A03

@article{Mattiuzzi2026,

title = {There Is no First Phase of the Jespersen Cycle},

author = {Tommaso Mattiuzzi and Cecilia Poletto},

doi = {10.1111/1467-968x.70033},

issn = {1467-968X},

year  = {2026},

date = {2026-06-30},

urldate = {2026-06-30},

journal = {Trans of the Philol Soc},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {\<jats:title\>Abstract\</jats:title\>

                  \<jats:p\>This paper challenges the traditional conception of the Jespersen Cycle by arguing that no ‘pure’ first phase of the cycle exists where a single negator operates without reinforcement. Drawing on historical data from Northern Italian dialects (Piedmontese, Lombard, Emilian), we demonstrate that emphatic negative structures systematically co‐exist with plain negators from the earliest attestations of each variety. These emphatic forms serve distinct functions\textemdashDomain‐Widening and discourse‐level Rejection or Confirmation\textemdashand constitute the source of new plain negators, while plain negators can themselves be reanalysed as emphatic negators. On this basis, we propose to set aside the notion of the cycle as an abstract phenomenon that underlies all observed processes of formation of new negators in our dataset. Instead, these are better conceived as a group of phenomena, which involve descriptively and theoretically distinct shifts in the encoding of different negative functions, including but not limited to ‘plain’ negation.\</jats:p\>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Wei\ss2025d,

title = {Neg-words},

author = {Helmut Wei\ss},

doi = {10.1075/elt.25001.wei},

issn = {2589-1596},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-08-21},

urldate = {2025-08-21},

journal = {ELT},

publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Company},

abstract = {\<jats:title\>Abstract\</jats:title\>

				\<jats:p\>This paper is concerned with neg-words that are usually defined by their occurrence in NC constructions. The

					common definition of neg-words has several weaknesses: for example, it does not allow to define NC in a non-circular way or it

					cannot explain why DN is possible in many NC languages. Therefore, an alternative definition is proposed in this paper: Neg-words

					are indefinite pronouns (or adverbs) that contain a negative morpheme, or indefinite pronouns (or adverbs) that have replaced such

					an indefinite pronoun (or adverb). Defining neg-words in this way has several advantages: it allows a non-circular and precise

					definition of NC, it can also explain why DN is also possible in NC languages (therefore, the term negative quantifier can be

					dispensed with), and it allows an alternative typological classification of NC and non-NC languages to the usual one in which NC

					and DN languages are contrasted. According to the view expressed here, non-NC languages are languages without neg-words (as

					defined here) and they cover a group of languages to which 80% to 90% of all languages belong. In addition, I analyze neg-words as

					Heimian indefinites with an interpretable neg-feature. This explains the wide range of uses of neg-words from weak indefinites

					(the default case) to negated existential quantifiers to universal quantifiers that scope over negation.\</jats:p\>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = { (io)wiht in Old High German Dialects },

author = {Farbod Khouzani },

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-03-00},

journal = {Zeitschrift f\"{u}r Dialektologie und Linguistik (ZDL)},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Balsemin2024,

title = {Universal 20 restriction reloaded},

author = {Tommaso Balsemin and Francesco Pinzin and Cecilia Poletto},

doi = {10.5565/rev/isogloss.335},

issn = {2385-4138},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-01-30},

urldate = {2024-01-30},

journal = {isogloss},

volume = {10},

number = {3},

publisher = {Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona},

abstract = {\<jats:p\>In this work we show that Old Italo-Romance varieties have two types of pragmatic related movement to the left periphery of both the clausal and nominal domains: one that focuses the moved constituent itself and another that marks the moved constituent as background, resulting in emphasis of the non-moved portion. While Focus fronting does not obey the U20 restriction originally proposed in Cinque (2005), (back)grounding does. This counters the idea that only meaningless movements (i.e., movements deriving the canonical word order of a language) need to obey the U20 restriction, since some meaningful movements do as well. After having examined the properties of both types of constructions, we derive the distinction on the basis of the type of feature that triggers the movement. While operators like Focus have their own feature, which is read by the labeling algorithm, all other cases of movement must use the label of the lexical head, which therefore must be contained in the moved subtree. Hence, (back)grounding must drag along the lexical head to be labeled, while Focus does not need to.\</jats:p\>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Negative concord as doubling},

author = {Cecilia Poletto},

editor = {M. Greco et al},

url = {https://www.research.unipd.it/handle/11577/3548338?mode=complete},

isbn = {978-2-8399-4196-9},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-00-00},

urldate = {2024-00-00},

journal = {Festschrift in honor of Andrea Moro},

pages = {279-286},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}