Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r8tb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T05:36:53.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stylistic fronting in Old Italian: A phase-based analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Irene Franco
Irene Franco*
Affiliation:
Goethe Universität - Frankfurt am Main
*
[Franco@em.uni-frankfUrt.de]
Get access

Abstract

STYLISTIC FRONTING (SF) is an optional syntactic phenomenon whereby a lexical item that may belong to various syntactic categories fronts to a pre-finite-V position, if no subject is merged in SPECIP. The literature reports that SF is productive in Icelandic and Old Scandinavian, and it is also attested in some Old Romance languages (Old Catalan, Old French). This article presents a phase-based analysis of SF in Old Italian. In this language, SF has some previously undiscussed characteristics. A corpus study shows that Old Italian displays a root/nonroot asymmetry in the typology of fronting items. In root clauses, nominal elements, such as nominal predicates with a special semantics, front more frequently than verbal elements (infinitives, past participles), which most frequently front in nonroot clauses. Since fronting in root clauses is intrinsically ambiguous with topicalization and focalization, it is not considered SF and is not extensively discussed in this article. By contrast, I analyze as proper SF the fronting operation that occurs in nonroot clauses, and I argue that this is a movement anchoring the event-structure (VP) semantic content to the context (FINP). This type of movement is possible only if vP is not a phase and no intervening agentive external argument is merged in SPECVP. The fronted material is pragmatically presupposed and interpreted as the SUBJECT OF PREDICATION. Pragmatics tests corroborate the argument.

