Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012 -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of content -- Issues in Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory -- References -- Clausal domains and clitic placement generalizations in Romance -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Background: Object clitics and functional heads -- 1.2 Variation in object clitic placement -- 1.3 Possible approaches to the question -- 2. Low OCL placement dialects (the "Borgomanerese-type" language) -- 2.1 OCL placement in simple tense clauses in Northeast Piedmont -- 2.1.1 An up-close look at one of these varieties: Borgomanerese simple tense clauses -- 2.2 OCL placement in compound tense clauses in Borgomanerese-type varieties and in Piedmontese -- 3. A first attempt at an approach to the question of variation in OCL placement (the Missing-Head Hypothesis) -- 3.1 Problems with the Missing-Head Hypothesis -- 3.1.1 Cross-linguistic entailment -- 3.1.2 Cross-linguistic entailment unidirectional -- 3.1.3 Predictions of Missing-Head Hypothesis -- 4. The feature content hypothesis: All languages have the same potential OCL adjunction sites -- 4.1 Back to the cross-linguistic generalization -- 4.2 Eligibility of a particular functional head for OCL adjunction: The feature content hypothesis -- 4.2.1 Simple tense clauses -- 4.2.2 Compound tense clauses and the uni-directional entailment -- 4.2.2.1 Borgomanerese compound tense clauses. As discussed earlier, following Kayne (1993), Rizzi (2000), and Tortora (2010), I take compound tense clauses to be "lightly" bi-clausal, whereby the participial clause has a bit of functional architecture pro.

4.2.2.2 Piedmontese (compound tense clause). As noted above, non-­Borgomanerese-type Piedmontese dialects exhibit enclisis of the OCL on the participle in compound tense clauses (see (18) through (21)). This is despite the fact that they exhibit proclisis -- 4.2.2.3 Rounding out the picture: Italian (compound tense clause). As already noted, the OCL is obligatorily proclitic on the "matrix" auxiliary verb in Italian compound tense clauses. Under the approach advocated for here, this would mean that the Italia -- 4.2.2.4 Absolute Small Clauses (ASCs). Although Italian does not allow enclisis on past participles in the compound tenses, it is well known that it requires enclisis on participles in Absolute Small Clauses (Belletti 1990): -- 4.2.2.5 Romance Imperatives. It is also well known that all Romance ­behaves like Borgomanerese-type languages when it comes to Imperatives. That is, ­Romance Imperatives robustly exhibit OCL enclisis: -- 5. Another prediction made by Feature Spreading/Feature Content Hypotheses for causatives -- 5.1 Obligatory clitic climbing in Romance Causatives -- 5.2 Causatives in Borgomanerese-type dialects and the Feature Content Hypothesis -- 5.2.1 The Missing Head Hypothesis revisited -- 6. When the Missing Head Hypothesis is actually needed -- 6.1 Standard French Reduced Relatives -- 6.2 What kinds of clauses truly have a missing OCL head? -- 6.2.1 Standard Piedmontese partial Clitic climbing -- 6.2.2 Back to Standard French Reduced Relative Clauses -- 7. Conclusions -- References -- Spanish VSX -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Background assumptions -- 2.1 Previous syntactic accounts -- 2.2 Syntax and information structure -- 3. VSX in Spanish -- 3.1 VSX and wide focus -- 3.1.1 Wide focus interpretation -- 3.1.2 Verb-initial sentences -- 3.2 VSX in discourse and theticity -- 4. Constraints on wide focus and the acceptability of VSX.

4.1 Informational partitions: Restrictive and permissive languages -- 4.2 Conditions for VSX -- 4.3 Some additional data -- 5. Conclusions -- References -- The interpretation of clefting (a)symmetries between Italian and German -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Syntax: The state of the art -- 1.2 Semantics -- 2. Comparing clefts in German and Italian -- 2.1 Clefting in German -- 2.2 Asymmetries -- 2.3 A (partial) symmetry: Copular agreement -- 3. Prosodic evidence -- 3.1 Clefted phrase as a nominal predicate -- 3.2 The relative clause as a right-hand Topic -- 4. Related issues: The interpretation of quantifiers and connectedness -- 4.1 Scopal interpretation of embedded quantifiers -- 4.2 Connectedness -- 5. Conclusions -- References -- Against the matrix left peripheral analysis of English it-clefts -- 1. Background -- 2. The matrix analysis of it-clefts -- 2.1 The articulated left periphery (Rizzi 1997) -- 2.2 The matrix analysis of clefts -- 2.3 Alternative analyses -- 3. External syntax: The distribution of it-clefts -- 3.1 Infinitival contexts -- 3.2 Finite domains incompatible with Focus fronting -- 3.3 Yes-no questions -- 4. Reduplicating the left periphery -- 4.1 Negative inversion -- 4.2 Wh-movement of the clefted XP -- 4.3 Focussing the cleft focus -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- A pragmatic analysis of the differences between NPIs and FCIs -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The use of French FCI in parentheticals: "quelqu'un, n'importe qui" -- 3. The use of the focus sensitive particle just: "just any" -- 4. Intonational backgrounding -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- What lies behind dative/accusative alternations in Romance -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Romance dative/accusative alternations -- 2.1 Data -- 2.1.1 Verbs of telephonic communication -- 2.1.2 Verbs of dispossession -- 3. Proposal -- 3.1 Differential indirect object marking.

3.2 Something Germanic in Romance -- 4. On applicatives -- 4.1 Applicatives with ditransitive constructions -- 4.2 Applicatives with Dative/Accusative alternating verbs -- 5. Repercussions of this analysis -- 6. Semantic utilization of the alternation -- 7. Explaining the exploitation -- 8. Conclusions -- References -- The derivation of Classical Latin Aux-final clauses -- 1. Introduction: The Latin data -- 1.1 Two directionality alternations in the Latin clause -- 1.2 Background: Word order variation in Classical Latin -- 2. Possible derivations for complement-head sequences -- 2.1 Against base-generation -- 2.2 Local movement and opacity effects -- 3. Non-adjacency between V and Aux, and what this teaches us -- 3.1 The surface position of sentential negation -- 3.2 Latin VPAux is not derived through "roll-up" L-movement -- 3.3 Additional evidence against head movement and roll-up: VOAux -- 4. VP-movement as EPP-driven A-movement -- 4.1 Internal arguments in passive clauses: The VSAux pattern -- 4.2 The uniform behaviour of internal arguments across voice distinctions -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- (Pseudo-)Inflected infinitives and Control as Agree -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The distribution of inflected infinitive in obligatory control vs. non obligatory control contexts -- 3. The role of tense (in)dependence and temporal orientation in the distribution of inflected infinitive in OC contexts -- 3.1 Tense (in)dependence as a result of a particular syntactic configuration -- 3.2 Temporal orientation and the licensing of inflected infinitives -- 3.3 The distribution of inflected infinitives in OC contexts: Refining the analysis -- 4. Controlled (pseudo-)inflected infinitives in non-standard EP: A corollary of the analysis -- 4.1 The data -- 4.2 The analysis of controlled inflected infinitives and control as Agree -- 5. Conclusions -- References.

Partial control in Romance Languages -- 1. Introduction: The challenge posed by partial control -- 2. The covert comitative analysis -- 3. Covert comitatives in Romance -- 3.1 European Portuguese -- 3.2 Spanish, Italian and French -- 3.3 Further support for the analysis -- 4. Conclusions and remaining questions -- References -- 'Rippled' low topics -- 1. Puzzling issues on low topics -- 2. A right-dislocation analysis of postfocal constituents -- 3. The ripple effect of focus -- 3.1 The experiment -- 3.2 Results: Lengthening effects and Gorgia Toscana -- 4. The "rippled" nature of low topics -- References -- A comparison of fricative voicing and lateral velarization phenomena in Barcelona -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Review of CCS lateral velarization and intervocalic fricative voicing phenomena -- 2.1 Linguistic characterizations of lateral velarization and intervocalic fricative voicing -- 2.2 Past evidence of [ɫ] and [z] in Barcelonan CCS -- 3. Methodology -- 3.1 Subject population -- 3.2 Instruments and data collection -- 3.3 Independent variables -- 3.3.1 Social factor groups -- 3.3.2 Linguistic factor groups -- 3.4 Analysis of dependent variables -- 4. Results -- 4.1 Production of [ɫ] and [z] by individual speaker -- 4.2 Social and linguistic constraints on [ɫ] and [z] production -- 5. Discussion -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- Index.