1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Structures, Strategies and Beyond
  4. Chapter

A case of focal adverb preposing in French

image of A case of focal adverb preposing in French

This article is about a specific case of focal adverb preposing in French, i.e. preposing of the adverb ainsi ‘in this way’, which is necessarily followed by subject inversion, resulting in the word order [focal ainsi – V – S]. This construction appears in a very specific discourse context and, just as other cross-linguistic types of focus preposing, is the result of the movement of this adverb to a focus projection in the left periphery. I show that this correctly predicts the construction to be a main clause phenomenon and provide a syntactic analysis in terms of Relativized Minimality.

References

  1. Abels, Klaus
    2012 The Italian Left Periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry43(2): 229–254. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00084
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00084 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé, Anne , Godard, Danièle & Sabio, Frédéric
    2008 Two types of NP preposing in French. InThe Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 306–324. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 The dramatic extraction construction in spoken French. Bucharest working papers in Linguistics11(1): 135–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Authier, Jean-Marc
    2011 A movement analysis of French modal ellipsis. Probus23: 175–216. DOI:10.1515/prbs.2011.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2011.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Authier, Jean-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane
    2014a French adverbial clauses. Rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate. Probus. doi: 10.1515/probus‑2013‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014b No such thing as ‘parameterized structural deficiency in the left periphery’. InLanguage Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 33–46. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aelbrecht, Lobke , Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel
    (eds) 2012 Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.190
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbosa, Pilar
    2001 On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. InRomance Inversion, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves. Pollock (eds), 2–59. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226702261988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702261988 [Google Scholar]
  9. Belletti, Adriana
    2001 ‘Inversion’ as focalization. InInversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226702261988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702261988 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004 Aspects of the Low IP Area. InThe Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226706304380
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226706304380 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008 The CP of clefts. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa33: 191–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 Structures and Strategies. New York NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011 Focus and the predicate of clefts. Paper presented atGIST3: Cartographic Structures and Beyond workshop at Ghent University.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 Focusing on clefts. Paper presented at theWorkshop Cleft Sentences in Romance and Germanic, Going Romance, Leuven, December.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 On fin: Italian che, Japanese no, and the selective properties of the copula in clefts. InDeep Insights, Broad Perspectives. Essays in Honor of Mamooru Saito , Yoichi Miyamoto , Daiko Takahashi , Hideki Maki , Masao Ochi , Koji Sugisaki & Asako Uchibori (eds), 42–55. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 The Focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication. To appear inBeyond Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Benincà, Paola
    2001 L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. InGrande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1, Lorenzo Renzi , Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds)129–208. Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bianchi, Valentina
    2004 Resumptive relatives and LF chains. InThe Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 76–114. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 On Focus movement in Italian. InInformation Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada , Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández , Javier Martín-González and Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 194–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.197
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.197 [Google Scholar]
  20. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
    2006 Les clivées françaises de type : C’est comme ça que, C’est pour ça que, c’est là que tout a commencé. Moderna Språk100(2): 273–287.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bocci, Giuliano
    2007 Criterial positions and left periphery in Italian. Evidence for the syntactic encoding of contrastive focus. Nanzan Linguistics3(1): 35–70. Special issue.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013 The Syntax–Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.204
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.204 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boeckx, Cédric & Jeong, Youngmi
    2004 The fine structure of intervention in syntax. InIssues in Current Linguistic Theory: A Festschrift for Hong Bae Lee, Chungja Kwon & Wonbin Lee (eds), 83–116. Seoul: Kyungchin.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Camacho-Taboada, Victoria & Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L
    2014 Focus fronting and root phenomena in Spanish and English. InLanguage Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 41–60. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cardinaletti, Anna
    2010 On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. InAdvances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou , Jorge Hankamer , T. McFadden , J. Nuger & Florian Schaeffer (eds), 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.141
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.141 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1990 Types of A–bar Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700015450
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700015450 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI:10.1017/s0022226705243396
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226705243396 [Google Scholar]
  28. Clech-Darbon, Anne , Rialland, Annie & Rebuschi, Georges
    1999 Are there cleft sentences in French?InThe Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], Lauri Tuller & Georges Rebuschi (eds), 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.24.04cle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.04cle [Google Scholar]
  29. Cruschina, Silvio
    2010 Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in Italian. Lingua120: 50–73. DOI:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2012 Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections [Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax). Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Culicover, Peter W. & Robert, Levine D
    2001 Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19: 283–310. doi: 10.1023/a:1010646417840
     https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010646417840 [Google Scholar]
  32. De Cat, Cécile
    2012 Towards an interface definition of root phenomena. InMain Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht , Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 135–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.190
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190 [Google Scholar]
  33. Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth , Jenny Doetjes & Sleeman, Petra
    2004 Dislocation. InHandbook of French semantics, Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds), 505–530. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Emonds, Joe
    1970 Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2004 Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. InPeripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger , Cécile de Cat & Georges Tsoulas (eds), 75–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/1‑4020‑1910‑6_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22: 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Leonetti, Manuel
    2009 Fronting and irony in Spanish. InFocus and Background in Romance Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 214], Andreas Dufter & Jacob Daniel (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.112.07leo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo [Google Scholar]
  38. Flament-Boistrancourt, Danièle
    1999 Quelques aspects d’ainsi et aussi consécutifs à la lumière d’un point de vue de non-francophone. Le Gré des Langues15: 142–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Floricic, Franck
    2009 Negation and ‘focus clash’ in Sardinian. InInformation Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed.), 129–152. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213973.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213973.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  40. Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca
    2009 Pseudo cleft constructions at the interfaces. ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000841
  41. 2013 (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface. InCleft Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 208], Katharina Hartmann & Tonje Veenstra (eds), 97–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.208.04fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.04fra [Google Scholar]
  42. Friedmann, Naama , Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi
    2009 Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua119: 67–88. DOI:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Green, Giorgia. M
    1976 Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language52: 382–397. doi: 10.2307/412566
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412566 [Google Scholar]
  44. Guimier, Claude
    1997 La place du sujet clitique dans les énoncés avec adverbe initial. InLa place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed), 43–96. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Haegeman, Liliane
    1996 Negative inversion, the NEG-criterion, and the structure of CP. GenGenP4.2: 93–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2000 Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. Transactions of the Philological Society98: 121–160. DOI:10.1111/1467‑968x.00060
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.00060 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2003a Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language18: 317–339. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0017.00230
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00230 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2003b Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the Left Periphery. Linguistic Inquiry34: 640–649. doi: 10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.640
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.640 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2006a Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the Left Periphery. InNegation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttini , Hector Campos , Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 27–52. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006b Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua116: 1651–1669. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010 The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry41(4): 595–621. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00014
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00014 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2012 Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 8. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Haegeman, Liliane , Meinunger, André & Vercauteren, Aleksandra
    2013 The architecture of it-clefts. Journal of Linguistics50 (2): 269–296. doi: 10.1017/s0022226713000042
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226713000042 [Google Scholar]
  54. Haegeman, Liliane , Meinunger, André
    & Aleksandra Vercauteren. 2014. Against the matrix left peripheral analysis of English it-clefts. InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 6], Karen Lahousse & Stefania Marzo (eds) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/rllt.6.04hae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.6.04hae [Google Scholar]
  55. Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
    2010a Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics36: 111–152. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.008 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010b Operator movement, referentiality and intervention. Theoretical Linguistics36: 233–246. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.017 [Google Scholar]
  57. Heggie, Lorrie
    1988 The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Heycock, Caroline
    2006 Embedded root phenomena. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI:10.1002/9780470996591.ch23
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch23 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A
    1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry4(4): 465–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hybertie, Charlotte
    1996 La conséquence en français. Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Jiménez-Fernández, Angel
    2010 Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacrítica – Language Sciences Series24(1): 25–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2013 Microvariation at the IS-syntax interface: The case of focus fronting. Workshop on syntactic variation, Barcelona, June 26–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Jonare, Brigitta
    1976 L’inversion dans la principale non-interogative en français contemporain. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Karssenberg, Lena
    2013 L’adverbe ainsi en tête de phrase: Une analyse de corpus.MA thesis, KU Leuven. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801266
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801266 [Google Scholar]
  65. Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen
    2014 Ainsi en tête de phrase + inversion: Une analyse de corpus [Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de la Linguistique française]. SHS Web of Conferences8: 2413–2427. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801266
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801266 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kayne, Richard
    1972 Subject inversion in French interrogatives. InGenerative Studies in Romance Languages, Jean Casagrande & Bohdan Saciuk (eds), 70–126. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700005272
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700005272 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1978 Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry9: 595–621.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kerleroux, Françoise & Marandin, Jean-Marie
    2001 L’ordre des mots. InCahier Jean-Claude Milner, Jean-Marie Marandin (ed.), 277–302. Paris: Verdier.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. E. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language74: 245–273. doi: 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  71. Lahousse, Karen
    2006 NP subject inversion in French: Two types, two configurations. Lingua116: 424–46. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2010 Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in French. Studies in Language34: 298–326. DOI:10.1075/sl.34.2.03lah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.03lah [Google Scholar]
  73. 2011 Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: PUV.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2014 Low sentence structure in (DP subject inversion in) French. Talk presented atGLOW, Brussels, 4 April 2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lahousse, Karen , Laenzlinger, Christopher & Soare Gabriela
    2014 Contrast and intervention at the periphery. Lingua143: 56–85. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511620607.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511620607.003 [Google Scholar]
  77. Le Bidois, Robert
    1952 L’Inversion du sujet dans la prose contemporaine (1900–1950). Paris: Artrey. doi: 10.2307/319478
     https://doi.org/10.2307/319478 [Google Scholar]
  78. Le Goffic, Pierre
    1997 Forme et place du sujet dans l’interrogation partielle. InLa place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed.), 15–42. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
    2009 Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. InFocus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.112.07leo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo [Google Scholar]
  80. Lutz, Uli , Müller, Gereon & von Stechow, Arnim
    (eds) 2000 Wh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.37
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37 [Google Scholar]
  81. Maki, Hideki , Kaiser, Lizanne & Ochi, Masao
    1999 Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua109: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/s0024‑3841(98)00055‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(98)00055-2 [Google Scholar]
  82. McDaniel, Dana
    1989 Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory7: 565–604. DOI:10.1007/bf00205158
     https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00205158 [Google Scholar]
  83. Meinunger, André
    1996 Speculations on the syntax of (pseudo-)clefts. Ms, Berlin, ZAS.
  84. Molinier, Christian
    2013 Ainsi: Deux emplois complémentaires d’un adverbe type. InAdverbes et compléments adverbiaux/Adverbs and Adverbial Complements [Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes 36(2)], Jan Radimský & Ignazio Mauro Mirto (eds), 311–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/li.36.2.09mol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.36.2.09mol [Google Scholar]
  85. Molnár, Valeria
    2002 Contrast in a contrastive perspective. InInformation Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård , Stig K.A. Johansson , Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi: 10.1075/lic.4.2.08mau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.2.08mau [Google Scholar]
  86. Pesetsky, David
    1987 Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. InThe Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Reeve, Matthew
    2011 The syntactic structure of English Clefts. Lingua121: 142–171. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2012 Clefts and their Relatives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 185]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.185
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.185 [Google Scholar]
  89. Reinhart, Tanya
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27: 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Rizzi, Luigi
    1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.9793/elsj1984.8.154
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.8.154 [Google Scholar]
  91. 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar , Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2001 On the position of interrogative in the Left Periphery of the clause. InCurrent Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered toLorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287–296. Oxford: North-Holland. doi: 10.1016/s0024‑3841(01)00057‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(01)00057-2 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2004 Locality and left periphery. InStructures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 2010 Some consequences of criterial freezing. InFunctional Structure from Top to Toe, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 19–45. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
    2006 Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. InPhases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197723.5.341
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.5.341 [Google Scholar]
  96. Ruwet, Nicolas
    1975 Les phrases copulatives en français. Recherches Linguistiques3: 143–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sabio, Frédéric
    1995 Micro-syntaxe et macro-syntaxe: L’exemple des “compléments antéposés” en français. Recherches sur le Français Parlé13: 111–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 2006 L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: L’exemple des objets directs. Linguisticae Investigationes29: 173–182. doi: 10.1075/li.29.1.15sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.29.1.15sab [Google Scholar]
  99. Sleeman, Petra
    2011 Quantifier–focalization in French and Italian. Handout presented atdepartment of linguistics, KU Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Starke, Michal
    2001 Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Genève.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Togeby, Knud
    1982–1985 Grammaire française. Copenhague: Akademisk Vorlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Torregrossa, Jacopo
    2012 Towards a taxonomy of focus types: The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. InUCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Semantics, Denis Paperno (ed.), 151–172. Los Angeles CA: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Uribe-Etxebarria, Miriam
    1991 On the structural positions of the subject in Spanish, their nature and their consequences from quantification. InSyntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, Joseba A. Lakarra & Jon Ortiz de (eds), 447–493. San Sebastián: ASJU.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Wood, Jim
    2008 So-inversion as polarity focus. InProceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Fresno CA: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1984 Prépositions orphelines et pronoms nuls. Recherches linguistiques12: 46–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Zubizarreta, María Luisa
    1998 Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abels, Klaus
    2012 The Italian Left Periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry43(2): 229–254. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00084
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00084 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé, Anne , Godard, Danièle & Sabio, Frédéric
    2008 Two types of NP preposing in French. InThe Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 306–324. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 The dramatic extraction construction in spoken French. Bucharest working papers in Linguistics11(1): 135–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Authier, Jean-Marc
    2011 A movement analysis of French modal ellipsis. Probus23: 175–216. DOI:10.1515/prbs.2011.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2011.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Authier, Jean-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane
    2014a French adverbial clauses. Rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate. Probus. doi: 10.1515/probus‑2013‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014b No such thing as ‘parameterized structural deficiency in the left periphery’. InLanguage Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 33–46. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aelbrecht, Lobke , Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel
    (eds) 2012 Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.190
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbosa, Pilar
    2001 On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. InRomance Inversion, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves. Pollock (eds), 2–59. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226702261988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702261988 [Google Scholar]
  9. Belletti, Adriana
    2001 ‘Inversion’ as focalization. InInversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226702261988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702261988 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004 Aspects of the Low IP Area. InThe Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1017/s0022226706304380
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226706304380 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008 The CP of clefts. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa33: 191–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 Structures and Strategies. New York NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011 Focus and the predicate of clefts. Paper presented atGIST3: Cartographic Structures and Beyond workshop at Ghent University.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 Focusing on clefts. Paper presented at theWorkshop Cleft Sentences in Romance and Germanic, Going Romance, Leuven, December.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 On fin: Italian che, Japanese no, and the selective properties of the copula in clefts. InDeep Insights, Broad Perspectives. Essays in Honor of Mamooru Saito , Yoichi Miyamoto , Daiko Takahashi , Hideki Maki , Masao Ochi , Koji Sugisaki & Asako Uchibori (eds), 42–55. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 The Focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication. To appear inBeyond Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Benincà, Paola
    2001 L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. InGrande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1, Lorenzo Renzi , Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds)129–208. Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bianchi, Valentina
    2004 Resumptive relatives and LF chains. InThe Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 76–114. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 On Focus movement in Italian. InInformation Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada , Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández , Javier Martín-González and Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 194–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.197
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.197 [Google Scholar]
  20. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
    2006 Les clivées françaises de type : C’est comme ça que, C’est pour ça que, c’est là que tout a commencé. Moderna Språk100(2): 273–287.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bocci, Giuliano
    2007 Criterial positions and left periphery in Italian. Evidence for the syntactic encoding of contrastive focus. Nanzan Linguistics3(1): 35–70. Special issue.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013 The Syntax–Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.204
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.204 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boeckx, Cédric & Jeong, Youngmi
    2004 The fine structure of intervention in syntax. InIssues in Current Linguistic Theory: A Festschrift for Hong Bae Lee, Chungja Kwon & Wonbin Lee (eds), 83–116. Seoul: Kyungchin.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Camacho-Taboada, Victoria & Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L
    2014 Focus fronting and root phenomena in Spanish and English. InLanguage Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 41–60. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cardinaletti, Anna
    2010 On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. InAdvances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou , Jorge Hankamer , T. McFadden , J. Nuger & Florian Schaeffer (eds), 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.141
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.141 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1990 Types of A–bar Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700015450
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700015450 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI:10.1017/s0022226705243396
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226705243396 [Google Scholar]
  28. Clech-Darbon, Anne , Rialland, Annie & Rebuschi, Georges
    1999 Are there cleft sentences in French?InThe Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], Lauri Tuller & Georges Rebuschi (eds), 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.24.04cle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.04cle [Google Scholar]
  29. Cruschina, Silvio
    2010 Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in Italian. Lingua120: 50–73. DOI:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2012 Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections [Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax). Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Culicover, Peter W. & Robert, Levine D
    2001 Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19: 283–310. doi: 10.1023/a:1010646417840
     https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010646417840 [Google Scholar]
  32. De Cat, Cécile
    2012 Towards an interface definition of root phenomena. InMain Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht , Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 135–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.190
