Luigi Rizzi Theory of gr. and L.A.

2
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures

(1) CP
2
Spec 2
C TP
2
DP 2
T VP
2
DP 2
V XP

(2) The splitting of the inflectional space, linked to a systematic syntacticisation of inflectional
morphology and a new attention to adverb syntax (Pollock 1989 and much related work) determined a
very fast growth of the assumed functional structure, giving the impression of an ever increasing
complexity of syntactic representations.
Cartographic studies identified the complexity of syntactic representations as an autonomous research
topic: drawing maps as precise as possible of syntactic structures, and particularly of the functional
structures, is an important endeavour worth pursuing on its own (Cinque & Rizzi 2009).

(3) The cartography of syntactic structures:

- each layer in (1) is an abbreviation for a much richer structural zone;
- the building block is always the same: a head projects into a phrase by taking complements and
specifiers through recursive applications of the X-bar schema (or Merge);
- ... but the system of functional heads is much richer than previously thought.

(4) The initial empirical core for the analysis of the left periphery came from the study of Italian, with
extensions to other Romance and Germanic languages, but this line of research quickly proved of
general relevance, and was extended to other language families. On Romance see Rizzi (1997, 2000,
2004a-b), Belletti, (2004a-b, 2009), Poletto (2000), Laenzlinger (1998), Cinque (2002), Beninca’ and
Munaro (2008), and on Germanic Grewendorf (2002), Haegeman (2004), among many other
references. See Roberts (2004) on Celtic, Krapova & Cinque (2008), Garzonio (2005) on Slavic,
Puskas (2000) on Finno-Ugric, Shlonsky (1998), (2014) on Semitic, Frascarelli and Puglielli (2010)
on Cushitic, Aboh (2004), Biloa (2012), Bassong (2014), Torrence (2012), Hager-Mboua (2014) on
African languages, Durrleman (2008) on Creole, Jayaseelan (2008) on Dravidian, Tsai (2007), Paul
(2005), (2014), Badan (2004), Badan Del Gobbo (2007) on Chinese, Endo (2008), Endo (2014), Saito
(2010) on Japanese, Pearce (1999) on Austronesian, Speas & Tenny (2003) on American Indian,
Legate 2002 on Australian aboriginal. In addition, much research was produced in Romance and
Germanic dialectology (e.g. Ledgeway 2003, Paoli 2007, Cruschina 2012, Grewendorf and Poletto
2009), and on Classical languages and diachrony (Salvi 2005, Danckaert 2012, Beninca’ 2006,
Franco 2009), etc. Volumes 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 of the subseries “The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures” of the Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax are devoted in part, or entirely, to the
cartography of the left periphery. See Cinque & Rizzi 2010, Shlonsky 2010, Rizzi 2013a for general
overviews.

1
TP (IP)

Pollock (1989): TP (or IP, as it was called at the time) can be split into finer components, each of which
corresponds to a particular morphosyntactic feature. This gives a more transparent morphological
analysis, and creates space for locating adverbials, thus permitting a more principled approach to
adverbial positions. In particular T can be split into T proper, the expression of tense, and Agr, the
expression of agreement with the subject in person, number (and, in some languages, gender):

(2) a X ne X pas X complètement comprendre la théorie…

(to) not completely understand the theory…

b X ne X pas comprendre complètement X la théorie…

(to) not understand completely the theory…

c X Il ne comprend pas X complètement X la théorie

he understands not completely the theory

d Ne comprend-il X pas X complètement X la théorie?

Understands he not completely the theory?
(Pollock 1989)

(3) … Agr … T …. V … (Belletti 1990)

(4) njuchi zi -na -wa -lum -a alenje (Chicewa)

'bees AgrS-Past-AgrO-bite-ASP hunters’

(5) Parl-o parl-av-o parl-er-ò

Parl-i parl-av-i parl-er(a)-i
Parl-a parl-av-a parl-er-à

(6) Mirror Principle: the order of affixes in morphology reflects the order of syntactic heads and is the
mirror image of it (the most internal affix is the lowest one in syntax) Baker (1988)

(7) … AgrS … T … AgrO … Asp …V

NB: AgrO never appears in the English verbal morphology. In Romance, it may appear as past
participle agreement with the object, e.g., in clitic constructions:

(8)a Maria ha letto i libri

‘Maria has read the the books’

b Maria li ha letti
‘Maria them has read+AgrO

In formal French, agreement with the object takes place when the object is moved, e.g. in relatives:

(9)a J’ai repeint la chaise

‘I have repainted the chair’
2
 b Voilà la chaise que j’ai repeinte __
‘Here is the chair that I have repainted(fs) __’

NB: certain dialectal varieties, e.g., Salentino, have participial agreement with the object also when the
object is not cliticized:

(10) T’ a lavate le mani (It: Ti sei lavato le mani)

‘You to-yourself have washed(fp) the hands (Calabrese 1984, Loporcaro 1998)

(11) Cinque (1999) Properties of

- modality (possibility, obligation,…),

- tense (present, past, future),

- mood (indicative, subjunctive; realis, irrealis,…),

- aspect (having to do with completion, duration, frequency of the event: perfect, progressive,…)

- voice (active, passive, middle,…)

may be expressed by different morphosyntactic means (adverbs, preverbal particles, affixes),

but they reflect a hierarchy which is fundamentally uniform across languages.

The detailed structure of the clause may be made particularly visible by analytic verbal forms:

(12) Mary has been photographed by John

(13) Mary has been photographed by John

T Asp V+voice

Different kinds of aspect may cooccur in certain languages and not in others, but the hierarchy is
always fixed:

(14)
John consults this book
John is consulting this book (Prog)
John has consulted this book (Perf)
John has been consulting this book (Perf >Prog)
* John is having consulted this book (*Prog>Perf)

(15)
Gianni consulta questo libro
Gianni sta consultando questo libro (Prog)
Gianni ha consultato questo libro (Perf)
* Gianni è stato consultando questo libro (*Perf>Prog)
* Gianni sta avento consultato questo libro (*Prog>Perf)
3
(16) Cinque (1999): Languages fundamentally use three devices to overtly express the functional
structure of the clause:
- particles (autonomous words) like modal will, can, etc
- affixes (attracting the verb) like -erà, -ato in Italian
- adverbs in specifier position.
The three devices are distinct manifestations of the same underlying hierarchy.

(17)a John is usually often obliged to stay home (habitual > frequentative)
b * John is often usually obliged to stay home (frequentative > habitual)

(18)a Gianni abitualmente è spesso costretto a rimanere a casa

b * Gianni spesso è abitualmente costretto a rimanere a casa

(19)a Yareba (Papuan): yau - r - edib - eb - a - su

‘sit CM FREQ HAB PRES 3ms’ = he habitually repeatedly sits
down
b Rapanui (Austronesian): Pura vara tu’u mai a Nau
‘HAB FREQ come toward Pers. Sing Nau’

(20) …. [ Spec1 HAB …. [Spec2 FREQ …

NB: Yareba also illustrates the ordering of affixes for aspect, tense, AgrS

(21) V+…+Asp+T+AgrS

Which, under the mirror principle, illustrates the order of heads

(22) AgrS T … Asp V

EVIDENTIAL > EPISTEMIC

(23) Evidently, John probably decided to go

* Probably, John evidently decided to go

(24) Evidentemente, Gianni probabilmente ha deciso di partire

* Probabilmente, Gianni evidentemente ha deciso di partire

(25) …. [ Spec1 EVID …. [Spec2 EPIST …

(26) Cinque (1999)

1. Adverbs appear in a fixed order;
2. The adverb hierarchy is matched by the particle hierarchy and by the affix hierarchy;
3. So, the structure of the clause has a uniform structural sequence across languages: the variation
has to do with the way in which the relevant properties are overtly expressed: by particles, affixes, or
adverbs in Spec positions.
4
(27) Frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once > then > perhaps > necessarily > possibly >
willingly > inevitably > cleverly > usually> again > often > quickly > already > no longer > still
> always > just > soon > briefly > characteristically > almost > completely > tutto > well >
fast/early > completely > again > often

(28) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential [probably Modepistemic
[once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility
[willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation [cleverly Modability/permission [usually Asphabitual [again
Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequentative(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no longer
Aspterminative [still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly
Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospective [completely
Aspcompletive(I) [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [completely
AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfrequentative(II) …

VP as vP+VP

(39) VP-internal subject hypothesis (Kuroda 1988, Koopman & Sportiche 1991)

(40)a Gianni ha visto Maria

b ___ ha [Gianni visto Maria]
c Gianni ha [ ___ visto Maria]

(41)a John will meet Mary

___ will [John meet Mary]
c John will [ ___ meet Mary]

(42)a [ tutti [ gli amici]] hanno [ ___ visto Maria ]

b [ gli amici ] hanno [ [ tutti ___ ] visto Maria ]

If the subject is merged in a predicate-internal position, and structures are binary, one needs more space
within the predicate for tri-argumental verbs, This leads to a hierarchical analysis of the double object
construction:

(43)a Bill gave John a book

b Bill showed [every boy] [his father]
c * Bill showed [his boy ] [every father] (in the relevant interpretation: Barss & Lasnik 1988)

(44)a I showed Bill himself

b * I showed himself Bill

(45) [ Bill [ v [John [ V a book]]]] (Larson 1988)

i.e., something like “Bill MADE John POSSESS a book”, “Bill MADE every boy SEE his father”

5
DP

(47) Una (altra) descrizione molto dettagliata della situazione

Une (autre) description très soignée de la situation
A(nother) very careful description of the situation

(48) [ D [ altra Num [ molto dettagliata descrizione della situazione ] ] ]

[ D [other Num [ very careful description of the situation ] ] ]

(49) Cinque (2005), based on Greenberg’s (1963) Universal 20:

a Dem Num Adj N

These three nice books
(very common: Romance, Germanic,...)

b * Adj Num Dem N

Nice three these books
(Not attested)

c N Adj Num Dem

books nice three these
(very common: Cambodian,
Javanese, Thai, Gungbe,…)

d N Dem Num Adj

books these three nice
(rare: Kikuyu,…)

(50) [ Dem [ Num [ Adj NP ] ] ]

(51) Hypothesis: (50) is the initial order, and the engine to change the order is movement of the NP: if
NP moves, it can take along other elements (pied-piping)

Analysis:
- Nothing moves from (50): (49)a is derived;

- NP moves to the Spec of the next higher head (Adj), and then it piedpipes the whole AdjP to the
Spec of Num, etc. This produced the reversal of ordering (snowballing movement): (49)c.

- NP moves to Spec Adj, and continues to move without piedpiping any constituent: (49)d.

- (49)b is not derivable: if NP does not move, no reordering is allowed.

6
THE CARTOGRAPHY OF THE LEFT PERIPHERY

There is a division of labor between the structural layers that form the clause: the VP layer expresses
properties of argumental semantics (who does what to whom, the thematic roles); the TP system
expresses properties of modality-tense-aspect semantics; the CP system expresses properties of
scope-discourse semantics: illocutionary force, or clausal type (declarative, interrogative,
exclamative, imperative, etc.), scope of operators, and discourse-related properties (topicality,
focus,…).

As for the other clausal layers, cartographic studies have shown that more structure is involved than a
single X-bar layer.

1. Force and Fin(iteness), the delimiting heads

(1)a Penso che partiro'

'I think that I will leave'
b Penso di partire
'I think of to leave'

che and di, traditionally analysed as complementizers, occupy different positions wrt a topic in the
Clitic Left Dislocation construction:

(2) Il tuo libro, Mario lo leggerà domain

‘Your book, Mario will read tomorrow’
TOPIC COMMENT

(3)a Penso che, a Gianni, gli dovrei parlare

'I think that, to Gianni, I should speak to him'

b Penso, a Gianni, di dovergli parlare

‘I think, to Gianni, 'of' to have to speak to him'

So, we have the order

(5) … che … TOP … di …

This can be generalized as

(6) ... Force ....TOP … Fin ....

Force expresses the illocutionary force of the clause, or the clausal type: declarative, interrogative,
exclamative, imperative, etc. Fin agrees in finiteness with the clause.

Many languages lexicalize either the higher or the lower C head, but in some cases both heads are
lexicalised simultaneously:

(7) Is doíche [ faoi cheann cúpla lá [go bhféadfaí imeacht]]

‘Is probable at-the-end-of couple day that could leave’ (Irish: McCloskey 1996)
7
(8) Dywedais i [mai ‘r dynion fel arfer a [werthith y ci ]]
‘Said I C the men as usual C will-sell the dog’ (Welsh: Roberts 1999)

(9) A chërdo che, col lìber, ch’ a l’ abia già lesulo (Turinese, Paoli 2007)
‘They believe that, that book, that s/he has already read’

(10) John said that, if they arrive on time, that they will be greeted
(McCloskey 1998)

2. The criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics

Scope-discourse semantics:
a. the scope of operators (interrogative, relative, exclamative, comparative,…)
b. discourse related articulations such as Topic – Comment and Focus – Presupposition

(10) The criterial approach to scope-discourse: scope-discourse properties are expressed by dedicated
functional heads, which populate the left periphery of the clause and assign to their dependents
interpretive roles such as topicality, focus, etc. (much as thematic properties are assigned by lexical
elements to their dependents).

(11)a Which book Q should you read <which book> ?

b This book TOP you should read <this book> tomorrow
c THIS BOOK FOC you should read <this book>, not Bill’s book
d The book REL that you should read <the book> is this one
e What a nice book EXCL I read <what a nice book> !

(12)a Ik weet niet [ wie of [ Jan ___ gezien heeft ]](Dutch varieties, Haegeman 1996)
‘I know not who Q Jan seen has’

b Un sè [ do [ dan lo yà [ Kofi hu ì ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2001)

‘I heard that snake the TOP Kofi killed it’

c Un sè [ do [ dan lo wè [ Kofi hu ___ ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2001)

‘I heard that snake the FOC Kofi killed ’

d Der Mantl [ den wo [ dea Hons ___ gfundn hot ]] (Bavarian, Bayer 1984)
‘The coat which REL the Hans found has’

e Che bel libro che [ ho letto ___ ] ! (Italian, Benincà 2001)

‘What a nice book EXCL I read ‘

(13)a XCritF attracts movement of XPCritF for CritF = Q, Rel, Top, Foc, Excl,….
b X CritF carries explicit instructions for the interface systems concerning how its dependents
(Spec and complement) must be interpreted (Rizzi 1991/96, 1997, Aboh 2007)

8
(14) TopP (15) FocP
2 2
XP 2 ZP 2
Top YP Foc WP

XP = topic ZP = Focus
YP = comment WP = Presupposition

(16) … do Kofi ya gankpa me we kponon le su i do

‘…that Kofi Top PRISON IN Foc policemen Pl shut him there’ (Gungbe: Aboh 1998)

(17) Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani gli dovremmo dire

Force Top Foc Top TP
'I believe that to Gianni, THIS, tomorrow we should say'

(18) Force Top* Foc Top* Fin TP (Rizzi 1997)

3. Some Interpretive and Formal Properties of Topic and Focus

The space delimited by Force and Fin contains positions dedicated to Scope-discourse semantic
properties: different kinds of operators taking scope over the clause, and positions expressing
informational properties and relevant for the organisation of discourse: in primis, topic (typically
expressed in Romance by the Clitic Left Dislocation construction, as in (19)) and left-peripheral focus
(one typical example is corrective focus in Romance, which corrects the interlocutor’s statement, and
typically involves a final negative tag, as in (19’): Bianchi, Bocci, Cruschina 2016).

