The Substance and Value of Italian Si

| The City College of New York
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027215840 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027265272 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
This book offers an original treatment of the Italian clitic si. Sharply separating encoded grammar from inference in discourse, it proposes a unitary meaning for si, including impersonals, passives, and reflexives. Si signals third-person participancy but makes no distinctions of number, gender, or case role. The analysis advances the Columbia School framework by relying on just these straightforward oppositions, attributing variety of interpretation largely to language use rather than to grammar. The analysis places si within a network of oppositions involving all the other clitics. Data come primarily from twentieth-century and more recent published and on-line literature. The book will be of interest to functional linguists, students of reflexivity, and scholars of the Italian language.
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 74]  2017.  xiii, 257 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Foreword
x–xii
Acknowledgements
xiii
Chapter 1. What is si?
1–21
Chapter 2. Opting out of sex and number: Si vs. other impersonals
23–37
Chapter 3. The system of Focus on Participants
39–59
Chapter 4. The system of Degree of Control
61–87
Chapter 5. Scale of Degree of Control: The view from the bottom
89–109
Chapter 6. Scale of Degree of Control: The view from the top
111–137
Chapter 7. Grammatical constancy and lexical idiosyncrasy
139–163
Chapter 8. Grammar constrained by lexicon: The “inherently reflexive” verbs
165–177
Chapter 9. Number and gender with si used impersonally
179–199
Chapter 10. Other related matters
201–219
Chapter 11. Background and theory
221–242
Sources of data and translation, with abbreviations
243
References
245–250
Index of names
251–252
Subject index
253–257
“This book provides an original and innovative analysis of the entire Italian pronoun system, as well as enlightening critiques of such traditional linguistic concepts as transitive/intransitive, reflexive, impersonal, passive, and subject. A special strength is the close attention to examples drawn from actual language use, together with quantitative data in support of the author’s analysis.”
“A richly compelling and highly innovative study of one of the most intractable problems in the syntax of Italian, and of Romance more generally. Davis offers a rigorous semantic analysis demonstrating that the received categories of traditional and formal syntax and semantics represent a blind alley, and that an analysis based on contextualized evidence transcending the boundaries of the sentence produces a much deeper understanding of the underlying principles that actually guide the use of language.”
“Do not be fooled by the title! Davis’s exquisite, well-written book deserves to be read by anyone and everyone interested in the semantic and pragmatic analysis of grammatical systems (no matter their own theoretical background).”
References

Sources of data and translation, with abbreviations

BB Berto, Giuseppe 1951Il brigante. n.p.: Einaudi.Google Scholar
CV Calvino, Italo 1951Il visconte dimezzato. New York: Appleton 1968.Google Scholar
  Carollo, Alberto, and Maria Cristina Sottil 1994Vicenza: Città di campane. Vicenza: Esca.Google Scholar
Colq. Colquhoun, Archibald 1960The Leopard. Transl. of Il gattopardo, by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
DD De Carlo, Andrea 1989Due di due. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  Devoto, Giacomo 1951Gli antichi italici. 2nd edition. Firenze: Vallecchi.Google Scholar
  Holland, Lydia 1973The Woman of Rome. Transl. of La romana, by Alberto Moravia. New York: Manor.Google Scholar
LG Lampedusa, Giuseppe Tomasi di 1958Il gattopardo. Milano: Feltrinelli 1984.Google Scholar
MA Mattioni, Stelio 1980Il richiamo di Alma. Milano: Adelphi.Google Scholar
MI Montanelli, Indro 1976L’Italia in camicia nera. Milano: Rizzoli 1977.Google Scholar
MR Moravia, Alberto 1949La romana. Milano: Bompiani 1965.Google Scholar
RS Rigoni Stern, Mario 1962Il sergente nella neve: Ricordi della ritirata di Russia. Torino: Einaudi 1964.Google Scholar
RL Ronconi, Alessandro 1948 “Lucrezio nel bimillenario.” La natura, by Lucrezio. n.p.: Garzanti 1982 xv–xxix.Google Scholar
RG Russoli, Franco 1974 “Il sogno della ragione produce mostri.” Goya. Franco Russoli (ed.). I Maestri del Colore 2. Milano: Fabbri.Google Scholar
SC Sciascia, Leonardo 1963Il consiglio d’Egitto. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
SP Silone, Ignazio 1937Pane e vino. Lugano: Capolago.Google Scholar
TD Tabucchi, Antonio 1983Donna di Porto Pim: E altre storie. Palermo: Sellerio.Google Scholar
VU Vittorini, Elio 1945Uomini e no. Verona: Mondadori 1974.Google Scholar

References

Achard, Michele
2010 “Fields and Settings: French il and ça Impersonals in Copular Complement Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 21–3, 443–500.Google Scholar
Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges: Founded on Comparative Grammar
1888 Updated by Anne Mahoney. Newburyport, Mass.: R. Pullins 2001.Google Scholar
Bantam New College Italian & English Dictionary
1976 New York: Bantam Books. Fourth printing 1980.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer
1994 “A Schema-Based Approach to Grammatical Description.” In The Reality of Linguistic Rules (Vol. 26, Studies in Language Companion Series), Susan D. Lima, Roberta Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Battaglia, Salvatore
. Grande dizionario della lingua italiana. (Various dates 1961–2000) Torino: Unione Tipografico.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1966 “La nature des pronoms.” Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1. n.p.: Gallimard, pp. 251–257.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder
2012 “A Usage-based Theory of Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization.” Language 88: 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, Jacqueline
1994 Grammaire critique de l’italien 12: Un si ou deux . Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1981Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
1986Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
2014Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Paul Hopper
(eds.) 2001Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1982Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1988On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry 19, 521–581.Google Scholar
Collins Sansoni Italian Dictionary
1981 2nd ed. Firenze: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen
1995 “Introduction: On Linguistic Sign Theory.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
2011 “And Now for Something Completely Different: Reid on English Verb Number.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29 (Topic/Comment Special: Phi-feature Inflection and Agreement), 1147–1162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg
(eds.) 1995Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller
(eds.) 2004Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cordin, Patrizia
1991 “I pronomi riflessivi.” Ch. XII of Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, a cura di Lorenzo Renzi, vol. I, Bologna: Il Mulino, third edition.Google Scholar
Crupi, Charlene
2006 “Structuring Cues of Conjunctive yet, but, and still: A Monosemic Approach.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 263–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D'Alessandro, Roberta
2004 “Impersonal si Constructions. How Semantics Determines Agreement.” In: K. Moulton & M. Wolf (eds). Proceedings of NELS 34: 61–73.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta
2006 “Is Impersonal si in Italian Definite or Indefinite?.” WECOL 2004 (Proceedings of the Thirty-third Western Conference On Linguistics, edited by M. T. Martínez, A. Alcazár, and R. M. Hernández): 64.Google Scholar
2008Impersonal “si” Contructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph
1992Italian egli and lui: Grammatical Meaning and Inference. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York. UMI 9313892.Google Scholar
1995a “Italian Pronouns and the Virtue of Relative Meaninglessness.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), pp. 423–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995b “The Linguistic Sign as Unifying Principle Behind Syntactic Peculiarities: The Italian Clitic ne .” CLS 31: Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2: The Parasession on Clitics, 79–90.Google Scholar
2000 “On Abstinence and Abdication: Italian si .” Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of Columbia School Linguistics, Feb. 2000, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
2002a “A Surpassingly Simple Analysis.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 113–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002b “Rethinking the Place of Statistics in Columbia School Analysis.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 65–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a “The Linguistics of William Diver and the Linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure.” In History of Linguistics in Texts and Concepts. Vol. 1, Gerda Haßler and Gesina Volkmann (eds.), Münster: Nodus, pp. 307–326.Google Scholar
2004b “Revisiting the Gap Between Meaning and Message.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.), pp. 155–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006a “Introduction.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b “Phonology Without the Phoneme.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 163–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a “Latin Nominatives With and Without Verbs.” WORD 62(2): 91–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b “Substance and Structure in Columbia School Linguistics.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: 1–11.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern
(eds.) 2006Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond its Origins. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, Bob
1993 “The Existence of Synonyms in a Language: Two Forms but One, or Rather Two, Meanings?Linguistics 31: 521–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio
2000Grande dizionario italiano dell’uso. Torino: Unione Tipografico.Google Scholar
Diver, William
1969/2012 “The System of Relevance of the Homeric Verb.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 135–159.Google Scholar
1970/2012 “Avoidance of the Obvious: The Pronoun as a Minimax Solution.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 247–263.Google Scholar
1974/2012 “Substance and Value in Linguistic Analysis.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
1975/2012 “The Nature of Linguistic Meaning.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 47–63.Google Scholar
1984 “The Grammar of Greek and the Grammar of Latin.” Unpublished MS, Department of Linguistics, Columbia University. Various dates for class use.Google Scholar
1986 “The Latin Precursors of the ‘Romance Reflexive.’” In Studies in Romance Linguistics, Oswaldo Jaeggli and Carmen Silva-Corvalàn (eds.), Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 8 (1987): 115–141.Google Scholar
1986/2012 “Latin se .” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 279–289.Google Scholar
1987/2012 “The Dual.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 87–99.Google Scholar
1990/2012 “The Elements of a Science of Language.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
1992a/2012 “The Latin Demonstratives.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 265–277.Google Scholar
1992b/2012 “The Subjunctive Without Syntax.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 183–193.Google Scholar
1995/2012 “Theory.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 445–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diver, William, and Joseph Davis
2012 “Latin Voice and Case.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp.195–245.Google Scholar
Diver, William, Joseph Davis, and Wallis Reid
2012 “Traditional Grammar and its Legacy in Twentieth-Century Linguistics.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 371–443.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
1998 “Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin
1986The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
García, Erica C.
1975The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1983 “Context Dependence of Language and of Linguistic Analysis.” In Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), New York: Academic, pp. 181–207.Google Scholar
2009The Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs: Cognitive Constraints on Spanish Clitic Clustering. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garzanti. Dizionario Garzanti della lingua italiana: Edizione minore
1974 5th ed. n.p.: Aldo Garzanti.Google Scholar
Gildin, Bonny L.
1989Subject Order in French: A Signal-Meaning Analysis. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York. UMI 9005873.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Barbara Sussman
1995 “The -ra and -se Opposition in Spanish.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), pp. 381–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorup, Radmila
1987The Semantic Organization of the Serbo-Croatian Verb. München: Otto Sagner. (Slavische Beiträge. 214.)Google Scholar
2006 “ Se Without Deixis.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan
1977 “Traditional Grammar vs. the French Verb – A Study of the French Compound Verb Tense Auxiliaries: avoir and être .” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4: 79–125. Reprinted Summer 1978.Google Scholar
1997 The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “The Linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School”. WORD 52(1): 29–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Cognitive and Semiotic Modes of Explanation in Functional Grammar.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 311–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Diver’s Theory.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 41–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Introduction: The Enduring Legacy of William Diver.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis
(eds.) 2012Language: Communication and Human Behavior. The Linguistic Essays of William Diver. Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A. J. M.
1995 “Deixis from a Cognitive Point of View.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), pp. 245–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirnser, Robert S.
1969 “The Role of zullen in the Grammar of Modern Standard Dutch.” Lingua 24: 101–154.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1972On Deixis and Degree of Differentiation in Modern Standard Dutch. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York. UMI 739027.Google Scholar
1979 “Deixis in Discourse: An Exploratory Quantitative Study of the Modern Dutch Demonstrative Adjectives.” In Discourse and Syntax: Vol. 12. Syntax and Semantics, Talmy Givón (ed.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 355–375.Google Scholar
1989 “Does Sign-oriented Linguistics Have a Future? On the Falsifiability of Theoretical Constructs.” In From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication, Yishai Tobin (ed.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 161–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “From Meaning to Message in Two Theories: Cognitive and Saussurean Views of the Modern Dutch Demonstratives. In Conceptualiz;ation and Mental Processing in Language, R. Geiger and B. Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.). [Cognitive Linguistics Research 3]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 81–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirnser, Robert S.
1996 “The Human Factor and the Insufficiency of Invariant Meanings.” In Towards a Calculus of Meaning: Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features, and Deixis, Edna Andrews and Yishai Tobin (eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
2002 “The Future of a Minimalist Linguistics in a Maximalist World.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 339–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Introduction: On Paradigms, Analyses, and Dialogue.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.), pp. 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Qualitative-Quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2004 “Form, Meaning, and Behavior: The Cognitive Grammar Analysis of Double Subject Constructions.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.), pp. 21–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leone, Alfonso
1979 “Dal si riflessivo al si impersonale.” Lingua Nostra 40 (1): 112–123.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Anna Laura, and Giulio Lepschy
1988The Italian Language Today. 2nd edition. New York: New Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita Maria
1986 “On Italian Si .” Syntax and Semantics, vol. 19, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Hagit Borer (ed.). Orlando: Academic, 241–262.Google Scholar
Martinet, André
1964Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: A. Francke.Google Scholar
Mutz, Katrin
2012 “ SE-verbs, SE-forms or SE-constructions? SE and its Transitional Stages Between Morphology and Syntax.” In Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 319–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo
1976 The Two Si’s of Italian: An Analysis of the Reflexive, Inchoative, and Indefinite Subject Sentences in Modern Italian . Georgetown University, reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo
2002 “Saussurean Anti-nomenclaturism in Grammatical Analysis: A Comparative Theoretical Perspective.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 373–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, and Nancy Stern
2000 “The Acategorical Lexicon and the Pairing Strategies: A Critical Account of Inherent Gender in Spanish.” In Between Grammar and Lexicon, edited by Ellen Contini-Morava and Yishai Tobin, 123–157. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, and Ana Celia Zentella
2012Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pei, Mario
1941The Italian Language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1978 “The Unaccusative Hypothesis and Multiattachment: Italian Evidence.” Paper presented to the Harvard Linguistics Circle.
Perlmutter, David M., and Carol G. Rosen
1984Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis
1991Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1995 “Quantitative Analysis in Columbia School Theory.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), pp. 115–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Introduction: Sign-Based Linguistics” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. ix–xxi.Google Scholar
2006 “Columbia School and Saussure’s langue .” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 17–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “The Communicative Function of English Verb Number.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 1087–1146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern
(eds.) 2002Signal, Meaning, and Message. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Carol
1982 “The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the ‘Inherent Clitic’ Phenomenon in Italian.” Papers from the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 18, 530–541. Republished in Italian as Chapter 2 of Rosen 2012.Google Scholar
1987 “Star Means Bad: A Syntactic Divertimento for Italianists.” Italica 64(3): 443–476. Republished in Italian as Chapter 1 of Rosen 2012. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Dal giardino della sintassi: Florilegio grammaticale italiano. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Russi, Cinzia
2008Italian Clitics: An Empirical Study. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabar, Nadav
2016A Meaning Hypothesis to Explain Speakers’ Choice of the Sign look . Ph.D. diss., The City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella
1993 “Some Differences in Auxiliary Selection Between Italian and Italian Dialects.” Paper presented at the American Association of Italian Studies, April 15–18, 1993, University of Texas, Austin.
Sansoni
. The Sansoni Dictionaries: English-Italian: Italian-English [I dizionari Sansoni: Inglese-italiano: Italiano-inglese] 1981Vladimiro Macchi (ed.). Reprinted 1983.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1916/1972Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Stefanini, Ruggero
1983 “Riflessivo, impersonale e passivo in italiano e fiorentino.” Quaderni dell’atlante lessicale toscano 1: 103–114.Google Scholar
Stern, Nancy
2001The Meaning and Use of English -self Pronouns. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Center, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
2004a “The Semantic Unity of Reflexive, Emphatic, and Other -self Pronouns.” American Speech 79(3): 270–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “A Sign-Based Analysis of English Pronouns in Conjoined Expressions.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.), pp. 219–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Tell Me About Yourself: A Unified Account of English -self Pronouns.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 177–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, Yishai
1987 “Three Sign-Oriented Linguistic Theories: A Contrastive Approach”. In Descriptio Linguistica, H. Bluhme & G. Hammarström (eds.). Tübingen: Gunther Narr, pp. 51–75.Google Scholar
1990Semiotics and Linguistics. London / New York: Longman.Google Scholar
1997Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham / London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter
1977 “On the Order of Clitics in Italian.” Lingua 43: 101–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987a “Clitic Pronouns in Italian: A Linguistic Guide.” Italica 64, No. 3: 410–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987bThe Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: From Latin to Old Romance (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 3.) Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Barbara
1995SE-Diathese im italienischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Zubin, David
1979 “Discourse Function of Morphology: The Focus System in German.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón and C. Li (eds.). New York: Academic, pp. 469–504.Google Scholar
Zubin, David, and K. -M. Köpke
1981 “Gender: A Less than Arbitrary Grammatical Category.” Chicago Linguistic Society 17: 439–449.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1977On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Davis, Joseph
2018.  In Questioning Theoretical Primitives in Linguistic Inquiry [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 76],  pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
Hesseltine, Kelli & Joseph Davis
2020. The communicative function of adjective-noun order in English. <i>WORD</i> 66:3  pp. 166 ff. Crossref logo
Reid, Wallis
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 103 ff. Crossref logo
Stern, Nancy
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017018283 | Marc record