Part of
Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 85104
References (24)
References
Aboh, E. O. (2004). Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 21, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2006). Clitic doubling. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 519–581). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F., & Roca, F. (2018). DOM and DP layers in Romance. Paper presented at the international workshop DOM in Romance – Towards microvariation, Inalco, Paris, November.
Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2004). The status of case. In V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (Eds), Clause structure in South Asian languages. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, D. (2008). A estrutura interna dos pronomes pessoais em português (Tese (Doutorado em Linguística). Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delfitto, D. (2002). On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diniz, C. R. (2007). Eu te amo você: O redobro de pronomes clíticos sob uma abordagem minimalista (Dissertação de Mestrado). UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Fale.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1987). Syntaxe du Roumain: Chaines Thématiques. Thêse de Doctorat d’État. Université de Paris 7.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. (2006). Parallels in clausal and nominal pheriphery. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation: Studies in generative grammar (pp. 163–186). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. (2012). On force and case, fin and num. In V. Bianchi & C. Chesi (Eds.), Enjoy linguistics! (pp. 205–217). Centro Interdipartimentali di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (2004). DP-periphery and clausal periphery: Possessor doubling in West Flemish. In D. Adger, C. De Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 211–240). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2019). Patterns for differential object marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Syntax, 3, 1–47.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rocha, R. M. (2016). O redobro de clítico no português brasileiro dialetal (Tese, Doutorado em Linguística). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG.Google Scholar
Rocha, R. M., & Ramos, J. (2016). Clitic doubling and pure agreement person features. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 24(2), 378–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer & K. É. Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (pp. 179–274). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2014). The universal structure of categories. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar