Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015
Edited by Michela Cennamo and Claudia Fabrizio
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348] 2019
► pp. 343–384

Chapter 17
Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection

This paper undertakes a synchronic comparison of auxiliary selection across a number of different Romance varieties that show how minimal differences among otherwise highly homogenous ‘systems’ can be used to investigate microvariation along the diachronic axis in order to better understand what precisely may vary and how such variation may be implicationally structured in relation to the predictions of parametric hierarchies. Modelling changes in different auxiliary patterns in terms of parametric hierarchies, I argue that the structural organization of such hierarchies and the predictions they make about markedness relations between different linguistic choices can be profitably used, especially when earlier stages of languages are not documented, to understand the direction of change, what precisely may change, and how such diachronic variation may be implicationally structured.
Keywords: auxiliary selection, parameters, Romance, mood, tense, person, microvariation, features, parameter hierarchies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Romance auxiliary selection: Mesoparametric variation
  • 3.Microparametric variation: Person-driven systems
    • 3.1Modal and temporal distinctions
    • 3.2Number restrictions
    • 3.3Saliency of individual discourse participants
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.Microparameric variation: Argument-driven systems
    • 4.1Modal and temporal restrictions
    • 4.2Person and number restrictions
    • 4.3Restrictions on stative subjects (SO)
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.17led
References (136)
References
Adams, James. 1976. A typological approach to Latin word order. Indogermanische Forschungen 81. 70–99.Google Scholar
Adams James. 2013. Past participle + habeo . In James Adams, Social variation and the Latin language, 615–651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alturo Monné, Núria. 1995. La variació d’haver auxiliar en el català nord-occidental. In Maria Teresa Turell Julià (ed.), La sociolingüística de la variació, 221–255. Barcelona: PPU.Google Scholar
Andriani, Luigi. 2017. The syntax of the dialect of Bari. University of Cambridge: unpublished thesis.Google Scholar
Aub-Büscher, Gertrud. 1962. Le Parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas Rhin). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa. 1994. Auxiliary configurations in English and Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique 5–6. 493–510.Google Scholar
Avram, Larisa & Virginia Hill. 2007. An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian. In Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective, 47–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008a. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauche, Henri. 1946. Le Langage populaire. Grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu’on le parle dans le peuple avec tous les termes d’argot usuel. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola, Mair Parry, Mair & Diego Pescarini. 2016. The dialects of northern Italy. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford Univrsity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Principles of subject markedness in Romance. Archivio glottologico italiano 95. 152–189.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2001. Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance. In Laura Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, 63–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114. 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1950. Actif et moyen dans le verbe. Journal de Psychologie 43. 119–127. Reprinted in Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I, 168–175. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1960. “Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris 55. 113–134. Reprinted in Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I, 187–207. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1965. Structure des relations d’auxiliarité. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 9. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Robert. 2017. Conditional inversion and types of parametric change. In Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan (eds). Verb-second languages: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade 55-77. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan. 2014. No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation, in Robert Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31, 46–55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1999. Inaccusatività tardo-latina e suoi riflessi in testi italiani antichi centro-meridionali. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 115. 300–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. L’inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane: Teorie e dati a confronto. In Albano Leoni et al.. (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXIII congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, 427–453. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 2002. La selezione degli ausiliari perfettivi in napoletano antico: Fenomeno sintattico o sintattico-semantico. Archivio glottologico italiano 87. 175–222.Google Scholar
. 2008. The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance. In Þórhallur EyÞórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the Rosendal papers, 115–142 Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 210–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela & Antonella Sorace. 2007. Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexicon interface: Evidence from Paduan. In Raul Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective, 65–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiominto, Cesare. 1984. Lo parlà forte della pora ggente. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colasanti, Valentina. 2019. A comparative approach to morphosyntactic microvariation. The dialects of southern Lazio. University of Cambridge: doctoral thesis.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Cocchi, Gloria. 1995. La selezione dell’ausiliare. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway. 2010. The Abruzzese T-v system: Feature spreading and the double auxiliary construction. In Roberta D’Alesssandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, 201–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null‐subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dauby, Jean. 1979. Le livre du “rouchi”. Parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Descusses, Martine. 1986. Le Patois ardennais de Gespunsart. Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeriy Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina. 2010. Ergativitatea. Tipologie, sintaxă, semantică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina & Alexandru Nicolae. 2009. Relics of auxiliary selection in Romanian. Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest and University of Bucharest: unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Flutre, Louis-Fernand. 1955. Le Parler picard de Mesnil-Martinsart (Somme). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavours of v. Consuming results in Italian and in English. In Paul Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68. 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganzoni, Gian Paul. 1983. Grammatica ladina: Grammatica sistematica dal rumantsch d’Engiadina Bassa per scolars e creschüts da lingua rumantscha e francesa. Samedan: Lia Romantscha.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly, Michela Cennamo & Johanna Barðdal (eds). 2013. Argument structure in flux. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giancarli, Pierre-Don. 2011. Les auxiliaires être et avoir: Étude comparée corse, français, acadien et anglais . Rennes: Presses Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Guiraud, Pierre. 1969. Le Français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1981. On the position of Warlpiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington, IN: IULC.Google Scholar
. 1982. Preliminary remarks on configurationality. North East Linguistic Society 12. 86–96.Google Scholar
. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1. 5–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language 78. 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heap, David & Michèle Oliviéri. 2013. On the emergence of nominative clitics in Romance dialects. Presentation at the workshop European Dialect Syntax VII, University of Constance, 13–15 juin 2013.Google Scholar
Hendschel, Lorint. 2012. Li Croejhete walone: Contribution à une grammaire de la langue wallonne. [URL]
Huang, James. 1982. Logic relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Iannace, Gaetano. 1983. Interferenza linguistica ai confini fra Stato e Regno. Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients to counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47. 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Microparametric syntax. Some introductory remarks. In James Black & Virginia Montapanyane (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialectal variation, ix–xviii Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), Handbook of comparative syntax, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Ruth & Terry Nadasdi. 2005. Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient mourir en français acadien. In Patrice Brasseur & Anika Falkert (eds.), Français d’Amérique: Approches morphosyntaxiques, 103–111. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lacetera, Michele. 1982. Zagarolo. Un dialetto, una cultura, un modo di essere. Rome: Trevi.Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1988. Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
. 1997. Per una teoria grammaticale del mutamento morfosintattico. Dal latino verso il romanzo. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2003. L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo avere nell’antico napoletano: Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali. Archivio glottologico italiano 88. 27–71.Google Scholar
. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change in Latin and Romance. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, 382–471, 724–734. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012a. From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. From Latin to Romance: The rise of configurationality, functional categories and head-marking. In Johanna Barδdal, Michela Cennamo & Elly van Gelderen (eds.), Variation and change in argument realisation. Oxford: Blackwell. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society 110. 422–442.Google Scholar
. 2013. Greek disguised as Romance? The case of southern Italy. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph, Angela Ralli & Metin Bagriacik (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Greek dialects and linguistic theory, 184–228. Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras. <[URL]>.Google Scholar
. 2014a. Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula & Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian, 3–35. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Parametrului poziţiei centrului şi efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romance. In Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu & Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române, 11–26. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
. 2015. Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation. Revue roumaine de linguistique LX. 105–127.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Functional categories. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 761–771. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Grammatiche diacroniche e teoria linguistica. In Marina Benedetti, Carla Bruno & Liana Tronci (eds), Grammatiche e Grammatici. Teorie, Testi e Contesti. Atti del XXXIX Convegno Annuale della Società Italiana di Glottologia, 39–51 (Università per Stranieri di Siena 23–25 ottobre 2014). Rome: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Syntheticity and analyticity. In Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 837–884. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. Parameters in Romance adverb agreement. In Martin Hummel & Salvador Valera (eds.), Adjective–adverb interfaces in Romance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2018. On the decline of edge-fronting from Latin to Romance. In Adriana Cardosa & Ana Maria Martins (eds.), Word order change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. In press a. From Latin to Romance syntax: The great leap. In Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds.), The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. In press b. Rethinking microvariation in Romance demonstrative systems. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer & Sten Vikner (eds), Festschrift (Open Generative Syntax Series). Language Science Press.
Ledgeway, Adam & Ian Roberts. 2017. Principles and parameters. In Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, 581–628. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2010. A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance. In Roberta D’Alesssandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 186–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
. 1999. L’ausiliazione perfettiva nelle parlate di Zagarolo e di Colonna e lo studio della sintassi dei dialetti median. Contributi di filologia dell’Italia mediana 13. 203–226.Google Scholar
. 2007. On triple auxiliation. Linguistics 45. 173–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Auxiliary selection and participial agreement. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 802–818. Oxford: Oxford Univrsity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphophonological innovation. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 1: Structures, 216–267, 706–613. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden Martin. 2016. Morphomes. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 708–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Cecilia Robustelli. 2007. A reference grammar of modern Italian. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Manente, Mara. 2008. L’aspect, les auxiliaires “être” et “avoir” et l’hypothèse inaccusative dans une perspective comparative français/italien. Universities of Venice and Paris VIII: Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 vols). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, Jules. 1949. L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
. 1953. L’ordre des mots en latin. Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Migliori, Laura. 2016. Argument structure, alignment and auxiliaries between Latin and Romance. A diachronic syntactic account. Utrecth: LOT.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia. 2000, Comparative studies in Romanian syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Nevaci, Manuela & Aida Todi. 2009. The grammaticalization of perfect auxiliaries in Romanian. Historical and dialectal aspects. Revue roumaine de linguistique 54. 137–150.Google Scholar
Nordahl, Helge. 1977. Assez avez alé: estre et avoir comme auxiliaires du verbe aler en ancient français. Revue romane 12. 54–67.Google Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle. 2011. Typology or reconstruction: The benefits of dialectology for diachronic analysis. In Janine Berns, Heike Jacobs & Tobias Scheer (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009, 239–253. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle Patrick Sauzet. 2016, Southern Gallo-Romance (Occitan). In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 319–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oniga, Renato. 2004. Il latino. Breve introduzione linguistica. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela. 2013. The participle. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The grammar of Romanian, 222––232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, Jonathan. 2010. Hyperbaton and register in Cicero. In Eleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, 163–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rea, Béatrice. 2014. Aspects of pronoun and auxiliary morphology in French, with particular reference to spoken Montréal French. University of Oxford: MPhil thesis.Google Scholar
Remacle, Louis. 1956. Syntaxe du parler wallon de La Gleize. Paris: Les Belles lettres.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2014. The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1331–1386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. The pronominal domain: DP-NP structure, clitics and null subjects. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 3–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Macroparameters and minimalism. A programme for comparative research. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopez & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 320–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Revue roumaine de linguistique 58. 3–30.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation. Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.Google Scholar
Rovai, Francesco. 2012. Sistemi di codifica argomentale. Tipologia ed evoluzione. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian & Pierrette Thibault. 1977. L’alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal. Langue française 34. 84–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection. In Artemis Alexiadou, Martin Everaert & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds), The unaccusativity puzzle, 243–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Gradience in split intransitivity: The end of the Unaccusative Hypothesis? Archivio glottologico italiano 96. 67–86.Google Scholar
Stolova, Natalya. 2006. Split intransitivity in old Spanish: Irrealis and negation factors. Revue roumaine de linguistique 2. 301–320.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. MIT: Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Tuttle, Edward. 1986. The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance. Medioevo romanzo 11. 229–287.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston. 1996. Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme) avec considération spéciale du dialecte de Nibas. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Verratti, Vittore. 1998. Fonologia e morfologia del volgare abruzzese. Con rimario-glossario. Lanciano: Itinerari.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1985. Reichenbach revisited: One, two, or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19. 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb. Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1988. Latin. In Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent (eds.), The Romance languages, 26–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1997. The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 149–169. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.Google Scholar
. 1998a. Tra grammatica e grammaticalizzazione: Articoli e clitici nelle lingue (italo)-romanze. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996, 411–440. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 1998b. On the grammar of inflected non-finite forms (with special reference to old Neapolitan). In Iørn Korzen & Michael Herslund (eds.), Clause combining and text structure. Copenhagen Studies in Language 22. 135–158.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ledgeway, Adam
2018. Chapter 19. Phonological correlates of syntactic structure. In Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 252], ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Ledgeway, Adam
2021. The syntactic distribution of raddoppiamento fonosinttatico in Cosentino. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 355], ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. 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.