(19)A: Nelle prossime settimane intendo leggere molti libri: il tuo, quello di Gianni,...
‘In coming weeks I intend to read many books: yours, Gianni’s, ...

B: Il libro di Gianni, lo dovresti leggere subito (Topic – Comment)

‘Gianni’s book, you should read it right away’
TOPIC COMMENT

(19’)A: Domani, penso di leggere il tuo libro

‘Tomorrow, I think I’ll read your book’

B: IL LIBRO DI GIANNI dovresti leggere, non il mio (Focus – Presupposition)

‘GIANNI’S BOOK you should read, not mine’
FOCUS PRESUPPOSITION

NB: in Romance the topic is typically resumed by a clitic (obligatorily, if the topic is the direct object),
the focus is not, it just binds a gap. In English, a language which does not have clitic pronouns, both
topic and focus bind a gap).

9
3.1. Some interface properties of Focus and Topic: PF (Bocci 2013).

(20) Corrective Focus:

Speaker A: Se ho capito bene, sono andati alle isole Vergini.
‘If I understood correctly, they went to the Virgin Islands.’

Speaker B: Ti sbagli! ALLE MALDIVE sono andati in viaggio di nozze!

‘You are wrong! TO THE MALDIVES they went on honeymoon!
FOCUS PRESUPPOSITION

High prominence on FOCUS; flattened contour on PRESUPPOSITION

(48) Topic:
A: Secondo me non avranno mai il coraggio di partire da soli per le Maldive...
‘According to me, they will never have the courage of traveling alone to the Maldives…’

B: Beh, alle Maldive, ci sono andati in viaggio di nozze.

‘Well, to the Maldives, they went (there) on honeymoon.’
TOPIC COMMENT

Less high contour on TOPIC, hilly contour on COMMENT

10
3.2. LF properties: Association with Old / New Information

For a first, rough approximation, Topic is associated to given information, and Focus to new
information. But this requires several qualifications.
The properties of topic and focus at the interface with semantics/pragmatics can be highlighted by
creating mini-discourse contexts and checking the appropriateness of the different constructions:

(22)Q: Che cosa hai dato a Gianni ?

‘What did you give to Gianni?’

A. Gli ho dato il tuo libro

‘I gave to him your book’

A’: # Il tuo libro, glielo ho dato

‘Your book, I gave it to him’

(23)Q Che cosa hai fatto col mio libro ? (e con quello di Piero?)
‘What did you do with my book?’ (and with Piero’s?)

A: Il tuo libro, lo ho dato a Gianni

‘Your book, I gave it to Gianni’

(24) The Topic is an element selected from the presupposed, background information, and about
which a comment is made: “Among the elements of the background, I select X (Topic) and tell you
about it that Y (Comment)”

As for Focus, in Standard Italian, the left peripheral focal position cannot correspond to simple new
information focus, which is normally expressed in sentence-final position:

(25)Q: Che cosa hai letto?

‘What did you read?’

A: Ho letto il tuo libro

‘I read your book’

A’: # IL TUO LIBRO ho letto

‘Your book I read’

(26)a So che ieri hai letto un articolo per preparare l’esame…

‘I know that yesterday you read an article to prepare the exam…’

b Scherzi ? UN LIBRO ho dovuto leggere

‘You kiddin’? A BOOK I had to read’

The left peripheral focus in Italian is not only new information, but must be new information that falls
outside a range of natural expectations (typically in corrective contexts like (26)).

11
Corrective focus in this sense strongly invites a negative tag, explicitly denying what was just said; new
information focus doesn’t normally occur with a negative tag excluding alternatives. (e.g., (25)A
wouldn’t normally invite a negative tag).

There is a parametrisation here: the Sicilian dialect (and the regional variety of Italian spoken in Sicily
and other southern regions) uses a clause initial position also for new information focus (Cruschina
2012):

(27) A: Chi scrivisti? (Sicilian)

‘What did you write?
B: N’articulu scrissi
‘An article I wrote’

Cruschina argues that Sicilian specifies a left peripheral new information focus position distinct from
and lower than the left peripheral contrastive focus position, which is prosodically more marked and
does not require T to C movement.

Foci can be definite or indefinite. Focus is new information in a relational sense: what is new is not
(necessarily) the referent of the focussed element, but the fact that it participates with that particular
theta role in the event that is described.

(28)A: So che non eri sicuro se regalare a Maria un libro o un disco, e poi hai deciso per il libro…
‘I know that you weren’t sure whether to give Mary a book or a record and then you opted for
the book…’

B: ti sbagli! II LIBRO le ho regalato, non il disco.

‘You are wrong! THE BOOK I gave her, not the record’

Here both the book and the record are mentioned in the immediate context, so both referents are given,
but the new information is provided by the fact that the book, not the record is associated to the patient
role of the verb give.

4. Ordering

(29) a Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani gli dovremmo dire

Force Top Foc Top Fin TP
'I believe that to Gianni, THIS, tomorrow we should say'

b Credo che domani, QUESTO, a Gianni, gli dovremmo dire

Force Top Foc Top Fin TP

c Credo che domani, a Gianni, QUESTO gli dovremmo dire

Force Top Top Foc Fin TP

d Credo che a Gianni, domani, QUESTO gli dovremmo dire

Force Top Top Foc Fin TP

e Credo che QUESTO, a Gianni, domani, gli dovremmo dire

12
 Force Foc Top Top Fin TP

f Credo che QUESTO, domani, a Gianni, gli dovremmo dire

Force Foc Top Top Fin TP

References
Aboh, E. (2004) The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bayer, J. (1984) “Comp in Bavarian”, The Linguistic Review, 3:209-274.
Belletti, A. (2004) “Aspects of the Low IP Area”, in Rizzi, ed. (2004)
Belletti (2001) “Inversion as focalization”, in Hulk, A. & J.Y.Pollock (Eds.) Inversion in Romance, Oxford University
Press.
Belletti, A. (Ed.), (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Belletti, A. (2009) Structures and Strategies, Routledge, London.
Benincà, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, L. (ed.). The structure
of CP and IP, 3, 52-75.
Bianchi, V. (2003) “On Finiteness and Logoforic Anchoring”, ms., University of Siena.
Bocci, G. (2009) On Syntax and Prosody in Italian, Doctoral dissertation, University of Siena.
Boskovic , Zeljko 2005. On the Operator Freezing Effect, ms., University of Connecticut.
Brandi, L. and P. Cordin (1989) Brandi, L. and P. Cordin (1989) ‘Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter’, in
Jaeggli and Safir (Eds.) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht, Reidel.
Calabrese, A. (1986) “Some Properties of the Italian Pronominal System: An Analysis Based on the Notion of Thema
as Subject of Predication”, in H. Stammerjohann, ed. Tema-Rema in Italiano, Tuebingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 25-36.
Cardinaletti, A. (2004) “Towards a Cartography of Syntactic Positions”, in Rizzi (Ed.) (to 2004).
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by
Step – Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase”. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”, in Belletti, ed. (2004).
Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A’ Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Inflectional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York.
Cinque, G., ed. (2002) The Structure of CP and DP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1.,
Oxford
University Press, Oxford – New York.
Durrleman, S (2008) The Syntax of Jamaican Creole – A Cartographic Perspective, Linguistics Today,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Emonds , J. (1970) Root and Structure-preserving Transformations, PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Endo, Y. (2007) Locality and Information Structure – A Cartographic Approach to Japanes., Linguistics
Today, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Felser, C. (2004) Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114 (2004) 543-574.
Frascarelli, M. and R. Hinterhölzl. (2007) Types of Topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler and K. Schwabe, eds., On
Information Structure, Meaning and Form. 87-116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grewendorf, G. (2003) “Improper Remnant Movement”, Gengo Kenkyu – Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 123,
47-94.
Haegeman, L. (1994) An Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kayne, R. (1983) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. (2001) Parameters and Universals. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lasnik, H and M.Saito (1992) Move Alpha: Conditions on its Application and Output. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

13
Legate, J. (2003) Some interface properties of the phase, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506-516.
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo. 2005. I dialetti Italiani e romanci. Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria.
McCloskey, J. (2000) “Quantifier Float and Wh Movement in an Irish English”, LI 31, 57-84.
McCloskey, J. (2002) “Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations”, in S.D. Epstein, T. D. Seely, eds.
Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.184-226.
McDaniel, D. (1989) ‘Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7.4: 565-604.
Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge
University Press.
Nicolis, Marco. 2005. On pro drop. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Siena.
Obenauer, H. (1976) Etudes de syntaxe interrogative du français, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Pearce, Elizabeth, (1999) 'Topic and Focus in a head-initial language: Maori,' Proceedings of AFLA vi. The SixthMeeting of
the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, held at the University of Toronto April 16-18, 1999 edited by Carolyn
Smallwood and Catherine Kitto, pp. 249-263. University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Pesetsky, D. (1982) “Complementizer-trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition”, The Linguistic Review1,
297-343.
Pesetsky, D. (1987) “Wh in Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding”, in E. Reuland and A. Ter Meulen (Eds.), The
Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Pesetsky, D and E. Torrego (2001) “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences”, in M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A
Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 355-426.
Poletto, Cecilia (2000) The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, New York, Oxford
University Press.
Puskas, G. (2000) Word Order in Hungarian, Linguistics Today, John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Reinhart, T. (2005) Interface Strategies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
Rizzi, L. (1991) “Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion”, Geneva Working Papers on Formal and Computational
Linguistics, republished in Rizzi (2000).
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. (2000) Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, Routledge, London.
Rizzi, L. (2004a) “Locality and Left Periphery”, in Belletti (Ed.) (2004).
Rizzi, L. (Ed.), (2004b) The Structure of CP and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures vol 3, OUP.
Rizzi, L. (2004b) Locality and Left Periphery. In A.Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures, vol.3, New York: Oxford University Press
Rizzi, L. (2006) . “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects”, in L. Cheng, N. Corver, eds, On Wh
Movement, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. and U. Shlonsky. (2007) “Strategies of Subject Extraction”, in H.-M.Gärtner and U. Sauerland (eds). Interfaces +
Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. 115-16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roberts, I. (2004) “The C-system in Brythonic Celtic Languages, V2 and the EPP”, in Rizzi, ed. 2004b.
Salvi, G. (2005) “Some Firm Points on Latin Word Order: The Left Periphery”, in K. E. Kiss, ed., Universal Grammar and
the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, Mputon de Gruyter, Berlin.
Sigurðsson, H. (2000) “The Locus of Case and Agreement”, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65, 65-108.
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure”,
Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 425-449.
Starke, M. (2001) Merge Dissolves into Move, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Geneva.
Taraldsen, T. (1978) On the NIC, Vacuous Application and the That-Trace Filter. Bloomington, Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Taraldsen, T. (2001) “Subject Extraction, the Distribution of Expletives, and Stylistic Inversion”, in Hulk, A. & J.Y.Pollock
(Eds.) Inversion in Romance, Oxford University Press, pp. 163-182.
Tsai, D. (2007) “Left Periphery and Why-How Alternations”, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Thornton, R. (2008) Why continuity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(1), 107-146.

14