Advertisement

Introduction

  • Julia HerschensohnEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 95)

Abstract

This chapter first gives a historical overview of the importance of Romance linguistics to the development of diachronic and synchronic theory over the past three centuries. It then presents the articles constituting the volume, highlighting the areas of morphosyntax, phonology and language variation, noting that many of them draw on new empirical databases. Several articles cover diachronic and synchronic morphosyntax, particularly focusing on the functional projections of the left periphery of CP and DP (Arteaga, Authier and Haegeman, Donaldson, Labelle, Reed, Zagona and Contreras). Others examine variation in terms of cross-linguistic, diachronic, dialectal and sociolinguistic factors (Bullock and Toribio, Gess, Jacobs, Russi).

Keywords

Corpora Diachronic change Language variation Left periphery Linguistic theory Minimalist program Morphosyntax Phonology Romance linguistics 

References

  1. Aboh, Enoch, and Jeannette C. Schaeffer (eds.). 2015. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from going Romance Amsterdam 2013. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance. In Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clausal architecture, ed. Zanuttini Raffaella, Héctor Campos Héctor, Elena Herburger, and Paul Portner, 53–86. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Belazi Hedi M, Rubin Edward J, and Toribio A. Jacqueline. 1994. Code switching and X-Bar theory: The Functional Head Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2):221–237.Google Scholar
  4. Bouchard, Denis. 1983. ECM is exceptional case marking. In Proceedings of the West Coast conference on Formal linguistics, ed. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat, 11–18. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, Travis. 2014. Optimality theory and Spanish phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 8: 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrilho, Ernestina, Alexandra Fiéis, María Lobo, and Sandra Pereira (eds.). 2016. Romance languages and linguistic theory 10: Selected papers from going Romance 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355.Google Scholar
  8. Colina, Sonia. 2009. Spanish truncation processes: The emergence of the unmarked. Linguistics 34: 1199–1218.Google Scholar
  9. Côté, Marie Hélène. 2013. Understanding cohesion in French liaison. Language Sciences 39: 156–166.Google Scholar
  10. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–491.Google Scholar
  11. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Ion Giurgea. 2011. Pronominal possessors and feature uniqueness. Language 87: 126–157.Google Scholar
  12. Emonds, J. 1978. The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–175.Google Scholar
  13. Gess, Randall, and Deborah Arteaga (eds.). 2006. Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospectives and perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jaeggli, Oswaldo. 1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In Syntax and semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Hagit Borer, 15–42. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jaeggli, Oswaldo, and Ken Safir. 1989. The Null subject parameter. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kato, Mary Aizawa, and Esmeralda Vailati Negrão. 2000. Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Iberoamericana 4: 55–73.Google Scholar
  18. Kayne, Richard. 1981. Binding, quantifiers, clitics, and control. In Binding and filtering, ed. Frank Heny, 191–211. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  19. Kingston, John. 2008. Lenition. In Selected proceedings of the third conference on laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, eds. Laura Colantoni and Jeffrey Steele, 1–31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  20. Klausenburger, Jürgen. 1978. French linking phenomena: A natural generative analysis. Language 54: 21–40.Google Scholar
  21. Martins, Ana Maria, and Ernestina Carrilho (eds.) 2016. Manual de linguistica portuguesa (Manuals of Romance Linguistics) (Portuguese Edition). Berlin: De Gruyter. Meyer-Lübke, W. 1890–1902. Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag R. Reisland.Google Scholar
  22. Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 2002. Vestigal feet in French. In Proceedings of the 2002 Texas Linguistic Society conference on stress in optimality theory, ed. Augustine Agwuele, Willis Warren, and Sang-Hoon Park, 1–20.Google Scholar
  23. Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
  24. Poplack, Shana. 1989. The care and handling of a mega-corpus. In Language change and variation, ed. R. Fasold and D. Schiffrin, 411–451. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Pons-Moll, C. 2011. It is all downhill from here: A typological study of the role of syllable contact in Romance languages. Probus 23: 105–173.Google Scholar
  26. Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.Google Scholar
  27. Raposo, Eduardo, and Juan Uriagereka. 1990. Long-distance case assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 505–537.Google Scholar
  28. Rivero, Margarita. 1986. Parameters in the typology of clitics in Romance and Old Spanish. Language 62: 774–807.Google Scholar
  29. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Lilian Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rizzi, Luigi, and Ian Roberts. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
  31. Roberts, Ian. 2012. Phases, head movement, and second-position effects. In Phases, ed. Angel Gallego, 385–440. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Rouveret, Alain. 2012. VP ellipsis, phases, and the syntax of morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 897–963.Google Scholar
  33. Rouveret, Alain, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.Google Scholar
  34. Saltarelli, Mario. 1983. The mora unit in Italian phonology. Folia Linguistica 17: 7–24.Google Scholar
  35. Saltarelli, Mario. 1984. Italian syllable structure. Estudis Gramaticals 1: 279–295.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, Jason, and Tabea Ihanse. 2015. Romance linguistics 2012: Selected papers from the 42nd linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tortora, Christina, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio Montoya, and Teresa O’Neill (eds.). 2016. Romance linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 43rd linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Tranel, Bernard. 1981. The treatment of French liaison: Descriptive, methodological, and theoretical implications. In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary symposium on Romance linguistics (Papers in Romance, Volume 3, Supplement II), ed. Heles Contreras and Jürgen Klausenburger. University of Washington: Seattle.Google Scholar
  39. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations