Cover not available
Part of
The Substance and Value of Italian Si
Joseph Davis
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 74] 2017
► pp. 245–250

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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunet, Jacqueline. 1994. Grammaire critique de l’italien 12: Un si ou deux . Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.). 1995. Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.). 2004. Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2008. Impersonal “si” Contructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph. 1992. Italian 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. “Rethinking the Place of Statistics in Columbia School Analysis.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 65–90. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. “Introduction.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. “Phonology Without the Phoneme.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 163–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “Latin Nominatives With and Without Verbs.” WORD 62(2): 91–108. DOI logoGoogle 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.). 2006. Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond its Origins. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, Bob. 1993. “The Existence of Synonyms in a Language: Two Forms but One, or Rather Two, Meanings?” Linguistics 31: 521–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio. 2000. Grande 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1975. The 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
2009. The Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs: Cognitive Constraints on Spanish Clitic Clustering. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzanti. Dizionario Garzanti della lingua italiana: Edizione minore. 1974. 5th ed. n.p.: Aldo Garzanti.Google Scholar
Gildin, Bonny L. 1989. Subject 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorup, Radmila. 1987. The 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. 1976. Cohesion 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “The Linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School”. WORD 52(1): 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Cognitive and Semiotic Modes of Explanation in Functional Grammar.” In Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 311–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Diver’s Theory.” In Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup, and Nancy Stern (eds.), pp. 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Introduction: The Enduring Legacy of William Diver.” In Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.), pp. 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Alan, and Joseph Davis (eds.). 2012. Language: 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1972. On 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. “Introduction: On Paradigms, Analyses, and Dialogue.” In Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.), pp. 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Qualitative-Quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leone, Alfonso. 1979. “Dal si riflessivo al si impersonale.” Lingua Nostra 40 (1): 112–123.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Anna Laura, and Giulio Lepschy. 1988. The 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. 1964. Économie 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, and Ana Celia Zentella. 2012. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pei, Mario. 1941. The 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. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Communicative Function of English Verb Number.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 1087–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern (eds.). 2002. Signal, Meaning, and Message. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Dal giardino della sintassi: Florilegio grammaticale italiano. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Russi, Cinzia. 2008. Italian Clitics: An Empirical Study. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabar, Nadav. 2016. A 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], 1981. Vladimiro Macchi (ed.). Reprinted 1983.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916/1972. Cours 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. 2001. The 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 1990. Semiotics and Linguistics. London / New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1997. Phonology 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987a. “Clitic Pronouns in Italian: A Linguistic Guide.” Italica 64, No. 3: 410–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987b. The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: From Latin to Old Romance (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 3.) Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 1995. SE-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. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar