Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 21:2 (1997) ► pp. 461467
References
Banniard, Michel
1989Genèse culturelle de l’Europe (Ve  – Ville siècle). Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
1993 “Latin tardif et français prélitteraire”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 881:139–62.Google Scholar
De Dardel, Robert
1987 “Limites et possibilités de la reconstruction syntaxique”. Lingvisticae Investigationes 111:337–56.Google Scholar
1989 “L’hypothèse d’une base OVS en protoroman”, Probus 11:121–43.Google Scholar
De Dardel, Robert and Wüest, Jakob
1993 “Les systèmes casuels du protoroman. Les deux cycles de simplification”, Vox Romanica 521:25–65.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. (Jr.
) 1976Proto-Romance phonology. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
) 1983Proto-Romance morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1991/1996 “Evidence for SVO in Latin?” In: Wright, R. (ed.), 69–82.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin
1987Archaeology and language. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Seidl, Christian
1995 “Le système casuel des protoromans ibérique et sarde: combien de cas contenait-il?”. In Callebat, L. (ed.), Latin vulgaire  – latin tardif IV, Hildesheim: Olms-Wiedmann, 93–102.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter
1987The development of Romance clitic pronouns: from Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger
1982Late Latin and Early Romance. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
1995Early Ibero-Romance. Newark, Delaware: Juan de la Cuesta.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1991/1996Latin and the Romance languages in the Early Middle Ages. London: Routledge; paperback reprint, Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.Google Scholar