Stylistic inversion in Romanian

Studia Linguistica

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 156-180

  Hill, Virginia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845419545     PISSN: 00393193     EISSN: 14679582     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00136.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alboiu, G. 2002. The features of movement in Romanian. Bucharest: EUB.
2. Alboiu, G. 2003. Operator asymmetries in Romanian: Syntax and/or phonology? Romance Linguistics, eds. A.T. Pérez‐Leroux & Y. Roberge, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Brandi, L. & P. Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. The Null Subject Parameter, eds. O. Jaeggli & K. Safir, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A′ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross‐linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Cornilescu, A. 2000. The double subject construction in Romanian. Comparative studies in Romanian syntax, ed. V. Motapanyane, 83–134. Oxford: Elsevier.
7. Di Sciullo, A.‐M. 2003. Morphological relations in Asymmetry Theory. Asymmetry in grammar, ed. A.M. Di Sciullo, 9–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Di Sciullo, A.‐M. & C. Tenny. 2002. Modification, event structure and the word/phrase asymmetry. NELS 28, eds. P.N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto, 375–389.
9. Dobrovie‐Sorin, C. 1987. Syntaxe du roumain. Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de Paris 7.
10. Dobrovie‐Sorin, C. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Friedemann, M.‐A. 1997. Sujet syntaxiques: positions, inversions et pro. Berlin: Peter Lang.
12. Hill, V. 2002. Adhering Focus. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 164–172.
13. Hill, V. 2005. Romanian adverbs and pragmatic domains. Paper presented at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 35, University of Texas, Austin. http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/asymet/
14. Isac, D. & Jakab, E. 2004. Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans. Balkan syntax and semantics, ed. O. Mišeska‐Tomic˙, 315–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Kayne, R. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. Generative studies in Romance languages, eds. J. Casagrande & B. Saciuk, 70–126. Rowley: Newbury House.
16. Kayne, R. & Pollock, J.‐Y. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, eds. A. Hulk & J.‐Y. Pollock, 107–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Lahousse, K. 2002. Stylistic inversion: one name, two realities. Paper presented at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 32, University of Toronto.
18. Pirvulescu, M. 2002. Le concept de paradigme et la morphologie verbale. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.
19. Poletto, C. 2000. The higher functional field. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–339. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. Rizzi, L. 2002. Cartography, locality and asymmetries. Key‐note talk at LSRL 32, 19–21 April 2002, University of Toronto, Toronto.
22. Rizzi, L. & I. Roberts 1989. Complex Inversion in French. Probus 1, 1–30.
23. Rivero, M.‐L. 1994. Clause structure and V‐movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 63–120.
24. Roberge, Y. 1990. The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Kingston, ON: McGill‐Queen's University Press.
25. Speas, M. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114, 255–276.
26. Speas, M. & Tenny, C. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in grammar, ed. A.‐M. Di Sciullo, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27. Tenny, C. 2001. Evidentiality, experiencers and the syntax of point of view in Japanese. http://www.tenny/org
28. Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax‐semantics interface. Language 79, 39–81.