References (32)
References
ALF=Gilliéron, Jules & Edmond Edmont. Atlas Linguistique de la France, Paris, Champion, 1902–1910.
ALAL=Potte, Jean-Claude. Atlas Linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et du Limousin, Paris, CNRS, 1975–1992.
ALLOc=Ravier, Xavier. Atlas Linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc Occidental, Paris, CNRS, 1978–1994.
ALG=Séguy, Jean. Atlas Linguistique et ethnographique de la Garonne, Paris, CNRS, 1954–1973.
THESOC=Dalbera, Jean-Philippe, Dominique Strazzabosco, Michèle Oliviéri, Pierre-Aurélien Georges & Guylaine Brun-Trigaud, Thesaurus Occitan, <[URL]>, 1992.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-Syntax: A Theory of Agreement. PhD. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, Joyce, Jacques Lamarche & David Heap. 2002. “French and Spanish Se: Underspecified, not Reflexive.” 2002 Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1992. “On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals.” In Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics. Current issues in linguistic theory 74, ed by Christiane Laeufer & Terrell A. Morgan, 399–414. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, Patrizia. 2000. La passivation des intransitifs en allemand et le statut des explétifs. Paris: Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot, U.F.R. de linguistique.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Les clitiques sujets du français et le paramètre du sujet nul.” Langue Française 141: 99–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Second revised edition 1982. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dalbera, Jean-Philippe. 2006. Des dialectes au langage: Une archéologie du sens. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Dalbera, Jean-Philippe, Michèle Oliviéri, Jean-Claude Ranucci, Guylaine Brun-Trigaud & Pierre-Aurélien Georges. 2012. “La base de données linguistique occitane THESOC. Trésor patrimonial et instrument de recherche scientifique.” Estudis Romànics 34: 367–387.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther & Guido Seiler (eds.). 2012. The Dialect Laboratory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diémoz, Federica. 2007. Morphologie et syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets dans les parlers francoprovençaux de la Vallée d’Aoste. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, Jules & Jean Mongin. 1905. “Scier” dans la Gaule romane du Sud et de l’Est, Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis.” Language 78: 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heap, David. 2000. La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique: les pronoms sujets en roman central. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Split subject pronoun paradigms : Feature geometry and underspecification.” In Current Issues in Romance Languages : Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999, ed. by Teresa Satterfield, Christina M. Tortora, and Diana Cresti, 129–144. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heap, David & Michèle Oliviéri. 2013. “On the emergence of nominative clitics in Romance dialects.” Paper at the Workshop European Dialect Syntax VII, University of Constance, 13–15 juin 2013.
Kaiser, Georg A., Michèle Oliviéri & Katerina Palasis. 2013. “Impersonal constructions in northern Occitan.” In Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, ed by Xosé Afonso Álvarez Perez, Ernestina Carrilho & Catarina Magro, 345–366. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press/CSP.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina & Mauro Tosco, 2011. “Impersonal configurations and theticity: the case of meteorological predications in Afroasiatic. ” In Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska, 307–322. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1997. ‘Be I no GAT’: constraints on null subjects in Bislama. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Thesis.Google Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle. 2010. “From Dialectology to Diachrony: Evidence from Lexical and Morpho-Syntactic Reconstruction in Romance Dialects.” Proceedings of Methods XIII. Papers from The Thirteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2008, ed. by Barry Heselwood and Clive Upton, 42–52. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Typology or Reconstruction: the Benefits of Dialectology for Diachronic Analysis.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2009. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009, ed. by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Tobias Scheer, 239–253. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliviéri, Michèle, Georg A. Kaiser, Michael Zimmermann, Katerina Palasis, and Richard Faure. à paraître 2015. “Quand la dialectologie, la diachronie et l'acquisition se parlent : Étude comparative des pronoms sujets en occitan et en français.” In SyMiLa 2015: La microvariation syntaxique dans les langues romanes de France, ed. by Patrick Sauzet, and Jean Sibille. Limoges: Lambert Lucas.Google Scholar
Palasis, Katerina. 2010. Syntaxe générative et acquisition: le sujet dans le développement du système linguistique du jeune enfant. Villeneuve d’Ascq: ANRT Diffusion.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Laura Vanelli. 1983. “I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze.” In Scritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, 42–56. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire Istorique des Parlers Provençaux Modernes. Genève-Marseille: Slatkine / Laffitte Reprints.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2005. “La naissance d’une catégorie morphologique: les clitiques sujet entre couchitique et langues romanes.” Faits de langues 26: 203–215.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Feature-geometry and diachrony.” Diachronica 24 1: 119–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar