The cartography of syntactic structures

Luigi Rizzi
Theory of gr. and L.A. 2
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures
(1)
CP
2
Spec
2
C
IP
2
DP
2
I
VP
2
DP
2
V
XP
(2) The splitting of the inflectional space, linked to a systematic syntacticisation of inflectional
morphology and a new attention to adverb syntax (Pollock 1989 and much related work) determined a
very fast growth of the assumed functional structure, giving the impression of an ever increasing
complexity of syntactic representations.
Cartographic studies identified the complexity of syntactic representations as an autonomous research
topic: drawing maps as precise as possible of syntactic structures, and particularly of the functional
structures, is an important endeavour worth pursuing on its own (Cinque & Rizzi 2009).
(3) The cartography of syntactic structures:
- each layer in (1) is an abbreviation for a much richer structural zone;
- the building block is always the same: a head projects into a phrase by taking complements and
specifiers through recursive applications of the X-bar schema (or Merge);
- ... but the system of functional heads is much richer than previously thought.
(4) The initial empirical core for the analysis of the left periphery came from the study of Italian, with
extensions to other Romance and Germanic languages, but this line of research quickly proved of
general relevance, and was extended to other language families. On Romance see Rizzi (1997, 2000,
2004a-b), Belletti, (2004a-b, 2009), Poletto (2000), Laenzlinger (1998), Cinque (2002), Beninca’ and
Munaro (2008), and on Germanic Grewendorf (2002), Haegeman (2004), among many other
references. See Roberts (2004) on Celtic, Krapova & Cinque (2008), Garzonio (2005) on Slavic,
Puskas (2000) on Finno-Ugric, Shlonsky (1998), (2014) on Semitic, Frascarelli and Puglielli (2010)
on Cushitic, Aboh (2004), Biloa (2012), Bassong (2014), Torrence (2012), Hager-Mboua (2014) on
African languages, Durrleman (2008) on Creole, Jayaseelan (2008) on Dravidian, Tsai (2007), Paul
(2005), (2014), Badan (2004), Badan Del Gobbo (2007) on Chinese, Endo (2008), Endo (2014), Saito
(2010) on Japanese, Pearce (1999) on Austronesian, Speas & Tenny (2003) on American Indian,
Legate 2002 on Australian aboriginal. In addition, much research was produced in Romance and
Germanic dialectology (e.g. Ledgeway 2003, Paoli 2007, Cruschina 2012, Grewendorf and Poletto
2009), and on Classical languages and diachrony (Salvi 2005, Danckaert 2012, Beninca’ 2006,
Franco 2009), etc. Volumes 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 of the subseries “The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures” of the Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax are devoted in part, or entirely, to the
cartography of the left periphery. See Cinque & Rizzi 2010, Shlonsky 2010, Rizzi 2013a for general
overviews.
1
IP (TP)
(2) a X
ne
X
pas
(to) not
X
complètement comprendre la théorie…
completely understand the theory…
b X
ne
X
pas comprendre complètement
(to) not understand completely
la théorie…
the theory…
c X Il ne comprend pas
he understands not
X
complètement
completely
X
la théorie
the theory
d Ne comprend-il X pas
Understands he not
X
complètement
completely
X
la théorie?
the theory?
(Pollock 1989)
(3) … Agr … T …. V …
(4)
X
(Belletti 1990)
njuchi zi -na -wa -lum -a alenje (Chicewa)
'bees AgrS-Past-AgrO-bite-ASP hunters’
(5) Parl-o
Parl-i
Parl-a
parl-av-o parl-er-ò
parl-av-i parl-er(a)-i
parl-av-a parl-er-à
(6) Mirror Principle: the order of affixes in morphology reflects the order of syntactic heads and is the
mirror image of it (the most internal affix is the lowest one in syntax) Baker (1988)
(7) Cinque (1999) Properties of modality, tense, mood, aspect, voice may be expressed by different
morphosyntactic means (adverbs, preverbal particles, affixes), but they reflect a hierarchy which is
fundamentally uniform across languages.
The detailed structure of the clause may be made particularly visible by analytic verbal forms:
(8) Maria è stata fotografata
da Gianni
‘Maria has been photographed by Gianni
(9) Maria
è
T+Agr
stata
Asp+Agr
fotografata
Voice+Agr
da Gianni
Languages fundamentally use three devices to overtly express the functional structure of the clause:
- particles (autonomous words) like modal will
- affixes (attracting the verb) like -erà, -ato in Italian
- adverbs in specifier position.
(10)a John is usually often obliged to stay home (habitual - frequentative)
b * John is often usually obliged to stay home (frequentative - habitual)
(11)a Gianni abitualmente è spesso costretto a rimanere a casa
b * Gianni spesso è abitualmente costretto a rimanere a casa
2
(12)a Yareba (Papuan): yau - r - edib - eb - a - su
‘sit
CM FREQ HAB PRES 3ms’ = he habitually repeatedly sits
down
b Rapanui (Austronesian): Pura vara tu’u mai a Nau
‘HAB FREQ come toward Pers. Sing Nau’
(13)
….
[ Spec1 HAB …. [Spec2 FREQ …
(14)
….
[ Spec1 EVID …. [Spec2 EPIST …
Transitivity arguments for ordering A>B, B>C, therefore A>C:
(18)a *Ils n’ont pas plus téléphoné
They haven’t not any longer telephoned
b *Ils n’ont plus pas téléphoné
They haven’t any longer not telephoned
It could be that pas and plus compete for the same position; or that the cooccurrence is prohibited for
some other reason.
(19)a Si tu n’as pas déjà mangé, tu peux le prendre
‘If you have not already eaten, you can take it’
b * Si tu n’as déjà pas mangé, tu peux le prendre
‘If you have already not eaten, you can take it’
(20)a A l’époque, il ne possédait déjà plus rien
‘At the time, he did not possess already any longer anything’
b * A l’époque, il ne possédait plus déjà rien
‘At the time, he did not possess any longer already anything’
Through transitivity, pas > déjà, déjà > plus, therefore pas>plus.
Independent comparative evidence from Italian:
(24)a Gianni non è mica più partito
‘Gianni has not any longer left’
b * Gianni non è più mica partito
‘Gianni has any longer not left’
Mica, contrary to French pas, can cooccur with a negative element:
(25)a non ho mica visto nessuno
b * Je n’ai pas vu personne
(30) Da allora non hanno XT di solito XHab mica XNeg più XTerm sempre XCont completamente
rimesso+XCompl tutto *XQ bene *XVoice in ordine
(Cinque 1999)
‘Since then, the have usually not anymore always completely put everything well in order’
3
(31) … Mod … Mood … T … Asp … Voice … V …
Modality: epistemic (must), root (obligation/possibility) (must),…
John must/should/could be twenty now (epistemic)
John must/should/could leave (root)
Mood: indicative, subjunctive, conditional,…
Tense: present, past, future,…
Aspect: habitual, progressive, perfect,…
John repairs cars
John is repairing the car
John has repaired the car
Voice: active, passive, middle,…
(32)
These books
have
been
being
consulted
Tense > Aspectperfect > Aspectprogressive > Voicepass
all year
(33)
Perf: have –en
Prog: be –ing
Pass: be –en
(34)a Jan shuda
en
a
ron
S/he [+modal] [+past] [+prog] run
‘S/he should have been running’
Jamaican Creole, Durrleman (2000)
(35)
Jaan shuda bin kyaan
get
fu
gu
J. MODepistemic PAST MODroot be-allowed COMP go
‘J. should not have been able to be allowed to go’
(Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986, 585)
(36)
Frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once > then > perhaps > necessarily > possibly >
willingly > inevitably > cleverly > usually> again > often > quickly > already > no longer > still
> always > just > soon > briefly > characteristically > almost > completely > tutto > well >
fast/early > completely > again > often
(38)
[Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential [probably Modepistemic
[once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility
[willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation [cleverly Modability/permission [usually Asphabitual [again
Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequentative(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no longer
Aspterminative [still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly
Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospective [completely
Aspcompletive(I) [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [completely
AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfrequentative(II) …
4
VP
(39) VP-internal subject hypothesis (Kuroda 1988, Koopman & Sportiche 1991)
(40)a
b
c
Gianni ha visto Maria
___ ha [Gianni visto Maria]
Gianni ha [ ___ visto Maria]
(41)a John will meet Mary
___ will [John meet Mary]
c John will [ ___ meet Mary]
(42)a [ tutti [ gli amici]] hanno [ ___ visto Maria ]
b [ gli amici ] hanno [ [ tutti ___ ] visto Maria ]
(43)a Bill gave John a book
b Bill showed [every boy] [his father]
c * Bill showed [his boy ] [every father]
(44)
[ Bill [ v [John [ V a book]]]]
(Barss & Lasnik 1988)
(Larson 1988)
DP
What is the structure of [ D N ]?
a. [ [ D ] N ]
b. [ D [ N ] ]
The correct structure is b: many languages manifest N to D movement, akin to V to T movement,
which is expected under b but not under a.
(45)a [hans bøker om syntaks] (Norwegian)
‘His books on syntax’
b bøke-ne [hans ___ om syntaks]
‘books-the his on syntax’
(46) Rumanian :
un portret
acest portret
portret-ul
un frumos portret
acest frumos portret
portret-ul frumos
(47) Una (altra) descrizione molto dettagliata della situazione
Une (autre) description très soignée de la situation
A(nother) very careful description of the situation
5
(48) [
D
[
D
[ altra Num
[other Num
[ molto dettagliata
descrizione
della situazione ] ] ]
[ very careful
description
of the situation ] ] ]
(49) Cinque (2005), based on Greenberg’s (1963) Universal 20:
a Dem Num Adj N
These three nice books
(very common: Romance, Germanic,...)
b * Adj Num Dem N
Nice three these books
(Not attested)
c N
Adj Num Dem
books nice three these
(very common: Cambodian,
Javanese, Thai, Gungbe,…)
d
(50) [
N
Dem Num Adj
books these three nice
(rare: Kikuyu,…)
Dem
[
Num
[
Adj
NP ] ] ]
(51) Hypothesis: the engine is movement of the NP: if it takes place, it can take along other elements
(pied-piping)
Analysis:
- Nothing moves from (50): (49)a is derived;
-
NP moves to the Spec of the next higher head (Adj), and then it piedpipes the whole AdjP to the
Spec of Num, etc. This produced the reversal of ordering (snowballing movement): (49)c.
-
NP moves to Spec Adj, and continues to move without piedpiping any constituent: (49)d.
-
(49)b is not derivable: if NP does not move, no reordering is allowed.
6
THE CARTOGRAPHY OF THE LEFT PERIPHERY
1. Force and Fin(iteness), the delimiting heads
(1)a
b
Penso che partiro'
'I think that I will leave'
Penso di partire
'I think of to leave'
che and di, traditionally analysed as complementizers, occupy different positions wrt a topic in the
Clitic Left Dislocation construction:
(2) Il tuo libro, Mario lo leggerà domain
‘Your book, Mario will read tomorrow’
TOPIC
COMMENT
(3)a * Penso, a Gianni, che gli dovrei parlare
'I think, to Gianni, that I should speak to him'
b Penso che, a Gianni, gli dovrei parlare
'I think that, to Gianni, I should speak to him'
(4)a Penso, a Gianni, di dovergli parlare
I think, to Gianni, 'of' to have to speak to him'
b * Penso di, a Gianni, dovergli parlare
'I think 'of', to Gianni, to have to speak to him'
So, we have the order
(5)
… che … TOP … di …
This can be generalized as
(6) ... Force ....TOP … Fin ....
Many languages lexicalize either the higher or the lower C head, but in some cases both heads are
lexicalised simultaneously:
(7)
Is doíche [ faoi cheann cúpla lá [go bhféadfaí imeacht]]
‘Is probable at-the-end-of couple day that could leave’
(Irish: McCloskey 1996)
(8)
Dywedais i [mai ‘r dynion fel arfer a [werthith y ci ]]
‘Said
I C the men as usual C will-sell the dog’ (Welsh: Roberts 1999)
(9)
A chërdo che, col lìber, ch’ a l’ abia già lesulo
(Turinese, Paoli 2007)
‘They believe that, that book, that s/he has already read’
7
2. The criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics
Scope-discourse semantics:
a. the scope of operators (interrogative, relative, exclamative, comparative,…)
b. discourse related articulations such as Topic – Comment and Focus – Presupposition
(10) The criterial approach to scope-discourse: scope-discourse properties are expressed by dedicated
functional heads, which populate the left periphery of the clause and assign to their dependents
interpretive roles such as topicality, focus, etc. (much as thematic properties are assigned by lexical
elements to their dependents).
