1982 The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb. Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1988 Latin. In Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent (eds.), The Romance languages, 26–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1997 The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 149–169. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.Google Scholar
1998a Tra grammatica e grammaticalizzazione: Articoli e clitici nelle lingue (italo)-romanze. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996, 411–440. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
1998b On the grammar of inflected non-finite forms (with special reference to old Neapolitan). In Iørn Korzen & Michael Herslund (eds.), Clause combining and text structure. Copenhagen Studies in Language 22. 135–158.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ledgeway, Adam
2018. Chapter 19. Phonological correlates of syntactic structure. In Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 252], ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Ledgeway, Adam
2021. The syntactic distribution of raddoppiamento fonosinttatico in Cosentino. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 355], ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.