Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 30, Frankfurt
Edited by Ingo Feldhausen, Martin Elsig, Imme Kuchenbrandt and Mareike Neuhaus
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15] 2019
► pp. 200218
References

References

Alboiu, Gabriela
2002The features of movement in Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E.
1996 “The Parsing of Prosody.” Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 17–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary, and Janet Pierrehumbert
1986Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli
2010 “Is topic a root phenomenon?Iberia 2(1): 43–88.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2016Praat – Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. http://​www​.praat​.org/ [Retrieved on June 13, 2016]
Bolinger, Dwight
1954 “English prosodic stress and Spanish sentence order.” Hispania 37: 152–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa
2009 “On links and tails in Italian.” Lingua 119: 756–781. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2012 “Predicate integration – phrase structure or argument structure?” In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, ed. by Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman, 27–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
2004 “Towards a cartography of subject positions.” The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume II: The structure of CP and IP, ed. by Luigi Rizzi, 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 “On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic”. In Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger, and Florian Schäfer, 3–40. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
1997 “The double subject construction in Romanian. Notes on the syntax of the subject.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 42 (3–4): 101–147.Google Scholar
Delfitto, Denis, and Jan Schroten
1992 “Bare plurals and the number affix in DP.” Probus 3 (2):155–185.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
1987Syntaxe du roumain. Chaînes thématiques. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
1994The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Bare nouns.” A Reference Grammar of Romanian. I: The Noun Phrase, ed. by Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea, 49–95. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Cornelia, and Stefan Hinterwimmer
2009 “The interpretation of topical indefinites as direct and indirect aboutness topics.” Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, ed. by Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 89–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1997The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007Information Structure. The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo
2010Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Intonation and preverbal subjects in Italian. Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), Köln (Germany), 118–121.Google Scholar
2016Inter-speaker variation, Optimality theory, and the prosody of clitic left-dislocations in Spanish. Probus 28 (2): 293–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl
2007 “Types of topics in German and Italian.” On information structure, meaning and form, ed. by Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 87–116. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Àngel J.
2007Phase Theory and Parametric Variation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Giurgea, Ion
2017a “Non-referential topical phrases in Romanian and the theory of topicality”. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 35–65.Google Scholar
2017b “Preverbal subjects and topic marking in Romanian”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 62 (3): 279–322.Google Scholar
Giurgea, Ion, and Eva-Maria Remberger
2012 “Zur informationsstrukturellen Konfiguration und Variation postverbaler Subjekte in den romanischen Null-Subjekt-Sprachen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 31:43–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giurgea, Ion and Eva-Maria Remberger
2014 “Polarity Fronting in Romanian and Sardinian.” Variation within and across Romance Languages. Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011, ed. by Marie-Hélène Côté and Eric Mathieu, 173–197. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward
2003Syntactic and Focus-structural Aspects of Triadic Constructions. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
1983 “Focus, Mode and the Nucleus.” Journal of Linguistics 19 (2): 377–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia
2002 “Adhering focus.” Linguistic Inquiry 33, (1): 164–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jitcă, Doina, Vasile Apopei, Otilia Păduraru, and Samuil Maruşca
2015 “Transcription of Romanian intonation.” Intonation in Romance, ed. by Sonia Frota and Pilar Prieto, 284–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert
2008Intonational Phonology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia
2001 “On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers.” Natural Language Semantics 9: 191–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia
1994 “On preverbal positions in Romanian.” Revue Canadienne de Linguistique / Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39: 15–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Pinto, Manuela
1997Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–93.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982Issues in Italian syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “On some properties of subjects and topics.” Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. by Laura Brugé, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert, and Giuseppina Turano, 63–82. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Ur Shlonsky
2006 “English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift.” Phases of Interpretation, ed. by Mara Frascarelli, 341–361. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Strategies of subject extraction.” Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland, Hans-Martin Gärtner, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F.
1976Aspects of English Sentence Stress. Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle
2006The EPP and null subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
2010‘Free inversion in Romance and the null subject parameter’. In Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan, 231–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soare, Gabriela
2009The Syntax-Information Structure Interface: A Comparative View from Romanian. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Solà i Pujols, Jaume
1992Agreement and Subjects. PhD disssertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina M.
2001 “Evidence for a Null Locative in Italian.” In Current Issues in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi, 313–326. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa
1998Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar