Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 28, Lisbon
Edited by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10] 2016
► pp. 122
Adger, D., and Ramchand, G
2005 “Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited.” Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (2): 161–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauche, H
1928Le langage populaire: Grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu’on le parle dans le peuple de Paris, avec tous les termes d’argot usuel. Payot, Paris.Google Scholar
Béjar, S
2003Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E
1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia
1991Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Burzio, L
1986Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Springer Science & Business Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991The morphological basis of anaphora.” Journal of Linguistics 27: 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 “On the Morphology of Reflexives and Impersonals.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, ed. By C. Lauefer and T. Morgan, 399–414. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagareka, 89–153. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Costa, J. and Pereira, S
2013 “ A gente: pronominal status and agreement revisited”, The Linguistic Review 30 (2): 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz A
1993 “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In The View From Building 20, ed. by K. Hale and S.J. Keyser, 111- 176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, .Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E
2002 “Person and Number in Pronouns. A feature-geometric analysis of person and number.” Language, 78: 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1992 “Mme Tussaud meets the binding theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaminszczik, S. and A. Saab
2015 “Reflexivization patterns in ditransitive sentences.Consequences for thematic theory.” [URL].
Kayne, R.S
2003 “Person Morphemes and Reflexives in Italian, French and Related Languages.” In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, ed. by C. Tortora, 102–136. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 “Some Silent First Person Plurals.” In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition, ed. by J.M. Brucart, A. Gavarro, and J. Sola, 276–292. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2009 “Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry. 40: 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lara, V
2012 “ Ustedes instead of vosotros and vocês instead of vós: an analysis through the Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula (ALPI)”, Dialectologia, Special Issue III: 57–93.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H
1989 “On The Necessity of Binding Conditions.” In Essays on anaphora, 149–167. Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M.R., and L. Savoia
2008Work notes on Romance morphosyntax. Ed. dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria
2009 “Subject doubling in EP dialects: the role of impersonal se .” In Romance languages and linguistic theory, ed. by Enoch O. Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer and Petra Sleeman, 179–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noyer, R.R
1992.Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., and Romero, J
2007 “The object agreement constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2): 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pescarini, Diego
2010 “ Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from clitic clusters.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 427–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J., and Vanden Wyngaerd, G.J
2011Dissolving binding theory. Oxford University Press, USA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, H
2004 “First and second person pronouns as bound variables.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1): 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.A
1996 “Icelandic Finite Verb Agreement.” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael
2009 “On the pronominal status of Brazilian Portuguese a gente .” In NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol 2: Papers in Syntax. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassilieva, M.B
2005Associative and pronominal plurality (Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Alcaraz, Alejo
2018. The spurious vs. dative problem. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 13],  pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.