Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives (Linguistik Artuell Linguistics Today)

Clitic and Affix Combinations Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides...

Author: Fernando Ordonez

283 downloads 951 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Clitic and Affix Combinations

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

University of Venice

Cambridge University

Günther Grewendorf

Ken Safir

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Liliane Haegeman

Lisa deMena Travis

University of Lille, France

McGill University

Hubert Haider

Sten Vikner

University of Salzburg

University of Aarhus

Christer Platzack

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Lund

University of Groningen

Volume 74 Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical perspectives Edited by Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez

Clitic and Affix Combinations Theoretical perspectives

Edited by

Lorie Heggie Illinois State University

Francisco Ordóñez SUNY, Stony Brook

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clitic and Affix Combinations : Theoretical perspectives / edited by Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 74) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Clitics. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Word formation. I. Heggie, Lorie. II. Ordóñez, Fernando. III. Linguistik aktuell ; Bd. 74. P288.C575 2005 415’.7--dc22 isbn 90 272 2798 5 (Eur.) / 1 58811 611 5 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2005062372

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Names and addresses of contributors Clitic ordering phenomena: The path to generalizations Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez

vii 1

I. Clitic sequences Romance clitic clusters: The case connection Louis-H. Desouvrey

33

Constraining optimality: Clitic sequences and Feature Geometry David Heap

81

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech Milan Rezac

103

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 141 Fabrice Nicol Strong and Weak Person Restrictions: A feature checking analysis Elena Anagnostopoulou

199

II. Clitics vs. Affixation Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean James Hye Suk Yoon

239

Clitic positions within the left periphery: Evidence for a phonological buffer Adam Szczegielniak

283

The Wh/Clitic Connection Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

301

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

315



Table of contents

On the syntax of doubling Juan Uriagereka

343

Author index

375

Languages index

381

Subject index

383

Names and addresses of contributors

Elena Anagnostopoulou Department of Philology University of Crete 74 100 – Rethymno Greece [email protected] Cedric Boeckx Department of Linguistics Boylston Hall Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] Louis-H. Desouvrey 4765-A, Boul. Edouard Montpetit Montreal, QC, Canada H3W IP6 [email protected] Jeff Good Department of Linguistics MaxPlank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 04103 Leipzig Germany [email protected] David Heap Department of Linguistics University College 133 University of Western Ontario London, Ontario N6A 3K7 CANADA [email protected]

Lorie Heggie Department of Foreign Language Illinois State University Normal, IL 61790-4300 [email protected] Fabrice Nicol ENA, rue Sainte-Marguerite 67000 Strasbourg France [email protected] Francisco Ordóñez Department of Hispanic Languages & Literatures SUNY, Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-3371 [email protected] Milan Rezac 5, rue Saintonge 44000 Nantes France [email protected] Sandra Stjepanovic Department of Foreign Languages P.O. Box 6298 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26505 [email protected]

 Names and addresses of contributors

Adam Szczegielniak 304 Boylston Hall Department of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected]

James Yoon Department of Linguistics 4080 FLB, 707 South Mathews Avenue University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Il 61820 [email protected]

Juan Uriagereka Linguistics 1401 Marie Mount University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 [email protected]

Alan C. L. Yu Department of Linguistics University of Chicago 1010 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected]

Clitic ordering phenomena The path to generalizations Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez Illinois State University / State University of New York at Stony Brook

A number of different problems enter into the study of clitic and affix ordering phenomena, the first one being to identify the nature of the element. Once defined, factors that determine order can be traced to the phonology, the morphology, or the syntax. Because ordering can be idiosyncratic across languages, some linguists have proposed purely morphological accounts or have treated these data in constraint-based approaches. On the other hand, certain morpho-syntactic approaches give priority to the study of what is generally absent in clitic combinations or to the research of possible generalizations across languages. This more recent line of research suggests that syntax may be playing a more crucial role in the ordering of affixes and clitics than previously thought.

.

