Différences entre les versions de « Rezac (2013) »

De Arbres
Ligne 10 : Ligne 10 :
    
    
   Yet, if it is truly a double subject construction rather than a more  
   Yet, if it is truly a double subject construction rather than a more  
   commonplace one such as dislocation, it corresponds to nothing in English  
   commonplace one such as [[dislocation]], it corresponds to nothing in English  
   or French, and theories of their syntax are designed to block it.  
   or French, and theories of their syntax are designed to block it.  
   Thus its linguistic interest.  
   Thus its linguistic interest.  

Version du 16 novembre 2012 à 12:32

  • Rezac, M. 2009. 'The Breton double subject construction', Recueil en hommage à Jean-Pierre Angoujard, PUR. - version avant édition: pdf


 Introduction:
 
 This widespread construction has its place in most grammars of the
 language, and it is studied in depth by Urien (1989 a, b) and Hendrick (1988). 
 There is an anologue in Irish, McCloskey and Sells (1988), Ó Baoill and 
 Maki (2007), and others perhaps farther afield, Doron and Heycock (1999). 
 
 Yet, if it is truly a double subject construction rather than a more 
 commonplace one such as dislocation, it corresponds to nothing in English 
 or French, and theories of their syntax are designed to block it. 
 Thus its linguistic interest. 


Références

  • Doron, Edit, and Caroline Heycock. 1999. 'Filling and licensing multiple specifiers', David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett, and George Tsoulas (éds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69-89.
  • McCloskey, James, and Peter Sells. 1988. 'Control and A-chains in Modern Irish', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 143-189.
  • Ó Baoill, Dónall, and Hideki Maki. 2007. 'A Paradox in Interaction of A and A' Chain Formation in Modern Irish', Paper presented at the Fifth Celtic Linguistic Conference, Plas Gregynog, September 7-9, 2007.