Volume 40, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbot-Smith, K. & Serratrice, L.
    (2015) Word order, referential expression, and case cues to the acquisition of transitive sentences in Italian. Journal of Child Language, 42, 1–31. doi: 10.1017/S0305000913000421
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000421 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, A.
    (2001) Adjective syntax and noun raising: word order asymmetries in the DP as the result of adjective distribution. Studia Linguistica, 55, 148–217. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00080
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00080 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
    (2004) Voice morphology in the causative – inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.114–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, A. , Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M.
    (Eds) (2004) The Unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexiadou, A. , Anagnostopoulou, E. & Shäfer, F.
    (2015) External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, M.
    (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Grammar Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardel, C. & Falk, Y.
    (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484. doi: 10.1177/0267658307080557
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bever, T.
    (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp.279–362). New York: Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Belletti, A. & Hamann, C.
    (2004) On the L2/bilingual acquisition of French by two young children with different source languages. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds), The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts (pp.147–174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.32.09bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.32.09bel [Google Scholar]
  10. Blom, E. & Unsworth, S.
    (Eds) (2010) Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.27 [Google Scholar]
  11. Borer, H.
    (1994) The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional Projections (pp.19–47). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1998) Deriving passives without theta-grids. In S. Lapointe , D. Brentari & P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp.60–99). Stanford: California, CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004) The Grammar Machine. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.288–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  14. Borer, J.
    (2005) Structuring Sense: Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowers, J.
    (2002) Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 283–224. doi: 10.1162/002438902317406696
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406696 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M.
    (1999) Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.35.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brysbaert, M. & Mitchell, D. C.
    (1996) Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664–695. doi: 10.1080/713755636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/713755636 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, J. L.
    (1995) Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (5), 425–55. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bybee, J. & Hopper, P.
    (Eds) (2001) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  20. Carlier, A. & Sarda, L.
    (2010) Le complément de la localisation spatiale : entre argument et adjoint. In F. Neveu , Toke V. Muni , J. Durand , T. Klingler , L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2010 (pp.2057–2073). doi: 10.1051/cmlf/2010251.
    https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf/2010251 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chevalier, J. -C.
    (1968) Histoire de la syntaxe. Naissance de la notion de complément dans la grammaire française (1530–1750), Genève: Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chierchia, G.
    (1989) A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. Ms., Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2004) A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou et al. (Eds), The Unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp.22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1969) Linguistics and Philosophy. In S. Hook (Ed.), Language and Philosophy. NY: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1986) Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Combettes, B.
    (2014) Evolutions dans le domaine de la transitivité en français. In A. Gautier et al. , (Eds), ComplémentationS (pp.41–57). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Comrie, B.
    (2006) Transitivity pairs, Markedness and Diachronic stability. Linguistics, 44(2), 303–318. doi: 10.1515/LING.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Creissels, D.
    (1995) Eléments de syntaxe générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) Syntaxe Générale, une introduction typologique 1 : catégories et constructions. Paris: Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2016) Tendances actuelles en typologie linguistique. Communication aux Journées d’étudesJeux et enjeux de la linguistique au début de ce XXIe siècle. Strasbourg8–9juin 2016, Journées Usias organisée par la chaire d’excellence Sciences du langage.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Transitivity, Valency and Voice. European Summer School in Linguisstic Typology. Porquerolles, September 2016, deniscreissels.fr, consulted onMarch 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y.
    (2005) A Modular Account of Null Objects in French. Syntax, 8(1), 44–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00074.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00074.x [Google Scholar]
  36. De Angelis, G.
    (2007) Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Desclès, J-P.
    (1998) Transitivité sémantique, transitivité syntaxique. In A. Rousseau (Ed.), La transitivité (pp.161–180). Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Eguzkitza, A. & Kaiser, G. A.
    (1999) Postverbal Subjects in Romance and German. Some notes on the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Lingua, 109, 195–219. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(99)00027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00027-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Embick, D.
    (2004) Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.137–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C.
    (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ferreira, F. & Henderson, JM.
    (1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–742. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90034‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H [Google Scholar]
  42. Fernald, A. , Zangl, R. , Portillo, A. L. & Marchman, V. A.
    (2008) Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In I. A. Sekerina , E. M. Fernandez & H. Clahsen (Eds), Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing (pp.97–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.44.06fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.44.06fer [Google Scholar]
  43. Fotiadou, G.
    (2010) Voice morphology and transitivity alternations in Greek: evidence from corpora and psycholinguistic experiments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fotiadou, G. & Tsimpli, I. M.
    (2010) The acquisition of transitivity alternations in Greek: Does frequency count?Lingua, 120 (11), 2605–2626. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  45. Fotiadou, G. & Vassiliadou, H.
    (2011) Interprétation(s) des verbes anticausatifs en grec et en français : liens entre fréquence et données empiriques. Travaux de linguistique, 11(1), 99–127. doi: 10.3917/tl.062.0099
    https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.062.0099 [Google Scholar]
  46. François, J.
    (2006) Le continuum de transitivité en français et la dimension universelle de la <participation>. ZFSL, 116 (1), 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2016) Le débat sur la place de la sémantique dans l’acquisition des structures grammaticales. Langages, 201, 91–109. doi: 10.3917/lang.201.0091
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.201.0091 [Google Scholar]
  48. Frazier, L.
    (1990) Parsing modifiers: special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism. In D. A. Balota , G. B. F. D’Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp.301–331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K.
    (1982) Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90008‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Friedmann, G. , Taranto, L. , Shapiro, P. & Swinney, D.
    (2008) The Leaf Fell (the Leaf): The Online Processing of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(3), 355–377. doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355 [Google Scholar]
  51. Gleitman, L.
    (1990) The structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 1, 3–56. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Grimshaw, J.
    (1981) Form, function and the language acquisition device. In C. L. Baker & J. M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition (pp.165–182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hamelin, L. & Legallois, D.
    (2016) Une approche sémantique non prototypique de la construction transitive. Faits de langue, 45, 149–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Haspelmath, M.
    (1993) More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B., Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds), Causatives and Transitivity (pp.87–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.23.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has [Google Scholar]
  56. (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(1), 663–687. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2015) The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. MS. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & Leipzig University. Available at: https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Haspelmath_paper.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Heidinger, S.
    (2008) French anticausatives in a diachronic perspective, Thèse de doctorat Université de Stuttgart / Université Paris-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. L.
    (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Herslund, M.
    (2000), Les deux passifs du français. In L. Schøsler (Ed.), Le passif (pp.71–81). University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hulk, A. & Müller, N.
    (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. doi: 10.1017/S1366728900000353
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ingham, R.
    (1993/1994) Input and learnability: direct-object omissibility in English. Language Acquisition, 3, 95–120. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0302_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0302_1 [Google Scholar]
  63. Jakubowicz, C.
    (2003) Hypothèses psycholinguistiques sur la nature du déficit dysphasique. In C. Gérard & V. Brun (Eds), Les dysphasies. Paris: Masson.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Jakubowicz, C. , N. Müller , B. Riemer & Rigaut, C.
    (1997) The Case of Subject and Object Omission in French and German. In E. Hughes , M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (Eds), BUCLD 21 (pp.331–342). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kallulli, D.
    (2006a) Unaccusative with dative Causers and Experiencers: A unified account. In D. Hole , A. Meinunger & W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Similar Cases (pp.271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.75.13kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.13kal [Google Scholar]
  66. (2006b) A unified analysis of passives and anticausatives. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo-Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 6, (201–222), CSSP, Paris, Available atwww.CSSP.cnrs.fr/eiss6/kallulli-eiss6.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kayne, R.
    (1975) French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Keller, F. & Sorace, A.
    (2003) Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108. doi: 10.1017/S0022226702001676
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001676 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kratzer, A.
    (1989) The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1994) The event argument and the semantics of voice. MS. University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp.109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lakoff, G.
    (1968) Ordering of transformational rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1970) Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Labelle, M.
    (1992) Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 28, 375–414. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700015267
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015267 [Google Scholar]
  75. Labelle, M. & Doron, E.
    (2010) Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus, 22 (2), 303–316. doi: 10.1515/prbs.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lamiroy, B.
    (1993) Pourquoi il y a deux passifs?Langages, 109, 53–72. doi: 10.3406/lgge.1993.1091
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1993.1091 [Google Scholar]
  77. Larjavaara, M.
    (2000) Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain, Annales Academiae Sacientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, 312, Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lazard, G.
    (1994) L’actance [Linguistique Nouvelle]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Le Bellec, Ch
    (2009) La diathèse verbale dans trois langues romanes : vers une description dans le cadre de laGrammaire Fonctionnelle Discursive. Thèse, Université de Toulouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Legendre, G. & Smolensky, P.
    (2010) French inchoatives and the unaccusativity hypothesis. In D. Gerdts , J. Moore , and M. Polinsky (Eds), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter (pp.229–246). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Legendre, G. , M. Putnam , H. De Swart & E. Zaroukian
    (2016) Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax – Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. (1999) Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events. Proceedings of SALT, 9, 199–223. doi: 10.3765/salt.v9i0.2836
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2836 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2005) Argument Realization. Research Surveys in Linguistics Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  85. MacDonald, M. C. , Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (1994) Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton , L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp.178–269). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Marantz, A.
    (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Martin, F. & Schäfer, F.
    (2014) Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: a French case study. In F. Neveu , P. Blumenthal , L. Hriba , A. Gerstenberg , J. Meinschaefer & S. Prévost (Eds), 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. SHS Web of Conferences, 8, 2485–2500. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20140801245
    https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801245 [Google Scholar]
  88. Melis, L.
    (1990) La voiE pronominale. Paris-Louvain: Duculot. doi: 10.3917/dbu.melis.1990.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.melis.1990.01 [Google Scholar]
  89. Montrul, S.
    (2004a) Convergent outcomes in second language acquisition and first language loss. In M. Schmid , B. Kӧpke , M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues (pp.259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.28.16mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.28.16mon [Google Scholar]
  90. (2004b) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers. A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464 [Google Scholar]
  91. Muller, C.
    (2002) Les bases de la syntaxe. Syntaxe contrastive français-langues voisines. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nichols, J. , Peterson, D. & Barnes, J.
    (2004) Transitivising and Detransitivising Languages, Linguistic Typology, 8(2), 149–211. doi: 10.1515/lity.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  93. Perez-Leroux, A. T.
    (2014) How children learn to detect and interpret agreement morphology: A cross-linguistic perspective. Lingua, 144, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  94. Perez-Leroux, A. T. , Pirvulescu, M. & Roberge, Y.
    (2006) Early Object Omission in Child French and English. In N. Chiyo & J. -P. Y. Montreuil (eds), New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics, Vol. I. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Austin, Texas, February2005, 213–228. doi: 10.1075/cilt.275.17per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.275.17per [Google Scholar]
  95. Pesetsky, D.
    (1995) Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pino Serrano, L.
    (2010) Limites fonctionnelles et transitivité. Travaux de linguistique, 60, 11–27. doi: 10.3917/tl.060.0011
    https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.060.0011 [Google Scholar]
  97. Pinker, S.
    (1984) Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Prévost, P.
    (2009) The acquisition of French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lald.51
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.51 [Google Scholar]
  99. Randall, J. , Van Hout, A. , Weissenborn, J. & Baayen, H.
    (2004) Acquiring Unaccusativity: A cross-linguistic look. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle (pp.332–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  100. Reinhart, T.
