Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 206237


Acquaviva, Paolo
1989Aspetti della complementazione frasale. Degree thesis, University of Pisa.Google Scholar
Andalò, Adrina
1991Il raddoppiamento sintattico nel dialetto di Napoli. In Luciano Giannelli (ed.), Tra rinascimento e strutture attuali. Saggi di linguistica italiana, 241–251. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2004Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University of Press.Google Scholar
2005Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17. 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberta D’Alessandro
2006Syntactic doubling and the encoding of voice in eastern Abruzzese. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 87–95. Somverille, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng
2014An integrated approach to French liaison. In Paola Monachesi, Gerhard Jäger, Gerald Penn & Shuly Wintner (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2004, 29–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Lisa Cheng, Laura Downing & Joan Mascaró
2019(In)direct reference in the phonology-syntax interface under phase theory: A response to modular PIC (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015). Linguistic Inquiry 50. 751–777. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1995Case properties of clauses and the greed principle. Studia Linguistica 49. 32–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2001Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Foreword. In Ángel Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 1–9. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corr, Alice
2017Ibero-Romance and the syntax of the utterance. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Tobias Scheer
2015Modular PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). 593–624. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Gorka Elordieta, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto & Marina Vigário
2005Intonational phrasing in Romance: The role of syntactic and prosodic structure. In Sonia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 59–98. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
D’Ovidio, Francesco
1874Fonetica del dialetto di Campobasso. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 4(1). 145–184.Google Scholar
De Blasi, Nicola & Luigi Imperatore
2000Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica (Nuova edizione). Naples: Dante & Descartes.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Chantal Lyche
2008French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies 18. 33–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto & Marina Vigário
2003Effects of constituent length and syntactic branching on intonational phrasing in Ibero-Romance. In Maria-Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens & Joaquín Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 487–490. Barcelona: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Fanciullo, Franco
1986Syntactic reduplication and the Italian dialects of the centre-south. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8. 67–103.Google Scholar
1997Raddoppiamento sintattico e ricostruzione linguistica nel sud italiano. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel
2010Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1990Syntax. A functional-typological introduction, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio
1996Alcune riflessioni sugli imperativi italiani. In Paola Benincà, Guglielmo Cinque, Tullio De Mauro & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Italiano e dialetto nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 133–148. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec
1990The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen
1985Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1991Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–686.Google Scholar
1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2000A Comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009aGrammatica diacronica del napoletano (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie Band 350). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bAspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del Cosentino. In Diego Pescarini (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 9), 3–24. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
2016The dialects of southern Italy. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 246–269. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018Phonological correlates of syntactic structure: The distribution of raddoppiamento fonosintattico in Calabrian. In Mirko Grimaldi, Rosangela Lai, Ludovico Franco & Benedetta Baldi (eds.), Structuring variation in Romance linguistics and beyond: In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia, 283–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection. In Michela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio Historical linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015, 343–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020The causative construction in the dialects of southern Italy and the phonology-syntax interface. In Giulia Bellucci, Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 371–400. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam & Alessandra Lombardi
2005Verb movement, adverbs and clitic positions in Romance. Probus 17. 79–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1988Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
1988History and geography of raddoppiamento fonosintattico: Remarks on the evolution of a phonological rule. In Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro (eds.), Certamen Phonologicum, 341–387. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
1997Lengthening and raddoppiamento fonosintattico . In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy, 41–51. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1998L’assimilazione fonosintattica di -t finale nei dialetti della zona Lausberg. In Luciano Agostiniani, Maria Giovanna Arcamone, Fiorella Imparati, Onofrio Carruba & Riccardo Rizza (eds.), Do-ra-qu pe-re. Studi in memoria di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, 237–244. Rome: IEPI.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin
1995A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia
2005I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 volumes). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
2016Quale informazione sintattica viene interpretata dai fenomeni fonosintattici? Evidenza dalle varietà italiane meridionali. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo & Guido Mensching (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 4: Syntaxe, 403–414. Nancy: ATILF. http://​www​.atilf​.fr​/cilpr2013​/actes​/section​-4​.html (10 May 2021)
Massam, Diane
1985Case theory and the projection principle. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Masutti, Vania
2016La liaison entre phonologie, morphologie et syntaxe. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo & Guido Mensching (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 4: Syntaxe, 291–302. Nancy: ATILF. http://​www​.atilf​.fr​/cilpr2013​/actes​/section​-4​.html (10 May 2021)
Morin, Yves-Charles & Jonathan Kaye
1982The syntactic bases for French liaison. Journal of Linguistics 18. 291–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola
2004Computational puzzles of conditional clause preposing. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo & Rodolfo Delmonte (eds.), UG and external systems, 73–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
2010Towards a hierarchy of clause types. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery, 125–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plann, Susan
1986On case-marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the case resistance principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 336–345.Google Scholar
Rao, Rajiv
2008Observations on the roles of prosody and syntax in the phonological phrasing of Barcelona Spanish. The Linguistics Journal 3. 85–131.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo
1987Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 85–110.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark
2007On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 563–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa
1994aNegation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects. Rivista di linguistica 6. 39–66.Google Scholar
1994bClause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12. 63–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa & Arhonto Terzi
1995Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31. 301–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Leonardo Savoia
1993Conditions on /u/ propagation in southern Italian dialects. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Syntactic theory and the dialects of Italy, 252–318. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2005Principles and parameters in VSO languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard
1966Grammatica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Volume 1: Fonetica. Turin: Einuadi.Google Scholar
1983Distinzione di due congunzioni nei dialetti d’Italia (nel senso del latino ut e quod o quia). In Paola Benincà, Michele Cortelazzo, Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi, Laura Vanelli & Alberto Zamboni (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 147–154. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Sampson, Rodney
2016Sandhi phenomena. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 669–680. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M.
1987Teoria generativa, modelli fonologici e dialettologia. La propagazione di u in una varietà lucana. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 11. 185–263.Google Scholar
2015I dialetti italiani. Sistemi e processi fonologici nelle varietà di area italiana e romancia. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1974French liaison and the X′ convention. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 573–590.Google Scholar
1984Phonology and syntax: The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986On derived domains in sentence phonology. In Colin Ewen & John Anderson (eds.), Phonology Yearbook 3, 371–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabth & Koichi Tateischi
1988Syntax and phonological phrasing in Japanese. In Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in honor of S.Y. Kuroda, 316–336. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle
2014Portuguese, Russian and the theory of control. In Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole & Amanda Rysling (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 43 (NELS 43), Volume 2, 115–126. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2018aControl of inflected infinitives in European Portuguese. In Anabela Gonçalves & Ana Lúcia Santos (eds.), Complement clauses in Portuguese: Adult syntax and acquisition, 27–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018bOn the difference between exhaustive and partial control. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Understanding null subjects: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 141–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silvestri, Giuseppina
2007Il rafforzamento fonosintattico nel dialetto di Verbicaro (Cosenza). L’Italia Dialettale 68. 146–151.Google Scholar
2009La metafonia nel dialetto di Verbicaro (CS). Italia Dialettale 70. 169–226.Google Scholar
2014 Rafforzamento fonosintattico as a phenomenon of the phonology-syntax interface. Paper presented at the Romance Linguistics Seminar, University of Cambridge, October 28.
Stowell, Tim
1981Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Torcolacci, Giuseppe
2014aIl raddoppiamento fonosintattico e la codifica di tratti morfosintattici. Il caso dei dialetti italiani meridionali. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Claudio Di Felice, Irene Franco & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), Approcci diversi alla dialettologia italiana contemporanea. Special issue of L’Italia dialettale 75. 247–271.Google Scholar
2014bMarking the default. Auxiliary selection in southern Italian dialects. Leiden: LOT.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther
1998The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tortora, Christina
2014A comparative grammar of Borgomanerese. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
1999On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
2011Derivational cycles. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of minimalism, 239–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella
1997Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar