References

Referencias

Alboiu, G., M. Barrie y C. Frigeni
(2004): SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox. Antwerp papers in linguistics. Universiteit Antwerp, pp. 109–39.Google Scholar
Benincà, P., M. Parry y D. Pescarini
(2016): The dialects of northern Italian, en: Ledgeway, A., y M. Maiden. (eds.): The Oxford guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 185–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I.
(2018): La reflexividad paso a paso, en: Rangponsumrit, N., D. Gutiérrez Menéndez, A. Aguilella Asensi, J. M. Blanco Pena y E. Moreno Salazar. (eds.): Actas del ix congreso internacional de la asociación asiática de hispanistas, pp. 15–58.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D.
(1984): On the content of empty categories. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1994): Weak anaphora, en: Cinque, G., J. Koster, L. Rizzi y R. Zanauttini (eds.): Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard Kayne. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I., F. Adani, y N. Hyams
(2009) The online processing of French reflexives: Experimental evidence for an unaccusative analysis, en: Yokio, O.. (ed.): Proceedings of 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hitsuji Shobo, Tokio.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981): Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Doron, E. y M. Rappaport Hovav
(2009): A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 75–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
(2004): Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations, en: Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, y M. Everaert. (eds.): The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 137–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A.
(2007): On the nature of long-distance anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2), pp. 321–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1990): Argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I.
(1992): Catalan. Routledge, Londres. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1992): Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(1), pp. 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P.
(1999): Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 221, pp. 117–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaminszczik, S. y A. Saab
(2016): Patrones de reflexivización en oraciones ditransitivas: consecuencias para la teoría temática. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 431, pp. 149–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1975): French syntax: The transformational cycle, vol. 301. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(1993): Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia linguistica. 47(1), pp. 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000): A note on clitic doubling in French, en: Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1996): Severing the external argument from its verb, en: J. Rooryck y L. Zaring. (eds.): Phrase structure and the lexicon. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M.
(2008): The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4), pp. 833–876. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G.
(2017): Auxiliaries, en: Dufter, A., y E. Stark. (eds.): Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. De Gruyter, Berlín/Boston, pp. 272–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. y L. Savoia
(2011): Grammatical categories: Variation in Romance languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1984): On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marelj, M. y E. Reuland
(2016): Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the lexicon-syntax parameter, en: Everaert, M., M. Marelj y E. Reuland. (eds.): Concepts, syntax, and their interface: The theta system, pp. 175–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J. y J. Romero
(2013): Object clitics, agreement, and dialectal variation. Probus 251, pp. 301–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pujalte, M. y A. Saab
(2012): Syncretism as PF-repair: The case of SE-insertion in Spanish, en: M. C. Cuervo y Y. Roberge. (eds.): The end of argument structure?. Brill, Bradford, pp. 229–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. y E. Reuland
(1993): Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, pp. 657–720.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. y T. Siloni
(2005): The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic inquiry 36(3), pp. 389–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E.
(2018): Reflexives and reflexivity. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1), pp. 81–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. y Y. Winter
(2009): Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors, en: Devi, S., A. Branco y R. Mitkov. (eds.): Discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium. Springer, Berlín, pp. 69–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigau, G.
(1988): Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3), pp. 503–511.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. y G. Vanden Wyngaerd
(1999): Simplex and complex reflexives in French and Dutch, en: Coene, M., W. De Mulder, P. Dendale y Y. D’Hulst. (eds.): Traiani augusti vestigia pressa sequamur. studia lingvistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski. Unipress, Padua, pp. 617–639.Google Scholar
Saab, A.
(2020): Deconstructing Voice. The syntax and semantics of u-syncretrism in Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
(2014): Assessing unaccusativity and reflexivity: using focus alternatives to decide what gets which θ-role. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2), pp. 305–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1995): On the nature of clitic doubling, en: Campos, H., y P. Kempchinsky. (eds.): Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 399–418.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1995): Some Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 261, pp. 79–123.Google Scholar
Zdrojewski, P.
(2008): ¿Por quién doblan los clíticos?. Tesis de maestría inédita, Universidad Nacional del Comahue.Google Scholar
Zec, D.
(1985): Objects in Serbo-Croatian, en: Niepokuj, M., M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou, y D. Feder. (eds.): Annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society, pp. 358–371.Google Scholar