References
Ashby, William J.
1977Clitic inflection in French; An historical perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1980Prefixed conjugation in Parisian French. In Herbert J. Izzo (ed.), Italic and Romance linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram, 195–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua 75. 203–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auger, Julie
1994Pronominal clitics in Colloquial Québec French: A morphological approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
2000Phonology, variation, and prosodic structure: Word-final epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. In Josep M. Fontana, Louise McNally, M. Teresa Turell & Enric Vallduvi (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE), 14–24. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
2001Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel epenthesis in Picard. Language Variation and Change 13(3). 253–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003aLe redoublement des sujets en picard. Journal of French Language Studies 13(3). 381–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003bThe development of a literary standard: The case of Picard in Vimeu-Ponthieu, France. In Brian D. Joseph, Johanna DeStefano, Neil G. Jacobs & Isle Lehiste (eds.), When languages collide: Perspectives on language conflict, language competition, and language coexistence, 141–164. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
2003cLes pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe. Journal of French Language Studies 13(1). 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018Revitalisation, variation régionale et purisme dans le développement d’un standard littéraire: le cas du picard. In Christine Meyer & Paula Prescod (eds.), Langues choisies, langues sauvées: poétiques de la résistance, 155–171. Würzburg, Germany: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie & Ryan Hendrickson
2011Picard verbal morphology: What it tells us about syllable structure. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered Languages, New York City, NY, January 12–14.
Auger, Julie & Anne-José Villeneuve
2008 Ne deletion in Picard and in regional French: Evidence for distinct grammars. In Miriam Meyerhoff & Naomi Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language – Sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010La double expression des sujets en français saguenéen: étude variationniste. In Wim Remysen & Diane Vincent (eds.), Hétérogénéité et homogénéité dans les pratiques langagières: mélanges offerts à Denise Deshaies, 67–86. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Barnes, Betsy
1985The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Louise & Patricia Balcom
1998Le statut des pronoms personnels sujets en français acadien du nord-est du Nouveau-Brunswick. Linguistica atlantica 20. 1–27.Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Patrizia Cordin
1989Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter and parametric theory, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Heather & Julie Auger
2016Syntax, semantics and affect in Picard secondary negation. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on the Romance Languages (LSRL) 46, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, March 31–April 3.
Campion, Elizabeth
1984Left dislocation in Montréal French. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Clements, George N.
1990The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cochet, E.
1933Le patois de Gondecourt (Nord). Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan
2003Le redoublement du sujet en français parlé: une approche variationniste. In Anita Berit Hansen & Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (eds.), Structures linguistiques et interactionnelles dans le français parlé: actes du colloque international, Université de Copenhague du 22 au 23 juin 2001, 111–143. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
2005Subject doubling in spoken French: A sociolinguistic approach. The French Review 79(1). 96–111.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer
2010Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1). 85–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dagnac, Anne
2015‘Pas’, ‘mie’, ‘point’ et autres riens : de la négation verbale en picard. In Jan Goes & Mariana Pitar (eds.), La négation en français : études linguistiques, pragmatiques et didactiques, 129–152. Artois: Artois Presse Université. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dauby, Jean
1979Le livre du ‘rouchi’ parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Dawson, Alain
2008“Bienvenue chez les Chtis”: la langue opaque. Langues et cité 12(4).Google Scholar
2010Guide de conversation picard de poche. Paris: Asimil.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile
2007French Dislocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Debrie, René
1974Étude linguistique du patois de l’Amiénois. Amiens: Archives départementales de la Somme. Paris: Université de Paris dissertation (1960).
Edmont, Edmond
1897Lexique Saint-Polois. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. (Reprint of the original 1897 self-published edition).Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale
2000The change from pronoun to clitic to prefix and the rise of null subjects in spoken Swiss French. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
Fuβ, Eric
2005Rise of agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaglia, Sascha & Christoph Schwarze
2015The controversial status of Romance pronominal clitics – a new criterion. Linguistische Berichte 242. 103–139.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
1989The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Paul Kiparsky & Gilbert Youmans (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology; Rhythm and Meter, Volume 1, 201–260. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heap, David, Michèle Oliviéri & Katerina Palasis
2017Clitic pronouns. In Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 183–229. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horne, Merle
1990The clitic group as a prosodic category in old French. Lingua (82)1. 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hrkal, Ed
1910Grammaire historique du patois picard de Démuin. Revue de philologie française et de littérature 24. 118–140, 175–204, 241–277.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Jean-Yves Pollock
1978Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9(4). 595–621.Google Scholar
King, Ruth & Terry Nadasdi
1997Left dislocation, number marking, and (non-)standard French. Probus 9. 267–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landrecies, Jacques
2006Astérix, Cafougnette, Tintin et Martine ou le picard en tête de gondole. Nord’ 48. 63–90.Google Scholar
Ledieu, Alcius
1909Petite grammaire du patois picard. Paris: H. Welter.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Jenny Culbertson, Isabelle Barrière, Thierry Nazzi, & Louise Goyet
2010Experimental and empirical evidence for the status and acquisition of subject clitics and agreement marking in adult and child spoken French. In Vincent Torrens, Linda Escobar, Anna Gavarró, & Juncal Gutiérrez (eds.), Movement and clitics, 333–360. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Martineau, France & Raymond Mougeon
2003A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language 79(1). 118–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, Terry
1995Subject NP doubling, matching and minority French. Language Variation and Change 7(1). 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Variation grammaticale et langue minoritaire: le cas des pronoms clitiques en français ontarien. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel
1986Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oudin, Antoine
1632/1970Grammaire française rapportée du langage du temps. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.Google Scholar
Palasis, Katerina
2013The case for diglossia: Describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of metropolitan French. Journal of French Language Studies 23(1). 17–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Subject clitics and preverbal negation in European French: Variation, acquisition, diatopy and diachrony. Lingua 161. 125–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia
2000The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Remacle, Louis
1960Syntaxe du parler wallon de la Gleize. 3 volumes. Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1986On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalan (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves
1990The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
1982Usage linguistique et grammaticalisation: les clitiques sujets en français. In Norbert Dittmar & Brigitte Schlieben-Lange (eds.), Sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue romane, 81–85. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita
2003The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null subject language. Where are thou?. In Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001, 341–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston
1996Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme). Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, Claude Favre de
1647Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceus quiveulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: J. Camusat & P. le Petit (facsimile edition by Jeanne Streicher, Paris: Slatkine Reprints 1934)Google Scholar
Villeneuve, Anne-José & Julie Auger
2013 Chtileu qu’i m’freumereu m’bouque i n’est point coér au monne: Grammatical variation and diglossia in Picardie. Journal of French Language Studies 23(1). 109–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Irene
2009The status of the clitic group. In Janet Grijzenhout (ed.), Interface explorations: Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne
1994La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de linguistique et de philologie XXXII. 131–147.Google Scholar

Data sources

[Chl’autocar] Leclercq, Jean
1996Chl’autocar du Bourq-éd-Eut. Abbeville: Ch’Lanchron.Google Scholar
[Deglicourt] Deglicourt, Pierre
1987Un 31 d’octobe coeud…. Ch’Lanchron 29. 22–23.Google Scholar
[Dufrêne] Dufrêne, Jules
1991Quante o n’o pu qu’ses zius… pour braire. Ch’Lanchron 43. 10.Google Scholar
[JVasseur] Vasseur, Jehan
1996I n’feut point gadrouilleu ch’pain…. Ch’Lanchron 63. 8.Google Scholar
[Lettes] Vasseur, Gaston
2003Lettes à min cousin Polyte. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
[Réderies] Lecat, Charles
1977Réderies. Fressenneville: Imprimerie Carré.Google Scholar
[Rinchétte] Chivot, Eugène
1993Rinchétte. Abbeville: Ch’LanchronGoogle Scholar
[Viu temps] Vasseur, Gaston
1969Histoéres du viu temps. Abbeville: Imprimerie Lafosse.Google Scholar