Affixes and clitics

Exploring and defining the nature of ordering phenomena across languages is the quintessential mission of linguistic research. No matter what the theoretical perspective might be, a linguist will need to know the order of the elements in a language artifact in order to determine meaning. Gaps, question words, nouns, verbs – these all need to be defined, interpreted, and behavior noted. However, while the ordering of words at the propositional level has occupied the time of many in syntax and the ordering of affixes have been studied extensively in morphology at the word level, the ordering of intermediate elements such as clitics has been less studied. Although we may have an observational level of understanding of these data, there are relatively fewer attempts to explain why clitics display the orderings that they do, be it a surplus of possibilities or a limiting of possibilities. This volume is a step in the direction of remedying this situation. In concert with earlier volumes that have directed their efforts to describe and explain clitic phenomena (Beukema & den Dikken 1999; Van Riemsdijk 1999; Gerlach &



Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez

Grijzenhout 2000; Boeckx & Grohmann 2003), this volume concentrates on the nature of clitic ordering, exploring a number of different ways to capture and explain these phenomena. With the consideration of clitics comes a natural concern for affixes as well. Affixes display their own interesting set of ordering facts and also have been hypothesized in some cases to be the endpoint of a grammaticalization process involving the reduction of a word to a clitic and then to an affix. This pathway for the gradual transitioning of an element from one category to another is called a cline. For example, Hopper and Traugott (1993: 7) provide the following example of a cline of lexicality from English which results in a derivational affix. (1) a basket full of eggs > a cupful of water > hopeful Motivating the path of the cline described in (1) are factors such as frequency and collocation, which conspire over time to provide this particular path of evolution for this affix. The grammaticalization process of an inflectional affix would be captured in the cline content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix (Hopper & Traugott 1993: 7). It has been hypothesized that non-standard French provides an example of this process of inflectional grammaticalization; the subject clitic appears to be developing into an affix on the verb for some speakers. Thus, in standard French, there is a distinction between third person masculine il and feminine elle such that these are clearly referential elements, demonstrated in (2) and (3). (2) Je vois Jean à côté du mur. Il est grand et porte un I see John next to the wall. He is tall and wears a chapeau. hat ‘I see John next to the wall. He is tall and is wearing a hat.’ (3) Je vois Michelle à côté du mur. Elle est grande et porte un I see Michelle next to the wall. She is tall and wears a chapeau. hat ‘I see Michelle next to the wall. She is tall and is wearing a hat.’ However in non-standard French, the subject clitic has been neutralized to the masculine and appears bound to the verb that follows. The following example from Lambrecht (1981: 40) typifies this type of sentence. (4) Ma femme il est venu My:fem wife agr is come ‘My wife has come.’

Clitic ordering phenomena

Thus, we see what was once a clitic now behaving as an inflectional affix. The existence of competing grammars such as these is typical of the language change process and must always be kept in mind when examining clitic data because of the potential for changes in status, as will be demonstrated below. In contrast with this diachronic perspective on the nature of the clitic-affix relationship, the synchronic view of clitics and affixes has concentrated on the characteristics that embody clitic behavior and make clitics different from affixes. Zwicky and Pullum (1983) provide a series of criteria that would distinguish affixes and clitics on the basis of the distinction between the reduced forms of have and be (‘ve, ‘s) and the reduced form of the negation (n’t). The criteria they propose are the following: a.

Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their host, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stem. Clitics are more restricted in their distribution. b. Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. c. More morphological idiosyncrasies exist within affix groups. d. There are no semantic idiosyncrasies for clitic groups, while we might obtain semantic idiosyncrasies for affixes. e. Syntactic rules can affect syntactic words, but cannot affect clitic groups. f. Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot. Although Zwicky and Pullum state their observations for the most part as tendencies rather than absolute universals, it is still interesting to examine more closely and apply the test to verbal clitics in Romance. For instance, consider (f) that states that affixes may not attach to material containing clitics. There are at least two cases in Romance in which elements considered to be affixes, such as the third person plural ending in Spanish (-n) or the future endings in Portuguese (-ei), are able to attach to clitics. The first examples are given by Harris (1995) for some varieties of Caribbean Spanish where -n attaches to a series of object and reflexive clitics: (5) Váya-n -se -n / váya -se -n go3pp-clitic-3pp / go -refl-3pp ‘Go away.’

(from Harris)

(6) De -le -n un libro give-clitic-3pp a book ‘Give a book to them.’ Our second example is taken from Portuguese in which the future person affix can follow the reflexive clitic me (Cunha & Cintra 1984: 311):






(7) Calar -me -ei / Eu me calar -ei be quiet-cl-3p future/ I me be quiet-3p future ‘I will be quiet.’ What is intriguing about the examples above is that we see clitics taking on affixlike properties, as in (7) or affixes attaching to clitics, as in (5) and (6). Neither should be possible under “normal” circumstances. These data in fact illustrate a much larger context, that being the process of diachronic change. If the theory of grammaticalization is correct, then there will be these effects of shifting alliances within the lexical items. Thus, we should expect to find unusual cases as above that reflect the very close relation between affix and clitic. Another generalization in Zwicky and Pullum where we find counterexamples is (e), which states that syntactic rules can affect syntactic words, but cannot affect clitic groups. Instead, we find that syntactic rules may affect clitic placement. For instance, clitic climbing is sensitive to wh-islands in Spanish, as shown in the following contexts in which the clitic can climb over a declarative complementizer but not over an interrogative one: (8) Tengo que comprarlo/ Lo tengo que comprar I have that to buy -it/ It I-have that to buy ‘I have to buy it.’ (9) No sé si compar-lo/ *No lo sé si comprar neg know whether to buy it/ neg it know whether to buy ‘ I don’t know whether to buy it.’ Clitics are also subject to syntactic processes such as Aux-to-Comp in Italian, as given in the following example from Cardinaletti and Starke (1999: 168). They show that the auxiliary and the clitic occupy the position that the complementizer if would generally occupy. The analysis of this complementarity relies on the overt movement of the verb to Comp in (10a), therefore implying that the clitic has moved with the verb. (10) a.

Gli avesse Gianni parlato to him-had Gianni talked ‘Had Gianni talked to him. . . ’ b. Si Gianni l’avesse parlato If Gianni to-him had spoken ‘If Gianni had spoken to him. . . ’

Another generalization that seems problematic is generalization (d), which states that there are no semantic idiosyncrasies in the clitic group cases. It is important to notice that sometimes a clitic added to a verb results in some unexpected and idiosyncratic meanings. In French, for instance, the combination of s’en ‘to oneself-


some’ added to vouloir “to want” unexpectedly changes the meaning to ‘to be mad at someone’: (11) Tu en veux /Tu m’ en veux /Je m’ en veux You of it-want / You to me-of it want / I to me-of it want ‘You want some.’ / ‘You are mad at me.’ / ‘I am mad at myself.’ Clitics might also show interesting gaps in the paradigms, contrary to the claim in generalization (b). For instance, standard French does not have the clitic me in post-verbal position; another version, the strong form moi, must appear. Observe that this does not occur with the third person clitic le. Thus, this is a paradigmatic gap that cannot be due to just the accentual pattern of the French system (cf. Kayne 2000): (12) *Regarde-me/ Regarde-moi Look at -me/ Look at -me ‘Look at me.’ (13) Regarde-le Look at -him ‘Look at him.’ In Spanish there is a gap in the paradigm on the combination of two third person clitics accusative/dative. Thus instead of a dative clitic surfacing in this combination, we find the reflexive se (“spurious se”): (14) *Yo le lo di I dat-acc-gave ‘I gave it to him.’ (15) Yo se lo di I refl-acc gave ‘I gave it to him.’ All these cases illustrate the difficulty of establishing clear criteria that distinguish clitics and affixes and, in that respect, it is in itself a research program. Keeping this caveat, the majority of the following papers reflect the current synchronic concern for elaborating and explaining the ordering possibilities of clitics. However, the project to correctly identify the nature of an element, whether clitic or affix, is inherently underlying any discussion related to these data. In the case of special clitics, the displacement of these elements allows for an easier identification process, but in the case of simple clitics and bound words, a debate may rage over whether the elements in question are affixes in the morphological component or clitics/bound words in the syntax.






Three articles in this volume explore the nature of identification of clitics, affixes, and their properties: Good and Yu, Yoon, and Uriagereka. Good and Yu (this volume) examines the behavior of two sets of agreement markers, one derived from historically suffixes and the other derived from pronouns, using the framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Interestingly, the distributional characteristics of these agreement markers lead to the conclusion that one is a suffix but that the other is a clitic. One piece of evidence is that the clitic is not flexible in its ordering possibilities, whereas the affix is. Korean offers another example of this type of situation. Yoon (this volume) argues for the syntactic status of the elements in question within the generative paradigm while others such as Sells (1995) argue that these are affixes controlled by a morphological template. Yoon challenges the common lexicalist assumption that affixes are lexically attached and immune from the influence of syntactic principles. An example of the types of constituents under question is illustrated in (1). As can be seen, the elements in question cover a wide range of functional types – preposition, delimiter, conjunction, agreement. (16) Seoul-eyse-pwuthe-chelem-mankhum-man-ina-tul hay-la Seoul-loc-from-like-as much-only-like/as if-con.plu do-imp ‘(You all) behave at least in much the same way you have been behaving since you were in Seoul.’ (H-B Lim 1996) (con.plu = concordial plural) This debate echoes one of the main axes of controversy in this research for all clitic types, whether or not an element is best treated in the morphology, the syntax, the phonology, or some combination thereof. The fact that some elements might be treated as affixes or as clitics is also crucial for the ordering issue as affixes tend to appear closer to word roots and clitics can appear in more peripheral positions in the syntactic word. Related to these discussions is the work of Uriagereka (this volume), who examines a slightly different but related aspect of clitic behavior, clitic doubling, and attempts to create a generative syntax that addresses integral relations without any mention of event decomposition or clitic placement. He proposes the Inalienable Double Hypothesis based on intriguing data that takes into account the changes in reference that occur depending on the presence of possession or doubling. The ordering question comes into play as we consider whether or not a clitic should be characterized as an underlying determiner or not, and what the repercussions of such an analysis would be for the gramaticalization process. The rest of the papers concentrate on the properties of elements uncontroversially identified as clitic pronouns. The fundamental interest that unifies all of these papers is the question of what determines order and restrictions of order on affixes and clitics. The orders in question may be variable across dialects within a language,


variable across languages, or fixed, as in second clitic phenomena. Crucially, orders may be variable even within one grammar and one dialect, a point that has not been addressed in much of the literature (see Heap, this volume, and the references therein). There is also the question of whether the availability of different ordering options may diagnose the presence of an affix versus clitic. Yoon (this volume) and Nicol (this volume) present arguments from Korean and Romance, respectively, that clitic/affix combinations should be addressed in the syntax proper. They use various minimalist principles in order to account for the data. Anagnostopoulou (this volume) discusses certain restrictions on clitic sequences in Greek and Romance, and compares them to Icelandic. She crucially makes use of checking theory in order to explain the restrictions. Two other syntactic approaches that make crucial use of Case are those of Desouvrey (this volume) and Rezac (this volume). In Desouvrey’s examination of French, Italian, and Spanish facts, he proposes a syntactic analog to the Obligatory Contour Priniciple (OCP) that predicts clitic orders based on Case features on the verbs and clitics. Rezac, on the other hand, uses a constraint-based approach for Czech, arguing that there are no clitic-specific rules required to explain clitic climbing facts in this language. Heap (this volume), offering more reflection on the phonological/morphological filters that might constrain the syntax, makes use of an optimality theoretic account enriched by a theory of feature geometry to account for variability in clitic combinations in different varieties of Spanish, both standard and non-standard. Access to a theory of hierarchical morphological structure such as Feature Geometry allows for a principled account of ordering variations across and within dialects in Spanish. Within the last grouping, Boeckx and Stjepanovic (this volume) discover a strong parallel between sequences of wh-words and sequences of clitics in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian and tie this in an interesting manner to the concept of information structure. They propose two different agreement projections, an elaborated projection for Serbo-Croatian where the nodes are branching and one unique focus projection for Bulgarian where these elements group in a cluster. In a parallel move, while examining Polish data, Szczegielniak (this volume) posits that auxiliary clitics in this language are phonological manifestations of the morphological properties of the Fin0 head, following Rizzi’s (1997) expanded structure of the Left Periphery. To handle the over-generation of structures, he combines this approach with a phonological buffer that filters morpho-syntactic output. The issue is how to best characterize clitics and their ordering possibilities. In addition to describing the available orders, the question of where in the grammar these properties should be implemented remains current. The papers advocate for an approach that recognizes the necessity of using several different modules of the grammar to account for clitic phenomena. Some approaches are primarily






based on the syntax (Anagnostopoulou, Boeckx and Stjepanovic, Desouvrey, Nicol, Rezac, Szczegielniak, Yoon), but with the phonological and morphological components working as filters. This consensus would seem to have elements in common with the general approach proposed in Franks (1999). An alternative to this direction is proposed by Heap, who relies on purely morphological mechanisms such as the ones proposed by Bonet (1991, 1995) to account for the ordering and shapes of clitics. A more lexical approach to clitic/affix identification is provided by Good and Yu, who develop an HPSG analysis of Turkish. These approaches are rounded out by the analysis of Uriagereka, who develops the syntax with a strong emphasis on the predicational and semantic properties of the structures. In this introduction, we explore issues related to the ordering of clitics and agreement affixes. We will thus flesh out in Section 2 the types of problems encountered when studying ordering phenomena in clitics that need to be considered when developing an analysis. Section 3 considers in depth various approaches to clitic ordering and the solutions that have been proposed. In the fourth section, we present three observations that need to be captured in any analysis that claims coverage of the clitic ordering problem and suggest potential directions for future research on these issues.

. Why is “ordering” an interesting issue? In this section, we will present an overview of the types of problems that need to be addressed when considering ordering phenomena. This is not intended to be an exhaustive listing, but will serve as a witness to the difficulty of the questions addressed in this volume. One aspect to be treated in the pages of this volume is whether the morphological status of an element as an affix or as a clitic is important for determining ordering. We also look at the problems that exist in determining the relative ordering between clitics and affixes. Related to this is the issue of how the second position restrictions interact with ordering. The lack of isomorphism between the ordering of arguments and the ordering of clitics is also addressed, as reflected in the unexpected gaps in clitic sequences. A well-known type of special clitic that provides complex, idiosyncratic data is second position clitic phenomena (2P clitics), or the set of data congruent with Wackernagel’s Law (Wackernagel 1892). This generalization captures the understanding that clitics prefer to appear in second position to the beginning of the sentence, and not at the beginning. In a number of interesting cases, the ordering of clitics seems tied to either second position to the first phonological word (2W) or second position to the first syntactic daughter (2D) of the sentence. Some languages such as Czech only allow for 2D while other languages such as Serbo-


Croatian, Luiseño, and Warlpiri allow for both possibilities (Halpern 1995). Below are some examples from Serbo-Croatian taken from Halpern (1995: 15), where all word orders are possible, as long as the 2P clitic is in second position. (17) a.

Covek =je voleo Mariju. Man.nom =aux loved Mary.acc ‘The man loved Mary.’ b. Covek je Mariju voleo. c. voleo je Mariju covek. d. voleo je covek Mariju. e. Mariju je covek voleo. f. Mariju je voleo covek.

In this volume, analyses are offered for Czech, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. The debate surrounding the analysis of these data reflects the nature of the data. All agree that a phonological component is required to account for the sensitivity of the ‘second position’ to specifically phonological characteristics, such as intonational phrase integrity. Interestingly, two of these analyses develop syntactic views that interact with information structure or the Left Periphery (Rizzi 1997). Szczegielniak provides additional evidence for adopting Rizzi’s (1997) expanded structure of the Left Periphery by arguing that auxiliary clitics are a phonological manifestation of the morphological properties of the Fin0 head. Boeckx and Stjepanovic point out distinct parallels in clustering behavior between wh-words and clitic pronouns in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, an observation that they argue supports the notion that clitics have their own specific functional projection. Rezac, on the other hand, rejects a morphological templatic approach and develops a syntax for Czech where no uniquely clitic-specified syntactic device is used to describe clitic-climbing facts. Taking now the case of special clitics in Romance languages, we find, at first glance, that there are no simple generalizations about the ordering of clitics across languages. Ignoring the fact that these languages do not have the same inventories of pronominal clitics, even the simple hypothesis that ordering universals be related to grammatical function cannot be supported. As shown below for Italian and French, we find that French favors the order acc-dat in the third person clitics and Italian requires the dat-acc ordering. (18) Jean le lui donnera Jean acc-dat will give ‘John will give it to him.’ (19) Gianni glielo darà. Jean dat-acc will give ‘John will give it to him.’






As discussed in Halpern (1995), clitic ordering initially seems to be arbitrary. The question is whether we can identify universals in clitic ordering and what form these universals will take. Is it a matter of universal alignment constraints in an optimality-type framework that are ranked differently for different languages (Grimshaw 2001)? Is it a matter of different base-generated orderings of Casemarked constituents (Desouvrey, this volume) or prosody (Halpern 1995)? Or, will individual elements be defined differentially in a feature geometry in the morphology (Heap, this volume)? Or, should we be capturing these phenomena in relation to the topic-focus field (Boeckx & Spjepanovic, this volume)? Clitic phenomena touch on all these aspects of the grammar, a fact that contributes to the difficulty of the analysis. As part of this puzzle, another well-known area of difficulty involves the fact that certain clitic combinations that logically should exist in fact never surface. This problem is highlighted in Romance and other rich agreement languages where pronominal clitics display some rather idiosyncratic properties. Generally, clitics in these languages may correspond to arguments, adjuncts, or predicates. Given a set of clitics specified in the lexicon of a given language, one might expect to find the combination of two arguments, an adjunct and a predicate, or an argument and an adjunct. However, there are examples from various languages that show that in certain cases, one of the logically available combinations does not have a correspondence; in other words, there is a lack of isomorphism between argument structure and clitic combinations. The most well-known of these patterns is probably the me-lui constraint, first discussed in Perlmutter (1971). This pattern describes a situation where, if dative and accusative clitics are present in the same sentence, the accusative element must be third person. In French, we see the following data as an instantiation of this generalization. (20) a. *Il me lui présentera. He-me.acc him.dat will-introduce ‘He will introduce me to him.’ b. Il me présentera à lui. He me.acc will-introduce to him.dat c. Il me le présentera. He me.dat-him.acc will introduce ‘He will introduce him to me.’ Bonet (1995) argues for a larger understanding of the facts by extending the range of data to include ergative-absolutive languages such as Basque. Data such as those in (21) support the notion that the simultaneous presence of dative and absolutive carry the same constraints as the combining of dative and accusative. In (21b), the first person absolutive clitic seems to render the sentence ungrammatical.


(21) a.

Azpisapoek etsaiari misilak saldu d -Ø -izki -o -te traitors-erg enemy-dat missiles-abs sell -3abs -3dat -3erg ‘The traitors sold missiles to the enemy.’ b. *Azpisapoek etsaiari ni saldu na -i -o -te traitors-erg enemy-dat me-abs sell -1abs -3dat-3erg ‘The traitors sold me to the enemy.’

Our understanding is thus that the problem is one of presence of these elements in close proximity as opposed to an ordering paradox. In the following generalization in (22), Bonet describes the constraint, where the presence of a dative agreement or a dative clitic blocks accusative/absolutive agreement other than third person. (22) If dat, then acc/abs = 3rd person. Ormazabal (2000) expands on Bonet’s generalization by observing that unaccusative verbs in Basque provide a counterexample to the generalization in (22) while generally adhering to it. He argues that the presence of morphological subject agreement on the verb is an underlying precursor to the the infelicitous construction in (20a), a fact that will always obtain in nom-acc languages, as described in Burzio’s Generalization. However, ergative languages do not require ergative agreement in all cases, and, in those examples, the generalization above does not apply. This case is illustrated for Basque in (23) below. (23) a.

Jon etorri Ø- zai -t Jon-abs come 3abs -1dat ‘Jon came to me.’ b. Joni joan na -tzai -o Jon-dat go 1abs -3dat ‘I went to Jon.’

Ormazabal thus reformulates the generalization in the following manner. (24) If dat and nom/erg, then acc/abs = 3rd person. He thus draws the conclusion that the present constraint is linked to the presence of a subject agreement, a conclusion that implies that the entire syntactic clausal agreement structure is involved in the me-lui constraint, that is, the syntaxmorphology interface. The assumptions determining the underlying structure of clitic constructions thus become crucial to the solution. Nicol (this volume) exploits movement and a microparameter on the visibility of Case-syncretism to address this topic; Anagnostopoulou (this volume) argues that person restrictions derive from multiple Agree, creating implications for the distribution of indirect objects and quirky subjects






cross-linguistically. In these cases, a consideration of the syntax is germane to the discussion. Another example of an ordering paradox occurs when a certain ordering is disallowed depending on the grammatical function that the clitics represent; clitic combinations are in fact sensitive to the argument status of the clitics involved. French provides an example of this situation in the form of le + y. The clitic le may behave as the accusative third person masculine clitic or as the predicate clitic. The clitic y is a locative pronoun. When y is an adjunct of the verb, these two pronouns cannot be combined, as demonstrated in (25d) and (26d) below. These clitics may, however, appear alone. (25) a.

Prosper a été président à Paris. Prosper has been president in Paris. ‘Prosper was president in Paris.’ b. Prosper y a été président Prosper there-has been president ‘Prosper has been president there.’ c. Prosper l’a été à Paris. Prosper it-has been in Paris. ‘Prosper has been so in Paris.’ d. *Prosper l’y a été Prosper it there has been ‘Prosper has been so there.’

(26) a.

Il a donné le livre à Marie au congrès. He has given the book to Marie at the conference. ‘He gave the book to Marie at the conference.’ b. Il y a donné le livre à Marie. He there-gave the book to Marie ‘He gave the book to Marie there.’ c. Il l’ a donné à Marie au congrès. He it-gave to Marie at the conference ‘He gave it to Marie at the conference.’ d. *Il l’y a donné à Marie. He it-there-gave to Marie ‘He gave it to Marie there.’

Given the data above, one might surmise that French does not allow the pronominal ordering of le + y. However, the following data provide the context where this ordering is allowed. (27) a.

Il a mis le livre sur la table. He put the book on the table


b. Il l’y a mis. He it-there put. ‘He put it there.’ The difference between (27) and (25)–(26) is one of the argument status of the locative preposition. In (25) and (26), y is an adjunct while in (27), y is an argument of the verb. Note, however, that adjunct status does not disallow a pre-verbal position of the locative pronoun, as shown in (25b) and (26b). Also, as illustrated in (28), the locative adjunct may surface preverbally when the dative is fronted as well as the accusative pronoun. (28) a.

Il le lui y a donné. He it-to her-there-gave ‘He gave it to her there.’