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190 [Google Scholar]
  33. Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth , Jenny Doetjes & Sleeman, Petra
    2004 Dislocation. InHandbook of French semantics, Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds), 505–530. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Emonds, Joe
    1970 Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2004 Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. InPeripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger , Cécile de Cat & Georges Tsoulas (eds), 75–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/1‑4020‑1910‑6_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22: 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Leonetti, Manuel
    2009 Fronting and irony in Spanish. InFocus and Background in Romance Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 214], Andreas Dufter & Jacob Daniel (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.112.07leo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo [Google Scholar]
  38. Flament-Boistrancourt, Danièle
    1999 Quelques aspects d’ainsi et aussi consécutifs à la lumière d’un point de vue de non-francophone. Le Gré des Langues15: 142–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Floricic, Franck
    2009 Negation and ‘focus clash’ in Sardinian. InInformation Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed.), 129–152. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213973.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213973.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  40. Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca
    2009 Pseudo cleft constructions at the interfaces. ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000841
  41. 2013 (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface. InCleft Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 208], Katharina Hartmann & Tonje Veenstra (eds), 97–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.208.04fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.04fra [Google Scholar]
  42. Friedmann, Naama , Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi
    2009 Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua119: 67–88. DOI:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Green, Giorgia. M
    1976 Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language52: 382–397. doi: 10.2307/412566
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412566 [Google Scholar]
  44. Guimier, Claude
    1997 La place du sujet clitique dans les énoncés avec adverbe initial. InLa place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed), 43–96. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Haegeman, Liliane
    1996 Negative inversion, the NEG-criterion, and the structure of CP. GenGenP4.2: 93–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2000 Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. Transactions of the Philological Society98: 121–160. DOI:10.1111/1467‑968x.00060
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.00060 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2003a Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language18: 317–339. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0017.00230
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00230 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2003b Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the Left Periphery. Linguistic Inquiry34: 640–649. doi: 10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.640
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.640 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2006a Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the Left Periphery. InNegation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttini , Hector Campos , Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 27–52. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006b Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua116: 1651–1669. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010 The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry41(4): 595–621. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00014
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00014 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2012 Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 8. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Haegeman, Liliane , Meinunger, André & Vercauteren, Aleksandra
    2013 The architecture of it-clefts. Journal of Linguistics50 (2): 269–296. doi: 10.1017/s0022226713000042
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226713000042 [Google Scholar]
  54. Haegeman, Liliane , Meinunger, André
    & Aleksandra Vercauteren. 2014. Against the matrix left peripheral analysis of English it-clefts. InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 6], Karen Lahousse & Stefania Marzo (eds) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/rllt.6.04hae
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.6.04hae [Google Scholar]
  55. Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara
    2010a Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics36: 111–152. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.008 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010b Operator movement, referentiality and intervention. Theoretical Linguistics36: 233–246. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.017 [Google Scholar]
  57. Heggie, Lorrie
    1988 The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Heycock, Caroline
    2006 Embedded root phenomena. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI:10.1002/9780470996591.ch23
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch23 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A
    1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry4(4): 465–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hybertie, Charlotte
    1996 La conséquence en français. Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Jiménez-Fernández, Angel
    2010 Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacrítica – Language Sciences Series24(1): 25–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2013 Microvariation at the IS-syntax interface: The case of focus fronting. Workshop on syntactic variation, Barcelona, June 26–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Jonare, Brigitta
    1976 L’inversion dans la principale non-interogative en français contemporain. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Karssenberg, Lena
    2013 L’adverbe ainsi en tête de phrase: Une analyse de corpus.MA thesis, KU Leuven. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801266
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801266 [Google Scholar]
  65. Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen
    2014 Ainsi en tête de phrase + inversion: Une analyse de corpus [Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de la Linguistique française]. SHS Web of Conferences8: 2413–2427. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801266
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801266 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kayne, Richard
    1972 Subject inversion in French interrogatives. InGenerative Studies in Romance Languages, Jean Casagrande & Bohdan Saciuk (eds), 70–126. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700005272
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700005272 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1978 Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry9: 595–621.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kerleroux, Françoise & Marandin, Jean-Marie
    2001 L’ordre des mots. InCahier Jean-Claude Milner, Jean-Marie Marandin (ed.), 277–302. Paris: Verdier.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. E. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language74: 245–273. doi: 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  71. Lahousse, Karen
    2006 NP subject inversion in French: Two types, two configurations. Lingua116: 424–46. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2010 Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in French. Studies in Language34: 298–326. DOI:10.1075/sl.34.2.03lah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.03lah [Google Scholar]
  73. 2011 Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: PUV.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2014 Low sentence structure in (DP subject inversion in) French. Talk presented atGLOW, Brussels, 4 April 2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lahousse, Karen , Laenzlinger, Christopher & Soare Gabriela
    2014 Contrast and intervention at the periphery. Lingua143: 56–85. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511620607.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511620607.003 [Google Scholar]
  77. Le Bidois, Robert
    1952 L’Inversion du sujet dans la prose contemporaine (1900–1950). Paris: Artrey. doi: 10.2307/319478
     https://doi.org/10.2307/319478 [Google Scholar]
  78. Le Goffic, Pierre
    1997 Forme et place du sujet dans l’interrogation partielle. InLa place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed.), 15–42. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
    2009 Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. InFocus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.112.07leo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo [Google Scholar]
  80. Lutz, Uli , Müller, Gereon & von Stechow, Arnim
    (eds) 2000 Wh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.37
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37 [Google Scholar]
  81. Maki, Hideki , Kaiser, Lizanne & Ochi, Masao
    1999 Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua109: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/s0024‑3841(98)00055‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(98)00055-2 [Google Scholar]
  82. McDaniel, Dana
    1989 Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory7: 565–604. DOI:10.1007/bf00205158
     https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00205158 [Google Scholar]
  83. Meinunger, André
    1996 Speculations on the syntax of (pseudo-)clefts. Ms, Berlin, ZAS.
  84. Molinier, Christian
    2013 Ainsi: Deux emplois complémentaires d’un adverbe type. InAdverbes et compléments adverbiaux/Adverbs and Adverbial Complements [Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes 36(2)], Jan Radimský & Ignazio Mauro Mirto (eds), 311–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/li.36.2.09mol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.36.2.09mol [Google Scholar]
  85. Molnár, Valeria
    2002 Contrast in a contrastive perspective. InInformation Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård , Stig K.A. Johansson , Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi: 10.1075/lic.4.2.08mau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.2.08mau [Google Scholar]
  86. Pesetsky, David
    1987 Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. InThe Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Reeve, Matthew
    2011 The syntactic structure of English Clefts. Lingua121: 142–171. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2012 Clefts and their Relatives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 185]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/la.185
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.185 [Google Scholar]
  89. Reinhart, Tanya
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27: 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Rizzi, Luigi
    1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.9793/elsj1984.8.154
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.8.154 [Google Scholar]
  91. 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar , Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2001 On the position of interrogative in the Left Periphery of the clause. InCurrent Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered toLorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287–296. Oxford: North-Holland. doi: 10.1016/s0024‑3841(01)00057‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(01)00057-2 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2004 Locality and left periphery. InStructures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 2010 Some consequences of criterial freezing. InFunctional Structure from Top to Toe, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 19–45. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur
    2006 Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. InPhases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197723.5.341
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.5.341 [Google Scholar]
  96. Ruwet, Nicolas
    1975 Les phrases copulatives en français. Recherches Linguistiques3: 143–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sabio, Frédéric
    1995 Micro-syntaxe et macro-syntaxe: L’exemple des “compléments antéposés” en français. Recherches sur le Français Parlé13: 111–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 2006 L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: L’exemple des objets directs. Linguisticae Investigationes29: 173–182. doi: 10.1075/li.29.1.15sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.29.1.15sab [Google Scholar]
  99. Sleeman, Petra
    2011 Quantifier–focalization in French and Italian. Handout presented atdepartment of linguistics, KU Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Starke, Michal
    2001 Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Genève.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Togeby, Knud
    1982–1985 Grammaire française. Copenhague: Akademisk Vorlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Torregrossa, Jacopo
    2012 Towards a taxonomy of focus types: The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. InUCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Semantics, Denis Paperno (ed.), 151–172. Los Angeles CA: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Uribe-Etxebarria, Miriam
    1991 On the structural positions of the subject in Spanish, their nature and their consequences from quantification. InSyntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, Joseba A. Lakarra & Jon Ortiz de (eds), 447–493. San Sebastián: ASJU.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Wood, Jim
    2008 So-inversion as polarity focus. InProceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Fresno CA: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1984 Prépositions orphelines et pronoms nuls. Recherches linguistiques12: 46–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Zubizarreta, María Luisa
    1998 Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268464-la.223.10lah
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268464-la.223.10lah
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268464
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error