(11)a
b
c
d
e
Which book
Q
should you read <which book> ?
This book
TOP you should read <this book> tomorrow
THIS BOOK
FOC you should read <this book>, not Bill’s book
The book
REL that you should read <the book> is this one
What a nice book EXCL I read <what a nice book> !
(12)a Ik weet niet [ wie of [ Jan ___ gezien heeft ]](Dutch varieties, Haegeman 1996)
‘I know not who Q Jan
seen has’
b Un sè
[ do [ dan lo
‘I heard that
snake the
yà [ Kofi hu ì ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2001)
TOP Kofi killed it’
c Un sè
[ do [ dan lo
‘I heard that
snake the
wè [ Kofi hu ___ ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2001)
FOC
Kofi killed
’
d Der Mantl [ den wo [ dea Hons ___ gfundn hot ]]
‘The coat which REL the Hans
found has’
(Bavarian, Bayer 1984)
e Che bel libro
‘What a nice book
(Italian, Benincà 2001)
che [ ho letto ___ ] !
EXC I read
‘
(13)a XPCritF must be in a Spec-head configuration with XCritF ,
for CritF = Q, R, Top, Foc,
Excl,….
b X CritF carries explicit instructions for the interface systems concerning how its dependents
(Spec and complement) must be interpreted
(Rizzi 1991/96, 1997, Aboh 2007)
(14)
TopP
2
XP
2
Top
YP
XP = topic
YP = comment
(15)
FocP
2
ZP
2
Foc
WP
ZP = Focus
WP = Presupposition
8
(16) … do Kofi ya gankpa me we kponon
le su i do
‘…that Kofi Top PRISON IN Foc policemen Pl shut him there’
(Gungbe: Aboh 1998)
(17)
Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani gli dovremmo dire
C
Top
Foc
Top
IP
'I believe that to Gianni, THIS, tomorrow we should say'
(18)
Force
Top*
Foc
Top*
Fin
IP
(Rizzi 1997)
3. Some Interpretive and Formal Properties of Topic and Focus
The space delimited by Force and Fin contains positions dedicated to Scope-discourse semantic
properties: different kinds of operators taking scope over the clause, and positions expressing
informational properties and relevant for the organisation of discourse: in primis, topic (typically
expressed in Romance by the Clitic Left Dislocation construction) and left-peripheral focus (typically,
contrastive focus in Romance, hence typically involving a final negative tag expressing the contrast).
(19)a Il suo libro, lo dovresti leggere
‘His book, you should read it’
(Topic – Comment)
b IL SUO LIBRO dovresti leggere, non il mio (Focus – Presupposition)
‘HIS BOOK you should read, not mine’
3.1. Some PF properties (Bocci 2013).
(20) Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Se ho capito bene, sono andati alle isole Vergini.
‘If I understood correctly, they went to the Virgin Islands.’
Ti sbagli!
ALLE MALDIVE
sono andati in viaggio di nozze!
‘You are wrong! TO THE MALDIVES they went on honeymoon!
FOCUS
PRESUPPOSITION
9
High prominence on FOCUS; flattened contour on PRESUPPOSITION
(48)
A:
Secondo me non avranno mai il coraggio di partire da soli per le Maldive...
‘According to me, they will never have the courage of traveling alone to the Maldives…’
B:
Beh, alle Maldive, ci sono andati in viaggio di nozze.
‘Well, to the Maldives, they went (there) on honeymoon.’
TOPIC
COMMENT
Less high contour on TOPIC, hilly contour on COMMENT
3.2. LF properties: Association with Old / New Information
The properties of topic and focus at the interface with semantics/pragmatics can be highlighted by
creating mini-discourse contexts and checking the appropriateness of the different constructions:
(22)Q: Che cosa hai dato a Gianni ?
‘What did you give to Gianni?’
A. Gli ho dato il tuo libro
‘I gave to him your book’
A’: # Il tuo libro, glielo ho dato
‘Your book, I gave it to him’
(23)Q Che cosa hai fatto col mio libro ? (e con quello di Piero?)
‘What did you do with my book?’ (and with Piero’s?)
10
A:
Il tuo libro, lo ho dato a Gianni
‘Your book, I gave it to Gianni’
(24) The Topic is an element selected from the presupposed, background information and made
prominent: “Among the elements of the background, I select X (Topic) and tell you about it that Y
(Comment)”
As for Focus, in Standard Italian, the left peripheral focal position cannot correspond to simple new
information focus, which is normally expressed in sentence-final position:
(25)Q: Che cosa hai letto?
‘What did you read?’
A: Ho letto il tuo libro
‘I read your book’
A’: # IL TUO LIBRO ho letto
‘Your book I read’
(26)a So che ieri hai letto un articolo per preparare l’esame…
‘I know that yesterday you read an article to prepare the exam…’
b Scherzi ? UN LIBRO ho dovuto leggere
‘You kiddin’? A BOOK I had to read’
The left peripheral focus in Italian is not only new information, but must be new information that falls
outside a range of natural expectations (typically, but not necessarily, in corrective contexts like (26)).
Contrastive focus in this sense strongly invites a negative tag, explicitly denying the “natural
expectation”; new information focus doesn’t normally occur with a negative tag excluding alternatives.
There is a parametrisation here: the Sicilian dialect (and the regional variety of Italian spoken in Sicily
and other southern regions) uses a clause initial position also for new information focus (Cruschina
2012):
(27) A: Chi scrivisti?
‘What did you write?
(Sicilian)
B: N’articulu scrissi
‘An article I wrote’
Cruschina argues that Sicilian specifies a left peripheral new information focus position distinct from
and lower than the left peripheral contrastive focus position, which is prosodically more marked and
does not require T to C movement.
11
Foci can be definite or indefinite: focus is new information in a relational sense: what is new is not
(necessarily) the referent of the focussed element, but the fact that it participates with that particular
theta role in the event that is described.
4. Ordering
(28) a Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani
gli dovremmo dire
Force Top
Foc
Top Fin
IP
'I believe that to Gianni, THIS, tomorrow we should say'
b Credo che domani, QUESTO, a Gianni,
Force Top
Foc
Top
Fin
gli dovremmo dire
IP
c Credo che domani, a Gianni, QUESTO
Force Top
Top
Foc
Fin
gli dovremmo dire
IP
d
gli dovremmo dire
IP
Credo che a Gianni, domani, QUESTO
Force Top
Top
Foc
Fin
e Credo che QUESTO, a Gianni, domani,
Force
Foc
Top
Top
Fin
gli dovremmo dire
IP
f Credo che QUESTO, domani, a Gianni,
Force
Foc
Top Top Fin
gli dovremmo dire
IP
NB: languages which impose an ordering between Top and Foc typically have the order Top – Foc.
References
Aboh, E. (2004) The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bayer, J. (1984) “Comp in Bavarian”, The Linguistic Review, 3:209-274.
Belletti, A. (2004) “Aspects of the Low IP Area”, in Rizzi, ed. (2004)
Belletti (2001) “Inversion as focalization”, in Hulk, A. & J.Y.Pollock (Eds.) Inversion in Romance, Oxford University
Press.
Belletti, A. (Ed.), (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Belletti, A. (2009) Structures and Strategies, Routledge, London.
Benincà, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, L. (ed.). The structure
of CP and IP, 3, 52-75.
Bianchi, V. (2003) “On Finiteness and Logoforic Anchoring”, ms., University of Siena.
Bocci, G. (2009) On Syntax and Prosody in Italian, Doctoral dissertation, University of Siena.
Boskovic , Zeljko 2005. On the Operator Freezing Effect, ms., University of Connecticut.
Brandi, L. and P. Cordin (1989) Brandi, L. and P. Cordin (1989) ‘Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter’, in
Jaeggli and Safir (Eds.) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht, Reidel.
12
Calabrese, A. (1986) “Some Properties of the Italian Pronominal System: An Analysis Based on the Notion of Thema
as Subject of Predication”, in H. Stammerjohann, ed. Tema-Rema in Italiano, Tuebingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 25-36.
Cardinaletti, A. (2004) “Towards a Cartography of Syntactic Positions”, in Rizzi (Ed.) (to 2004).
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by
Step – Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase”. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”, in Belletti, ed. (2004).
Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A’ Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Inflectional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York.
Cinque, G., ed. (2002) The Structure of CP and DP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1.,
Oxford
University Press, Oxford – New York.
Durrleman, S (2008) The Syntax of Jamaican Creole – A Cartographic Perspective, Linguistics Today,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Emonds , J. (1970) Root and Structure-preserving Transformations, PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Endo, Y. (2007) Locality and Information Structure – A Cartographic Approach to Japanes., Linguistics
Today, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Felser, C. (2004) Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114 (2004) 543-574.
Frascarelli, M. and R. Hinterhölzl. (2007) Types of Topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler and K. Schwabe, eds., On
Information Structure, Meaning and Form. 87-116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grewendorf, G. (2003) “Improper Remnant Movement”, Gengo Kenkyu – Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 123,
47-94.
Haegeman, L. (1994) An Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kayne, R. (1983) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. (2001) Parameters and Universals. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lasnik, H and M.Saito (1992) Move Alpha: Conditions on its Application and Output. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Legate, J. (2003) Some interface properties of the phase, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506-516.
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo. 2005. I dialetti Italiani e romanci. Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria.
McCloskey, J. (2000) “Quantifier Float and Wh Movement in an Irish English”, LI 31, 57-84.
McCloskey, J. (2002) “Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations”, in S.D. Epstein, T. D. Seely, eds.
Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.184-226.
McDaniel, D. (1989) ‘Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7.4: 565-604.
Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge
University Press.
Nicolis, Marco. 2005. On pro drop. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Siena.
Obenauer, H. (1976) Etudes de syntaxe interrogative du français, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Pearce, Elizabeth, (1999) 'Topic and Focus in a head-initial language: Maori,' Proceedings of AFLA vi. The SixthMeeting of
the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, held at the University of Toronto April 16-18, 1999 edited by Carolyn
Smallwood and Catherine Kitto, pp. 249-263. University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Pesetsky, D. (1982) “Complementizer-trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition”, The Linguistic Review1,
297-343.
Pesetsky, D. (1987) “Wh in Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding”, in E. Reuland and A. Ter Meulen (Eds.), The
Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Pesetsky, D and E. Torrego (2001) “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences”, in M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A
Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 355-426.
Poletto, Cecilia (2000) The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, New York, Oxford
University Press.
Puskas, G. (2000) Word Order in Hungarian, Linguistics Today, John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
13
Reinhart, T. (2005) Interface Strategies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
Rizzi, L. (1991) “Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion”, Geneva Working Papers on Formal and Computational
Linguistics, republished in Rizzi (2000).
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. (2000) Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, Routledge, London.
Rizzi, L. (2004a) “Locality and Left Periphery”, in Belletti (Ed.) (2004).
Rizzi, L. (Ed.), (2004b) The Structure of CP and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures vol 3, OUP.
Rizzi, L. (2004b) Locality and Left Periphery. In A.Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures, vol.3, New York: Oxford University Press
Rizzi, L. (2006) . “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects”, in L. Cheng, N. Corver, eds, On Wh
Movement, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. and U. Shlonsky. (2007) “Strategies of Subject Extraction”, in H.-M.Gärtner and U. Sauerland (eds). Interfaces +
Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. 115-16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roberts, I. (2004) “The C-system in Brythonic Celtic Languages, V2 and the EPP”, in Rizzi, ed. 2004b.
Salvi, G. (2005) “Some Firm Points on Latin Word Order: The Left Periphery”, in K. E. Kiss, ed., Universal Grammar and
the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, Mputon de Gruyter, Berlin.
Sigurðsson, H. (2000) “The Locus of Case and Agreement”, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65, 65-108.
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure”,
Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 425-449.
Starke, M. (2001) Merge Dissolves into Move, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Geneva.
Taraldsen, T. (1978) On the NIC, Vacuous Application and the That-Trace Filter. Bloomington, Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Taraldsen, T. (2001) “Subject Extraction, the Distribution of Expletives, and Stylistic Inversion”, in Hulk, A. & J.Y.Pollock
(Eds.) Inversion in Romance, Oxford University Press, pp. 163-182.
Tsai, D. (2007) “Left Periphery and Why-How Alternations”, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Thornton, R. (2008) Why continuity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(1), 107-146.
14