EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 08004 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 08004
Number of page(s) 14
Section Morphologie
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419108004
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Abeillé, A. & D. Godard (1996). La complémentation des auxiliaires français. Langages, 30(122), 32–61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé, A. & D. Godard (2000). Varieties of ESSE in Romance languages. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of California, Berkeley, 22–23 july, 2000, 2–22. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abeillé, A. & D. Godard (2021). La grande grammaire du français. Paris: Éditions Actes Sud. Ackerman, F. & G. Stump (2004). Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism. Projecting morphology, 111–157. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ackerman, F. & G. Webelhuth (1998). A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, G. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Auger, J. (1993). More evidence for verbal agreement-marking in colloquial French. In W. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto & E. Raposo (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on the Romance languages, 177– 198. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  7. Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitics in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis, University of Pennsylvania dissertation. IRCS Report 94–29. [Google Scholar]
  8. Auger, J. (1995). Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: une approche morphologique. Revue québécoise de linguistique 24(1), 21–60. doi: 10.7202/603102ar. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bach, X. & P. Štichauer (2022). Auxiliary selection in Italo-romance and inflexional classes. In A. Ledgeway, J.C. Smith & N. Vincent (Eds.), Periphrasis and inflexion in diachrony, 193–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198870807.003.0008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Baroni, M., S. Bernardini, A. Ferraresi & E. Zanchetta (2009). The WaCky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language resources and evaluation, 43(3), 209– 226. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonami, O. (2015). Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology, 25(1), 63–110. DOI: 10.1007/s11525–015-9254–3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonami, O., R. Borsley & M. Tallerman (2016). On pseudo-non-finite clauses in Welsh. In Proceedings of the joint 2016 conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, 104–124. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bonami, O. & G. Boyé (2005). French pronominal clitics and the design of paradigm function morphology. In Mediterranean morphology meetings, vol. 5, 291–322. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonami, O. & B. Crysmann (2018). Lexeme and flexeme in a formal theory of grammar. In O. Bonami, G. Boyé, G. Dal, H. Giraudo & F. Namer (eds.), The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology, 175–202. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1407001. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bonami, O. & G. Webelhuth (2013). The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: a lexicalist account. In M. Chumakina & G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis. The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms, 141–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bonami, O. & G. Webelhuth (2021). Periphrasis and morphosyntatic mismatch in Czech. In B. Crysmann & M. Sailer (Eds.), One-to-many relations in morphology, syntax, and semantics, 85–115. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4729795. [Google Scholar]
  17. Borel, M. (2018). Formes surcomposées « standard » et formes surcomposées « régionales ». In Congrès mondial de linguistique française (CMLF) 2018, vol. 46 1207, EDP Sciences. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20184612007. [Google Scholar]
  18. Borel, M. (2019). Les formes verbales surcomposées en français, Université de Lorraine; Université de Fribourg (Suisse) dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  19. Boyé, G. (2021). ALLER et MOURIR oddities in French conjugation: il a été au spectacle à pied, il a mouru d’ennui du début à la fin. In Third International Symposium of Morphology (ISMo 2021), 37. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brines, N. (2001). Spanish clitics and argument reduction processes, Essex University dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  21. Brown, D, M. Chumakina, G. Corbett, G. Popova & A. Spencer (2012). Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology, 22(2), 233–275. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. [Google Scholar]
  23. Corbett, G. (2012). Periphrasis and possible lexemes. In M. Chumakina & G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis. The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms 7, 169–189. Oxford University Press/British Academy. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cornu, M. (1953). Les formes surcomposées en français. Berne: Francke. [Google Scholar]
  25. Crysmann, B. (2002). Constraint-based coanalysis. Portuguese cliticisation and morphology-syntax interaction in HPSG, Saarland University dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  26. Crysmann, B. (2003). Clitic climbing revisited. In J.-B. Kim & S. Wechsler (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 67–89. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  27. Crysmann, B. & O. Bonami (2015). Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 52(2), 311–374. doi: 10.1017/S0022226715000018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cummins, S. & Y. Roberge (1994). Romance inflectional morphology in and out of syntax. MIT Working papers in linguistics, 22, 53–70. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fradin, B. & F. Kerleroux (2003). Troubles with lexemes. In G. Booij, J. DeCesaris, A. Ralli & S. Scalise (eds.), Topics in morphology. Selected papers from the third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 177– 196. Barcelona: IULA – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [Google Scholar]
  30. Koenig, J.-P. (1998). Inside-out constraints and description languages for HPSG. In A. Kathol, J.-P. Koenig & G. Webelhuth (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation. Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 265–279. Stanford: CSLI publications. [Google Scholar]
  31. Legendre, G. (2007). On the typology of auxiliary selection. Lingua, 117(9), 1522–1540. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.005.StudiesinOTSyntaxandSemantics. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Loporcaro, M. (2007). On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics, 45(1), 173–222. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Loporcaro, M. (2015). Perfective auxiliation with reflexives in Medieval Romance: syntactic vs. semantic gradients. In R. Kailuweit & M. Rosemeyer (Eds.), Auxiliary selection revisited: Gradience and gradualness, 43–77. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110348866–003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Loporcaro, M. (2022). The morphological nature of person-driven auxiliation. In A. Ledgeway, J. Smith & N. Vincent (Eds.), Periphrasis and inflexion in diachrony, 213–237. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198870807.003.0009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Luís, A. (2004). Clitics as morphology, Universidade de Coimbra dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  36. Miller, P. (1992). Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New Yordk: Garland. [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller, P. & P. Monachesi (2003). Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, 69–123. Paris: CNRS Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller, P. & I. Sag (1997). French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. [Google Scholar]
  39. Monachesi, P. (1999). A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  40. Morin, Y.-C. (1989). More remarks on French clitic order. Linguistic Analysis, 5, 293–312. [Google Scholar]
  41. Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  42. Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 4, 157–190. [Google Scholar]
  43. Popova, G. & A. Spencer (2013). Relatedness in periphrasis: A paradigm-based perspective. In M. Chumakina & G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, 191– 225. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosen, C. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 2, 38–77. Chicago: Chicago University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosen, C. (1988). The relational structure of reflexive clause: Evidence from Italian. New York: Garland. Ruwet, N. (1991). Syntax and human experience. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Traduit et edité par J. Goldsmith. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sadler, L. & A. Spencer (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of morphology 2000, 71–96. [Google Scholar]
  47. Simpson, J. & M. Withgott (1986). Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. Syntax and Semantics, 19, 147–174. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Spencer, A. (2003). Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In U. Junghanns & L. Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, 249–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  50. Štichauer, P. (2018). Lexical splits within periphrasis: mixed perfective auxiliation systems in Italo-Romance. Morphology, 28, 1–23. DOI: 10.1007/s11525–017-9313-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Togeby, K. (1982). Grammaire française, vol. II. Copenhague: Akademisk Forlag. [Google Scholar]
  53. Verkuyl, H., C. Vet, A. Borillo, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, A. Molendijk, H. de Swart, C. Vetters & L. Vieu (2004). Tense and aspect in sentences. In F. Corblin & H. de Swart (eds.), Handbook of French semantics, 233–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vincent, N. & K. Börjars (1996). Suppletion and syntactic theory. In Proceedings of the 1st LFG colloquium, 448–62. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zwicky, A. (1969). Phonological constraints in syntactic descriptions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 1(3), 411–463. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zwicky, A. (1977). On clitics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zwicky, A. (1987). Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 133–148. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zwicky, A. & G. Pullum (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 59(3), 502–513. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.