Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Frascarelli, Mara and Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. ‘Types of Topics in German and Italian’, in S. Winkler and K. Schwabe (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp. 87-116. Frascarelli, Mara and Annarita Puglielli. to appear. ‘Focus in the Force-Fin System. Information Structure in Cushitic Languages’, in A. Enoch, K. Hartmann and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Focus Strategies: Evidence from African languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Frota, Sonia. 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portoguese: implication for intonation theory, Garland, New York. Gilligan, Gary, M. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the Pro-Drop Parameter, Ph.D. dissertation, USC, LA. Givón, Talmy. 1983. ‘Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction’, in T. Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 5-41. Goldsmith, John A. ed. 1999. Phonological Theory. The essential readings, Blackwell Publishing, London. Grimshaw, Jane and Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 1998. ‘Optimal Subjects and Subject Universals’, in P. Barbosa (ed.) Is The Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 193-219. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. ‘Sentential Negation in Italian and the NEG Criterion’, GenGenP 0, 10-26. Hasegawa, Yoko. 1985. ‘On the so-called ‘Zero-pronouns’ in Japanese’, The Linguistic Review 4, 243-289. Hayes, Bruce and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. ‘Bengali Intonational Phonology’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 47-96. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Hicks, Glyn. 2005. ‘Binding Theory and its Consequences for Features, Phases, and Derivation’, ms., The University of York. Hinterhölzl, Roland and Diana Pili. 2004. ‘Argument Shift across Language Types’, in P. Bottari (ed.), Proceedings of the XXVIII IGG, Congedo Editore, Lecce. Holmberg, Anders. 2005. ‘Is There a Little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36, 535-564. Hornstein, Norbert. 2000. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris, Dordrecht. Huang, C.T. James. 1984. ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531-574. ⎯⎯⎯ 1989. ‘Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 185-214. Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora. A cross-linguistic approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hulk, Aafke and Jean-Yves Pollock. eds. 2001. Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ihsane, Tabea and Genoveva Puskás. 2001. ‘Specific is not Definite’, in Ur Shlonsky and Tabela Ihsane (eds). Generative Grammar in Geneva 2, 39-54. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Ken Safir. eds. 1989. The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht. 36
⎯⎯⎯ 1989. ‘The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-44. Kato, Mary Aizawa. 1999. ‘Strong Pronouns and Weak Pronominals in the Null Subject Parameter’, Probus 11, 1-37. Kayne, Richard. 2002. ‘Pronouns and their Antecedents’, in S.D. Epstein and T.D. Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 133-166. ⎯⎯⎯ 2005. ‘On Parameters and on Principles of Pronunciation’, ms., NYU. Kenesei, István. 2006. “Focus is Identification”, in V. Molnár and S. Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 137-168. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1989. ‘The Null Subject Parameter in Modern Arabic Dialects’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 263-276. Kiss, É. Katalin. 1998. ‘Identificational Focus versus Information Focus’, Language 74, 245- 273. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki 1972. ‘The Categorical and Thetic judgment’, Foundations of Language 9, 153-185. Lambrecht, Knud 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the mental representation of discourse referents, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. ‘Weakest Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687- 720. Lipták, Anikó. 2005. ‘Relativization Strategies in Temporal Adjunct Clauses’, ms., ULCL, Leiden University. Marotta, Giovanna. 2000. ‘Allineamento e Trascrizione dei Toni Accentuali Complessi: una proposta’, in Atti delle Decime Giornate del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, A.I.A, Naples, pp. 139-149. Marotta, Giovanna and Elena Sardelli. 2003. ‘Sulla Prosodia della Domanda con Soggetto Postverbale in due Varietà di Italiano Toscano (pisano e senese)’, in P. Cosi, E. Magno Caldognetto and A. Zamboni (eds.), Voce, Canto, Parlato. Studi in onore di F. Ferrero, Unipress, Padua, pp. 205-212. Molnár, Valeria. 2002. ‘Contrast – from a Contrastive Perspective’, in H. Hallelgard, S. Johansson, B. Behrens and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information Structure in a Crosslinguistic Perspective, Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York, pp. 147-162. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht. Pesetsky, David. 1987. ‘Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)Definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 98-129. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Hirschberg. 1990. ‘The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse’, in P.R. Cohen, R. Philip, J. Morgan and M.E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 271-311. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Poletto, Cecilia and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2004. ‘On the Left Periphery of Some Romance wh- Questions’, in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 2, The Structure of CP and IP, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 251-296. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1996. ‘Elements de Syntaxe du Verbe dans les Langues Germaniques et Romaines. Ms., Université d’Amiens. 37
Page 1 and 2: Subjects, Topics and the Interpreta
Page 3 and 4: (2) Aboutness-shift Topic > Contras
Page 5 and 6: The problem is, therefore, to defin
Page 7 and 8: Among the different types of Topic
Page 9 and 10: As is shown, the tonic vowels of th
Page 11 and 12: lunatico, è capace che domani non
Page 13 and 14: guarda devi uscire (Figure 10) a Ma
Page 15 and 16: Figure 11 Also in this case, recove
Page 17 and 18: introduce an overt one and consider
Page 19 and 20: Figure 14 Then, a new Topic is prop
Page 21 and 22: The subject QP in sentence (23) can
Page 23 and 24: in Frascarelli 2000, 2004a). As an
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Rizzi’s (2006) Subject Criter
Page 27 and 28: component can forget about the othe
Page 29 and 30: the spirit of the present proposal,
Page 31 and 32: . [la storia che ha raccontato Leok
Page 33 and 34: (54’) … e [ [ [ogni studentej]
Page 35: Calabrese, Andrea. 1986. ‘Pronomi
Page 39: SigurDsson, Halldór Á. and Joan M

Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?