French dislocation without movement

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 485-534

  De Cat, Cécile ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discourse; Dislocation; French; Information structure; Islands; Resumptive; Topic

Indexed keywords

EID: 36549021018     PISSN: 0167806X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9023-z     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Alexopoulou, T., Doron, E., & Heycock, C. (2004). Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation. In D. Adger, C. De Cat & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries. Syntactic edges and their effect (pp. 329-358). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation (pp. 151-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Aoun, J., & Benmamoun, E. (1998). Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 569-597.
4. Ashby, W. (1988). The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua, 75(2-3), 203-229.
5. Ashby, W. J. (1994). An acoustic profile of right-dislocations in French. Journal of French Language Studies, 4(2), 127-145.
6. Barbosa, P. (2000). Clitics. A window into the null subject property. In J. Costa (Ed.), Portuguese syntax. New comparative studies (pp. 31-92). Oxford: OUP.
7. Barnes, B. (1985). The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French, Vol. VI:3 of pragmatics & beyond. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
8. Beerman, D., Leblanc, D., & van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.) (1997) Rightward movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Belletti, A. (2001). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of IP and CP. The cartography of syntactic structure, (Vol. 2) (pp. 16-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Benincá, P. (2001). The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp. 40-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Boeckx, C. A. (2003). Islands and Chains. Resumption as Derivational Residue, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Cann, R., Kempson, R., Marten, L., Otsuka, M., & Swinburne, D. (2004). On the left and on the right'. In: D. Adger, C. De Cat & G. Tsoulas (Eds.): Peripheries. Syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 19-47). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
13. Cecchetto, C. (1999). A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica, 53(1), 40-67.
14. Cecchetto, C. (2000). Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus, 12(1), 93-126.
15. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71-132). New York: Academic Press.
16. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.): Step by step (pp. 89-156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Cinque, G. (1977). The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 397-412.
20. Cinque, G. (1983). Topic constructions in some European languages and "connectedness". In K. Ehlich & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Connectedness in sentence text and discourse, Vol. 4 of Tilburg studies in language and literature (pp. 7-42). Tilburg: KBU.
21. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar dependencies, Vol. 17 of Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Côté, M.-H. (2001). On the status of the subject clitics in child French. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M.-J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal & B. Mac Whinney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th conference of the IASCL (pp. 1314-1330). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
23. De Cat, C. (2002). French dislocation. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
24. De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement morphemes. Lingua, 108, 1195-1219.
25. De Cat, C. (2007). French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Delais-Roussarie, E., Doetjes, J., & Sleeman, P. (2004). Dislocation. In F. Corblin & H. de Swart (Eds.), Handbook of French semantics (pp. 501-528). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
27. Demirdache, H. (1991). Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
28. Emonds, J. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
29. Emonds, J. (2001). La relation entre la dislocation à droite et le clitique franco-italien en/ne. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 119, 1-32.
30. Emonds, J. (2004). Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In D. Adger, C. De Cat & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries. syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 75-120). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. Epstein, S. D., & Seely T. D.(Eds.) (2002). Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell.
32. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Escobar, L. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and other relatives. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation, Vol. 14 of Linguistik aktuell (pp. 233-274). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
34. Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
35. Frascarelli, M. (2002). Topicalization as merge. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Italian. MS, Universitá degli Studi Roma Tre.
36. Frascarelli, M. (2004). Dislocation, clitic resumption and minimality. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002 (pp. 99-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Gill, K.-H., & Tsoulas, G. (2004). Peripheral effects without peripheral syntax. In D. Adger, C. De Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries. syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 121-141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
38. Grobet, A. (2000). L'identification des topiques dans les dialogues. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Genève.
39. Grohmann, K. (2000). Copy left dislocation. In Billerey & Lillehaugen (Eds.), WCCFL 19 Proceedings (pp. 139-152). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
40. Grohmann, K. (2003). Prolific domains: on the anti-locality of movement dependencies, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41. Gundel, J. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.
42. Gundel, J. (1975). Left dislocation and the role of topic-comment structures in linguistic theory. OSU WPL, 18, 72-131.
43. Heycock, C. (2005). Embedded root phenomena. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 174-209). Oxford: Blackwell.
44. Hirschbühler, P. (1975). On the source of lefthand NPs in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 155-165.
45. Hooper, J. B., & Thompson, S.A. (1973). On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(4), 465-497.
46. Iatridou, S. (1995). Clitics and islands effects. In R. Izvorski & V. Tredinnick (Eds.), U.Penn working papers in linguistics, (Vol. 2) (pp. 11-31).
47. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Koopman, H., & Sportiche D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211-258.
49. Lahousse, K. (2003). NP-subject inversion in French and (Preposed) adverbs. In A. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (pp. 181-196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50. Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French, Vol. II:6 of Pragmatics & beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Lambrecht, K. (1986). Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. PhD dissertation, University of California.
52. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: CUP.
53. Larsson, E. (1979). La dislocation en français : étude de syntaxe générative. Lund: CZK Gleerup.
54. Lasnik, H., & Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 687-720.
55. López, L. (2003). Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica, 57(3), 193-231.
56. Mertens, P., Goldmann, J. P., Wehrli, E., & Gaudinat, A. (2001). La synthèse de l'intonation à partir de structures syntaxiques riches. TAL (Traitement Automatique des Langues), 42(1), 142-195.
57. Milner, J.-C. (1978). De la syntaxe à l'interprétation : quantités, insultes, exclamations. Paris: Seuil.
58. Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Against the split-CP hypothesis. In P. Banski & A. Przepiorkowsk (Eds.), Proceedings of GLiP-5 (pp. 81-93). Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.
59. Prince, E. F. (1981). Topicalisation, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. In D. Alford, K.-A. Hunold, M. Macaulay, J. Walter, C. Brugman, P. Chertok, I. Civkulis & M. Tobey (Eds.), Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (pp. 249-264).
60. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(Special issue on Pragmatic Theory), 53-94.
61. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativised minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. A handbook of generative syntax. (pp. 281-337) Dordrecht: Kluwer.
63. Rizzi, L. (2002). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, (Vol. 3.) (pp. 223-251). Oxford: OUP.
64. Ronat, M. (1979). Pronoms topiques et pronoms distinctifs. Langue française, 44, 105-127.
65. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
66. Rossi, M. (1999). L'intonation. Le système du francais : description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.
67. Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Amherst: GSLA.
68. Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 425-449.
69. Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria, 3, 96-118.
70. Tellier, C. (2001). On some distinctive properties of parasitic gaps in French. In P. Culicover & P. Postal (Eds.), Parasitic Gaps (pp. 341-367). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Uriagereka, J. (1995). An F position in Western Romance. In K. E. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse configurational languages (pp. 153-175). Oxford: OUP.
72. Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.
73. Vat, J. (1981). Left dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), 20, 80-103.
74. Villalba, X. (1998). Right dislocation is not right dislocation. In O. Fullana & F. Roca (Eds.), Studies on the syntax of central Romance languages (pp. 227-241). Girona: Universitat de Girona.
75. Villalba, X. (2000). The syntax of sentence periphery. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
76. Ward, G., & Prince, E. P. (1991). On the topicalisation of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(8), 167-178.
77. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1984). Prépositions orphelines et pronoms nuls. Recherches Linguistiques, 12, 46-91.
78. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word-Order, Vol. 23 of LI monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press.