    (1996) Syntactic Effects of lexical Operations: Reflexives and Unaccusatives. OTS, Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. (2003) The Theta System – An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–290. doi: 10.1515/thli.28.3.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.28.3.229 [Google Scholar]
  102. Reinhart, T. & Siloni, T.
    (2004) Against an unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Εds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle (pp.159–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  103. (2005) The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389–436. doi: 10.1162/0024389054396881
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396881 [Google Scholar]
  104. Roberge, Y.
    (2002) Transitivity Requirement Effects and the EPP. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) . November 2002, Vancouver. homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~roberge/pdf/WECOL02.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Rothman, J.
    (2013) Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingulism: Language and Cognition. Published online byCambridge University Press, November 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Schmitz, K.
    (2012) Passivierung und Unakkusativität in den romanischen Sprachen Spanisch, Italienisch und Französisch. Tübingen: Narr. [Veröffentlichung der Habilitationsschrift].
  107. Schmitz, K. & Müller, N.
    (2008) Strong and clitic pronouns in monolingual and bilingual acquisition of French and Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, (1), 19–41. doi: 10.1017/S1366728907003197
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003197 [Google Scholar]
  108. Sorace, A.
    (1993) Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy. Journal of French Language Studies, 3, 71–93. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500000351
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500000351 [Google Scholar]
  109. (2000) Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. doi: 10.2307/417202
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417202 [Google Scholar]
  110. (2004) Gradience at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Evidence from Auxiliary Selection and Implications for Unaccusativity. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou , M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.243–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  111. Tesnière, L.
    (1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Theakston, A. L. , Lieven, E. V. M. , Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F.
    (2001) The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28, 127–152. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900004608
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900004608 [Google Scholar]
  113. Thornton, R. , MacDonald, M. & Gil, M.
    (1999) Pragmatic constraints on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1347–1365.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Tomasello, M.
    (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition, 74, 209–253. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00069‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4 [Google Scholar]
  115. (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tsimpli, I. M.
    (2006) The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In S. Unsworth , T. Parodi , A. Sorace & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition: In honor of Bonnie D. Scwartz. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 39 (pp.15–55). John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lald.39.03tsi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.39.03tsi [Google Scholar]
  117. Tuller, L. , Delage, H. , Monjauz, C. & Piller, A-G.
    (2011) Clitic pronoun production as a measure of atypical language development in French. Lingua, 121(3), 423–441. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  118. Trueswell, J. C. , Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M.
    (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 [Google Scholar]
  119. Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (1994) Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton , L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspective in Sentence Processing (pp.155–179). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.: Hillsdale, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Van Gelderen, E.
    (2011) Valency changes in the history of English, Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 106–143. doi: 10.1075/jhl.1.1.05van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.1.1.05van [Google Scholar]
  121. Van Hout, A.
    (1992) Linking and projection based on event structure. MS. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. (1996) Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternation: A Case Study of Dutch and its Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. (2000) Event semantics in the lexicon- syntax interface: Verb frame alternation in Dutch and their acquisition. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects (pp.239–282). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. (2004) Unaccusativity as Telicity checking. In A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou , M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.60–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  125. Verrips, M.
    (2000) Passives and implicit arguments in child language. In S. C. Howell , S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.749–760). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Vernice, M. & Guasti, M. T.
    (2015) The acquisition of SV order in unaccusatives: manipulating the definiteness of the NP argument. Journal of Child Language, 42, 210–237. doi: 10.1017/S0305000913000536
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000536 [Google Scholar]
  127. Williams, E.
    (1981) Argument Structure and Morphology, The Linguistic Review, 1, 81–114. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81 [Google Scholar]
  128. Zribi-Hertz, A.
    (2008) Le médiopassif à accord riche en français : pour une approche multifactorielle. In J. Durand , B. Habert & B. Laks (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF ’08 (pp.2645–2662). doi: 10.1051/cmlf08083.
    https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf08083 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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