Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation

Studia Linguistica

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 193-231

  López, Luis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 20644463464     PISSN: 00393193     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0039-3193.2003.00104.x     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. ALEXIADOU, A. & E. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491-539.
2. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, E. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. Materials on left dislocation, eds. E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk & F. Zwarts, 151-192. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
3. AOUN, J. & E. BENMAMOUN. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 569-598.
4. ARREGI, K. To appear. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 9, eds. E. Kaiser & S. Arunachalam.
5. BALTIN, M. 1995. Floating quantifiers, PRO and predication. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 199-248.
6. BARBOSA, P. 1997. Subject positions in the null subject languages. Seminàrios de Linguìstica 1, 39-63.
7. BLEAM, T. 2003. Properties of the double object construction in Spanish. A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Proceedings of LSRL 31, eds. R. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López & R. Cameron, 233-251. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
8. BOBALJIK, J. D. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Unpub. PhD diss.
9. BORER, H. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.
10. BRANCHADELL, A. 1992. A study of lexical and non-lexical datives. Dept. of Catalan Philology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Unpub. PhD diss.
11. BÜRING, D. 1999. Topic. Focus, eds. P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt, 142-165. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. CARDINALETTI, A. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. The new comparative syntax, ed. L. Haegeman, 33-63. London/New York: Longman.
13. CECCHETTO, C. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53, 40-67.
14. CECCHETTO, C. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12, 93-126.
15. CECCHETTO, C. & G. CHIERCHIA. 1998. Reconstruction in dislocation constructions and the syntax/semantics interface. Proceedings of WCCFL 17, eds. K. Shahin, S. Blake & E. Kim, 132-146. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
16. CHOMSKY, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. CHOMSKY, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. CHOMSKY, N. 1995. Categories and transformations. The Minimalist Program, 219-394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,.
19. CHOMSKY, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. CHOMSKY, N. 2001a. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. CHOMSKY, N. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20.
22. CINQUE, G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 397-411.
23. CINQUE, G. 1990. Types of A′ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. CINQUE, G. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239-298.
25. CONTRERAS, H. 1991. On the position of subjects. Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing. Syntax and Semantics 25, ed. S. Rothstein, 63-79. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. DEMONTE, V. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7, 5-30.
27. DIESING, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. É. KISS, K. 1998. Identificational versus information focus. Language 74, 245-273.
29. EPSTEIN, S., E. GROAT, R. KAWASHIMA & H. KITAHARA. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. VON FINTEL, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Unpub. PhD diss.
31. FOX, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. FOX, D. & J. NISSENBAUM. 2000. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. WCCFL 18, eds. S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen & P. Norquest, 132-144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
33. GROAT, E. & J. O'NEIL. 1996. Spell-Out at the LF interface. Minimal ideas, eds. W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson & C. J.-W. Zwart, 113-139. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
34. HOLMBERG, A. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's Generalization. Studia Linguistica 53, 1-39.
35. KAYNE, R. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. KAYNE, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. LASNIK, H. 1999. Chains of arguments. Working minimalism, eds. S. Epstein & N. Hornstein, 189-216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. LÓPEZ, L. 1999. Verb Phrase ellipsis in English and Spanish and the features of auxiliaries. Probus 11, 263-297.
39. LÓPEZ, L. 2002a. On agreement: Locality and feature valuation. Theoretical approaches to universals, ed. A. Alexiadou, 165-209. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
40. LÓPEZ, L. 2002b. Toward a grammar without TopP or FocP. Georgetown Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 181-209.
41. LÓPEZ, L. & S. WINKLER. 2003. Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from gapping. The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures, eds. K. Schwabe & S. Winkler, 227-248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
42. MAY, R. 1979. Must COMP-to-COMP movement be stipulated? Linguistic Inquiry 10, 719-725.
43. McCLOSKEY, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 57-84.
44. McNALLY, L. 1998. On the linguistic encoding of information packaging instructions. The limits of syntax. Syntax and Semantics 29, eds. P. Culicover & L. McNally, 161-184. New York: Academic Press.
45. MEINUNGER, A. 2000. Syntactic aspects of topic and comment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
46. MÜLLER, G. 1995. A-bar syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
47. MÜLLER, G & W. STERNEFELD. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507.
48. PESETSKY, D. 1989. Language-particular processes and the Earliness Principle. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Unpub. ms.
49. RIVERO, M.-L. 1980. On left dislocation and topicalization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 363-393.
50. RIZZI, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
51. ROOTH, M. 1985. Association with focus. Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Unpub. PhD diss.
52. ROOTH, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116.
53. SELKIRK, E. 1984. Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. SELKIRK, E. 1995. Sentence prosody, intonation, stress and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 550-569. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
55. SPORTICHE, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.
56. STROZER, J. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. Dept. of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles. Unpub. PhD diss.
57. SUÑER, M. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391-434.
58. SUÑER, M. 2002. Object shift: comparing a Romance language with Germanic. Probus 12, 261-290.
59. SUÑER, M. 2003. The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null subject language: Where art thou? A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Proceedings of LSRL 31, eds. R. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López & R. Cameron, 341-357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
60. SVENONIUS, P. 2002. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. Subjects, expletives and the EPP, ed. P. Svenonius, 201-242. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61. TAKAHASHI, D. 2000. Move F and raising of lexical and empty DPs. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 297-317. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. TORREGO, E. 1992. Case and argument structure. Program in Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Unpub. ms.
63. TULLER, L. 1992. The syntax of preverbal focus constructions in Chadic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 303-334.
64. URIAGEREKA, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79-124.
65. URIAGEREKA, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. Working minimalism, eds. S. Epstein & N. Hornstein, 251-282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. VALLDUVÍ, E. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland Publishing.
67. VALLDUVÍ, E. 1995. Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. Discourse configurational languages, ed. K. É. Kiss, 122-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. VALLDUVÍ, E. & M. VILKUNA. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. The limits of syntax. Syntax and Semantics 29, eds. P. Culicover & L. McNally, 161-184. New York: Academic Press.
69. VILLALBA, X. 1996. Sobre la dislocació a la dreta. Llengua & Literatura 7, 209-234.
70. VILLALBA, X. 1999. Symmetry and antisymmetry in syntax. Syntaxis 2, 1-25.
71. VILLALBA, X. 2000. The syntax of sentence periphery. Dept. of Catalan Philology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Unpub. diss.
72. ZUBIZARRETA, M.-L. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.