Thematic indirect objects in French

Journal of French Language Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 297-322

  Roberge, Yves ^a   Troberg, Michell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35048828744     PISSN: 09592695     EISSN: 14740079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0959269507003018     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives. In: M. Stavrou, and A. Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 61-126.
2. Barnes, B. (1985). A functional explanation of French nonlexical datives. Studies in Language, 9(2): 159-195.
3. Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6: 291-352.
4. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. A Government and Binding Approach Dordrecht: Reidel.
5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at Large. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
8. Cummins, S. and Roberge, Y. (2005). A modular account of null objects in French. Syntax, 8: 44-64.
9. Di Sciullo, A. M. (1999). The local asymmetry connection. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35, Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 25-49.
10. Di Sciullo, A. M. (2005). Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 399-437.
12. Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. and Chomsky, N. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298: 1569-1579.
13. Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 10. Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
14. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53-109.
15. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Harley, H. (2002). A minimal(ish) linking theory. Paper delivered at the Maryland Minimalist Mayfest. Maryland, May 16, 2002.
17. Herslund, M. (1988). Le Datif en Français. Louvain/Paris: Peeters.
18. Hill, V. and Roberge, Y. (2006). Transitivization, unergatives and argument structure. Ms., University of Toronto and University of New Brunswick.
19. Hoekstra, T. (1995). To have to be dative. In: H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 119-137.
20. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
21. Jones, M. A. (1996). Foundations of French Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kayne, R. S. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformation Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Labelle, M. (1992). Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 28: 375-414.
25. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3): 335-391.
26. Leclère, C. (1978). Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique. In: J.-C. Chevalier and M. Gross (eds.), Méthodes en grammaire française Paris: Klincksieck, pp. 66-75.
27. Levin, B. and Rappaport, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In: A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113-151.
29. Melis, L. (1996). The dative in Modern French. In: W. Van Belle and W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 39-73.
30. Melis, L. (2004). Cas, fonctions et rôles - des composantes nécessaires pour décrire les constructions verbales? Une enquête préliminaire des constructions verbales en à en français. In: R. Kailuweit and M. Humme (eds. , Semantische Rollen Tübingen: Niemeyer.
31. Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Perlmutter, D. (1972). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33. Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Probus, 1: 63-119.
34. Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
35. Roberge, Y. (2002). Transitivity requirement effects and the EPP. Paper presented at WECOL 2002, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, November 2002.
36. Roberge, Y. and Troberg, M. (in preparation). Non-thematic indirect objects in French. Ms. University of Toronto.
37. Seelbach, D. (1970). Präpositionalphrasen mit de und à als Quellen der verbundenen Pronomen en und y. Inaugural Dissertation, University of Frankfurt.
38. Ruwet, N. (1982). Grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Seuil.
39. Tremblay, M. (1999). Du Statut des prépositions dans la grammaire. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique, 27(2): 167-183.
40. Van Peteghem, M. (2006). Le Datif en français: Un cas structural. Journal of French Language Studies, 16: 93-110.
41. Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Vergnaud, J. R. (1974). French Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
43. Williams, E. (1975). Small clauses in English. In: J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4, New York: Academic Press. pp. 249-273.