Keywords

diachronic syntaxphasesactive/inactive verb structuresOld Romance

Information

Type
Historical Syntax
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. e114 - e151
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110284225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Marianne. 1987. Old French, null subjects, and verb second phenomena. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Adams, Marianne. 1988a. Les effets V2 en ancien et en moyen français. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée 7. 13–39.Google Scholar
Adams, Marianne. 1988b. Embedded pro. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 18. 1–21.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane; and Nye, Rachel. 2012. Main clause phenomena and the privilege of the root. Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. by Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane, and Nye, Rachel, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. Non-active morphology and the direction of transitivity alternations. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 29. 2740.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. Structuring participles. Conference on Formal Linguistics 26. 33–41.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 114–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena; and Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, 187–212.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25. 40–48. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1431.pdf.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian. 2013. Non-canonical passives. Non-canonical passives, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis and Schäfer, Florian, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bache, Carl. 1995. Another look at the distinction between aspect and action: Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Typological perspectives 2, ed. by Bertinetto, Paolo M., Bianchi, Valentina, Dahl, Östen, and Squartini, Mario, 65–78. Torino: Rosenberg.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi 2004a, 16–51.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1984. Un'ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali. Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica 4. 3–19.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1994. La variazione sintattica: Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1995. Complement clitics in Medieval Romance: The Tobler-Mussafia law. Clause structure and language change, ed. by Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 296–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2004. The left periphery of Medieval Romance. Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online 2 (2). 243–97. Online: http://www.humnet.unipi.it/slifo/2004vol2/Beninca2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance. Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture, ed. by Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Hector, Herburger, Helena, and Portner, Paul, 53–86. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola, and Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi 2004a, 52–75.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola, and Poletto, Cecilia. 2010. L'ordine delle parole e la struttura della frase. In Renzi & Salvi, 27–75.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. Temps et point de vue/Tense and point of view, ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline and Tasmovski, Liliane, 213–46. Paris: Université Paris X Nanterre.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2010. Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. by Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian, and Sheehan, Michelle, 153–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Richards, Marc. 2006. True optionality: When the grammar doesn't mind. Minimalist essays, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.91.08bibCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 2012. Introduction to pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2003. Stylistic fronting in Italian. Grammar in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, 18 November 2003, vol. 2, ed. by Delsing, Lars-Olof, Falk, Cecilia, Josefsson, Gunlög, and Sigurösson, Halldór Á., 47–55. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In Rizzi 2004a, 115–65.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2010. I pronomi personali e riflessivi. In Renzi & Salvi, 414–50.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Roberts, Ian. 2003. Clause structure and X-second. Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 1, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo, 123–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35 (4). 519–57. DOI: 10.1162/0024389042350523.10.1162/0024389042350523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (4). 521–82. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178596.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. ‘Restructuring’ and functional structure. Structure and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 132–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1983. An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 22–23. 175–206. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20172314.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2001. Stylistic fronting: Evidence from Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68. 141–71.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida, and Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117 (2). 330–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuis, Fernande. 1988. Pro-drop dans les subordonnées en ancien français: Aspects de la syntaxe historique du français. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée 7. 41–62.Google Scholar
Dupuis, Fernande. 1989. L'expression du sujet dans les subordonnées en ancien français. Montreal: Université de Montréal dissertation.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 1996. The syntax of past participles: A generative study of nonfinite constructions in Ancient and Modern Italian. (Études romanes de Lund 53.) Lund: Lund University dissertation.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2010. I pronomi personali eriflessivi. In Renzi & Salvi, 401-14,450-67.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2011. Fronting, background, focus: A comparative study of Sardinian and Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87. 103–35.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Lund: Lund University dissertation.10.1016/0024-3841(93)90051-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susann. 2010. Stylistic fronting: A contribution to the information structure. MLC-effects in syntax, ed. by Stepanov, Arthur, Fanselow, Gisbert, and Vogel, Ralf, 125–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann, and Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. On stylistic fronting: Germanic vs. Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68. 117–45.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2005. Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. Aspectual enquiries, ed. by Kempchinsky, Paula and Slabakova, Roumyana, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (2). 197–238. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197.10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, Josep Μ. 1993. Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Fontana, Josep Μ. 1997. On the integration of second position phenomena. Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. by Kemenade, Ans van and Vincent, Nigel, 207–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Formentin, Vittorio. 1996. Flessione bicasuale del pronome relativo in antichi testi italiani centro-meridionali. Archivio glottologico italiano 81. 133–76.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1998. Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Franco, Irene. 2009. Verb, subjects and stylistic fronting: A comparative analysis of the interaction of CP properties with verb movement and subject positions in Icelandic and Old Italian. Siena: University of Siena dissertation.Google Scholar
Franco, Irene. 2014. Effects of parametric change and active/inactive alignment: The case of C-omission. Inquiries into linguistic theory and language acquisition: Papers offered to Adriana Belletti, ed. by Contemori, Carla and Pozzo, Lena Dal, 45–73. Siena: CISCL.Google Scholar
Franco, Irene. 2015a. Cartographic structures in diachrony: The case of C-omission. Beyond functional sequence: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 10, ed. by Shlonsky, Ur, 199–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210588.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Irene. 2015b. Phase-edge properties and complementizer omission. Isogloss 1 (2). 199–245. DOI: 10.5565/rev/isogloss.7.10.5565/rev/isogloss.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Irene, and Migliori, Laura. 2014. Voice* in Old Italian. Paper presented at IgG40, Trento, Italy, 13-15 February 2014.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara (ed.) 2006. Phases of interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Carpintero, Manuel. 2013. Explicit performatives revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 49. 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2010. I verbi deponenti latini e l'unità della flessione in -r. Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica VIII, 2008- 2009, 23–49. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120 (3). 628-. 48. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 57 (2). 209–40. DOI: 10.1017/S0008413100004758.10.1017/S0008413100004758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Sorace, Antonella. 2007. Verb movement in Faroese: New perspectives on an old question. Nordlyd 35. 1–16.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul. 1990. La légitimation de la construction VI à sujet nul en subordonnée dans la prose et le vers en ancien français. Revue québécoise de linguistique 19. 33.ndash;. 54. DOI: 10.7202/602664ar.10.7202/602664arCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul, and Junker, Marie-Odile. 1988. Remarques sur les sujets nuls en subordonnées en ancien et en moyen français. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée 7. 63–84.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul, and Labelle, Marie. 2000. Evolving Tobler-Mussafia effects in the placement of French clitics. New approaches to old problems: Issues in Romance historical linguistics (Current issues in linguistic theory 210), ed. by Dworkin, Steven N. and Wanner, Dieter, 165–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (3). 445–83. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554406.10.1162/002438900554406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4 (4). 465–97. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177789.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar H. 2003. On stylistic fronting once more. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72. 153–205.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar H. 2004. Stylistic fronting. Studia Linguistica 58. 88–134. DOI: 10.1111/j.0039-3193.2004.00111.x.10.1111/j.0039-3193.2004.00111.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Johannes G. 1991. Stylistic fronting in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 48. 1–43.Google Scholar
Kastelein, Emma. 2012. La salita del clitico in Italiano: Un'analisi diacronica. Leiden: University of Leiden master's thesis.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71 (4). 669–95. DOI: 10.2307/415740.10.2307/415740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sigekatu-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9 (2). 153–85. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000656.Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1988. Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini. [English translation: Objects and subjects in the formation of Romance morphosyntax, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1994.].Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 2007. Clausal architecture in Early Old French. Lingua 117 (1). 289–316. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.004.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie, and Hirschbühler, Paul. 2014a. Y avait-il antéposition stylistique en ancient français? SHS Web of Conferences (4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française) 8. 277–96. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801129.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie, and Hirschbühler, Paul. 2014b. Déplacement stylistique à gauche de verbes non conjugués en ancien et en moyen français. Corpus 13. 191–219. Online: http://corpus.revues.org/2538.10.4000/corpus.2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie, and Hirschbühler, Paul. 2017. Leftward stylistic displacement (LSD) in Old and Middle French. Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax, ed. by Mathieu, Eric and Truswell, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 2000. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Kato, Yasuhiko, 232–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar Miren. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3). 335–91. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. On feature strength: Three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2). 197–217. DOI: 10.1162/002438999554039.10.1162/002438999554039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2007. Old Neapolitan word order: Some initial observations. Histories and dictionaries ofthe languages of Italy, ed. by Laura Lepschy and Arturo Tosi, 121. 49. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2008. Satisfying V2 in early Romance: Merge vs. Move. Journal of Linguistics 44 (2). 437–70. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226708005173.10.1017/S0022226708005173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783484971288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2011. Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change in Latin and Romance. The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, ed. by Maiden, Martin, Smith, John C., and Ledgeway, Adam, 382–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1980. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. Islenskt mál og almenn målfræåi 2. 175–93.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1990. Inversion in embedded clauses in modern Icelandic. Syntax and semantics, vol. 24: Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. by Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, 7191. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo. 2011. Grammatical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511974489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2006. Stylistic fronting in Old French. Probus 18. 219–66. DOI: 10.1515/PROBUS.2006.008.10.1515/PROBUS.2006.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2009. On the Germanic properties of Old French. Historical syntax and linguistic theory, ed. by Crisma, Paola and Longobardi, Giuseppe, 344–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2012. The left-periphery in Old French. Research in Old French: The state of the art, ed. by Arteaga, Deborah, 327–50. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Marius. 1906. Norrøn syntax. Christiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2009. Stylistic fronting as remnant movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83. 141–78.Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2007. The interaction of semantics and syntax in the spread of relative che in the early vernaculars of Italy. Sui dialetti italoromanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent (The Italianist 27, special supplement 1), ed. by Bentley, Delia and Ledgeway, Adam N., 200–219. Norfolk: Biddles.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1988. The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics (Special issue on comparative Germanic syntax) 6 (1). 215–38.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. Sì and e as CP expletives in Old Italian. Grammaticalization and parametric variation, ed. by Batllori, Montse, Hernanz, Maria-Lluísa, Picallo, Carme, and Roca, Francesc, 206–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2006. Parallel phases: A study on the high and low left periphery of Old Italian. In Frascarelli, 261–95.10.1515/9783110197723.4.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2010. L'ordine delle parole e la struttura della frase. In Renzi & Salvi, 60–75.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2014. Word order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660247.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Lina. 1999. Causation and external arguments. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers from the UPenn/MITRoundtable on the Lexicon) 35. 161–83.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2017. The event domain. The verbal domain, ed. by D’Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel, 233–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian, and Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46. 152–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo, and Salvi, Giampaolo (eds.) 2010. Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Ilza. 1995. Evidence for a verb-second phase in Old Portuguese. Clause structure and language change, ed. by Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 110–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3). 563–72. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2012. On feature inheritance, defective phases, movement and morphology. Phases: Developing the framework, ed. by Gallego, Ángel, 195–232. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (ed.) 2004a. The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004b. Locality and left periphery. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 223–51. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Frascarelli, 341–61.10.1515/9783110197723.5.341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, ed. by Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 115–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2012. Phases, head movement and second position effects. Phases: Developing the framework, ed. by Gallego, Ángel, 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110264104.385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eirikur, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. Syntax and semantics, vol. 24: Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. by Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, 3–39. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Salvesen, Christine Meklenborg. 2011. Stylistic fronting and remnant movement in Old French. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance ’, Nice 2009, ed. by Bern, Janine, Jacobs, Haike, and Scheer, Tobias, 323–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salvesen, Christine Meklenborg. 2013. Topics and the left periphery: A comparison of Old French and Modern Germanic. In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, ed. by Lohndal, Terje, 131–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2004. La formazione della struttura di frase romanza: Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110945508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2010. La realizzazione sintattica della struttura nominale. In Renzi & Salvi, 123–90.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2011. Morphosyntactic persistence. The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, ed. by Maiden, Martin, Smith, John C., and Ledgeway, Adam N., 155–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing: The case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66 (2). 128–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2012.01192.x.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2012.01192.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurbsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica 16 (1). 219–51.Google Scholar
Sigurbsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42 (2). 267–304. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00042.10.1162/LING_a_00042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. Subject positions, subject extraction, EPP and the subject criterion. Locality, ed. by Aboh, Enoch, Guasti, Maria Teresa, and Roberts, Ian, 58–85. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1995. The phrase structure of tense. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Zaring, Laurie and Rooryck, Johan, 381–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., Jacobsen, Jogvan I.; and Hansen, Zakaris s.. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróõ-skaparfelag.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 80.) Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2003. Stylistic fronting in the Ormulum—Scandinavian syntactic phenomena in Early Middle English texts. Nordlyd 31 (2). 457–72. DOI: 10.7557/12.15.Google Scholar
Vance, Barbara. 1988. Null subjects and syntactic change in Medieval French. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8843-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanelli, Laura. 1986. Strutture tematiche in italiano antico. Tema-Rema in Italiano, ed. by Stammerjohann, Harro, 249–73. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Vanelli, Laura. 1999. Ordine delle parole e articolazione pragmatica dell'italiano antico: La ‘prominenza’ pragmatica della prima posizione nella frase. Medioevo Romanzo 23 (2). 229–46.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501743726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venier, Federica. 2002. La presentatività: Sulle tracce di una nozione. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 39–94. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627398.10.1007/BF00627398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195083934.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar