LEADER 05548nam 2200649Ia 450 001 9910779311003321 005 20230802005729.0 010 $a1-283-89531-5 010 $a90-272-7247-6 035 $a(CKB)2550000000711180 035 $a(EBL)1093087 035 $a(OCoLC)823388702 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000785157 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11407251 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000785157 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10783111 035 $a(PQKB)11339882 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1093087 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1093087 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10636603 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL420781 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000711180 100 $a20121010d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aRomance languages and linguistic theory 2010$b[electronic resource] $eselected papers from "Going Romance" Leiden 2010 /$fedited by Irene Franco, Sara Lusini, Andres Saab 210 $aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia $cJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.$d2012 215 $a1 online resource (231 p.) 225 0 $aRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory,$x1574-552X ;$vvol. 4 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-0384-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Foreword; From Romance clitics to case; 1. Case: The oblique / dative; 1.1 Split accusativity; 2. The person case constraint; 2.1 A Case-based account; 2.2 A grammar without repairs; References; Contextual conditions on stem alternations; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Stem alternations in context; 1.2 The empirical question; 2. Conditions on contextual allomorphy; 2.1 Extension to stem alternation; 3. Two alternations in Spanish verbs; 3.1 Diphthongization; 3.2 "Raising"; 4. Interim summary 327 $a5. A Question and a conjecture6. Conclusions; References; State nouns are Kimian states*; 1. Preliminaries and background concepts: States and nouns; 1.1 Preliminaries: A working definition of state; 1.2 Kimian states and Davidsonian states; 2. Nouns coming from K-state verbs; 2.1 Incompatibility with place modifiers; 2.2 Incompatibility with manner denoting adjectives; 2.3 Unavailability of temporal readings with ambiguous adjectives; 3. From D-state verbs to nouns; 3.1 From D-state verbs to K-state nouns; 3.1.1 Asymmetries with place modifiers; 3.1.2 Asymmetries with manner modifiers 327 $a3.1.3 Asymmetries with temporal readings of modifiers3.2 Two classes of D-state verbs; 4. Analysis: Some D-states contain a K-state; 4.1 Flexible D-states contain a K-state: Semantic evidence; 4.2 Matching the semantics with the internal projections of the verb; 5. Conclusions and extensions; References; I know the answer'; 1. Introduction; 2. Some Capeverdean statives need ta for a non-past reading; 2.1 The data that resist the stativity explanation; 2.1.1 Overt temporal morphemes; 2.1.2 Why stativity is not enough; 2.2 Stative properties of these present situations 327 $a3. The relevant state is a Perfect state4. Cross-linguistic idiosyncrasies of 'know'; 5. Final remarks; References; Stressed vowel duration and stress placement in Italian; 1. Introduction; 2. Italian stress position and vowel duration; 2.1 Stress position; 2.2 Stress is contrastive; 2.3 Stressed vowel duration; 2.4 Explanations of vowel duration; 3. Experiment; 3.1 Design of the experiment; 3.2 Results; 3.2.1 Post-tonic vowels of proparoxytones: Duration; 3.2.2 Post-tonic vowels of proparoxytones: Centralization; 4. Interpretation of the results and analysis; 4.1 Stressed vowels 327 $a4.2 Duration and centralization of post-tonic vowels5. Principles of stress assignment; 5.1 Non-lexical stress and syllable weight; 5.2 Stress assignment and number of syllables; 5.2.1 Further data on stress shift; 5.3 Provisional conclusions and discussion of previous explanations; 6. Feet and stress assignment in Italian; 6.1 Foot types; 6.2 Non-lexical stress; 7. Conclusions and further directions; References; Serial prosodification and voiced stop geminates in Catalan*; 1. Introduction; 2. Data; 3. Theoretical background; 3.1 Harmonic serialism and prosodification 327 $a3.2 A theory of serial syllabification in Harmonic Serialism 330 $aI claim that scope interactions provide empirical evidence in order to establish the argument structure of the causative construction in Romance languages. Since quantifier raising adjoins a quantified argument to vP, quantified arguments interact differently if they are coarguments than if they are not. Thus, scope interactions are able to give indications on what arguments in a causative structure belong to the same vP, and, as a consequence, how vPs may occur in a causative structure. The data I discuss shows that in Romance causative structures the causee and the internal argument (if any) 410 0$aRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory 606 $aRomance languages$vCongresses 606 $aLinguistics$vCongresses 615 0$aRomance languages 615 0$aLinguistics 676 $a410.092 701 $aFranco$b Irene$f1980-$01562333 712 12$aGoing Romance (Conference) 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910779311003321 996 $aRomance languages and linguistic theory 2010$93829886 997 $aUNINA