Thus, we see a prohibition on a specific clitic combination that seems determined under very specific conditions that make appeal to syntactic notions such as grammatical function. Another difficulty regarding clitics involves when clitics may be absent. In the following example taken from colloquial Catalan, it seems that speakers have the choice of saying the two pronouns or one or the other, but cannot leave out the clitics altogether. (29) a.

Jo li ho diré I to him-this will say ‘I will say it to him.’ b. Jo ho diré c. Jo li diré d. *Jo dire

Thus, we need a way in which to predict the required versus optional presence of clitics. The opposite situation occurs when speakers add clitics that are not arguments of the verb, often called the “ethical dative.” These clitic pronouns play a stylistic function, as in (30). (30) Et un sourire que Möller te vous lui aurait bien refilé une baffe. And a smile for which Möller for you(familiar)-for you-to him would well give a smack ‘And a smile that Möller would have really given him a smack in the face for you.’ (Aragon, La Semaine sainte. (Baylon & Fabre 1995: 38))






Interestingly, not only is there a supplemental pronoun te, but the sequence of pronouns looks deceptively similar to the pronominal sequence highlighted under the me-lui constraint, the difference being in this example that the second person pronouns are benefactive instead of accusative. Case, as a morpho-syntactic element, often makes these subtle distinctions. The syncretism behind the two different vous ‘to you/for you’ or lui ‘to him/for him’ is common to morphological systems; the grammatical relation marked by Case is thus crucial to a number of analyses. As observed in (Kayne 2000), there is a significant challenge in the identification of multiple properties for the same form. Nicol (this volume) uses this dilemma to his advantage in ferreting out the microparameter distinctions across Romance dialects. Another type of doubling in clitic phenomena involves post-verbal, lexical doubling of the clitic element, as illustrated below. (30) le vi el cordón a ella. her saw-I the cord to her ‘I saw her cord.’ (Uriagereka, this volume) These cases, studied by Uriageraka, pose the interesting problem of the interaction between obligatory doubling and clitic ordering. Clitics in these cases do not belong to the argument structure of the verb but to the more complex structure of the doubling Determiner Phrase (DP), according to Uriagereka’s analysis. As in the case of ethical dative pronouns, syntactic approaches to clitic ordering face the question of how to yield the same results on ordering and syntactic distribution for clitics that have very different syntactic sources (e.g., argument, ethical dative, element internal to the DP). The last category of clitic ordering problem to be presented here are the cases where a clitic spontaneously changes form under certain conditions. A well-known example of this state of affairs is spurious se in Spanish. The following example is taken from Desouvrey (this volume). (31) Juan *le/se lo dio. Juan it/it.acc him.dat gave ‘Juan gave it to him / her.’ In sentences such as (31), the normal dative clitic (=le) must change to what appears to be a form syncretic with the reflexive, but only when in the presence of the accusative clitic pronoun (=lo/s, la/s). Any account of clitic ordering phenomena will want to be able to account for this unexpected choice of clitic in the grammar. We have presented in this section an overview of the types of questions central to a discussion of ordering phenomena in clitics and agreement affixes. These are the problems that must be addressed when considering the nature of clitics. In the next section, we will provide an overview of the theoretical approaches to clitic or-


dering that have been suggested in the literature. Where does the ordering occur in our conception of grammar? Is it best to take a derivational approach in the syntax or morphology, a non-derivational approach such as Optimality Theory, or a representational approach such as Feature Geometry? Do we need to combine these in some creative way? This is the interesting theoretical question to be addressed.

. Representative approaches to clitic combinations . Templatic approaches The first person to tackle some of the problems presented above in a generative framework was Perlmutter (1971) in his book Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. In this work Perlmutter proposes a series of filters that would account for all the possible combinations of clitics. According to Perlmutter, one filter is sufficient to account for all permutations of clitics in a language. Using Spanish, he shows that all the possible combinations of two clitics can be expressed by the following simple templatic filter. (32) SE-I-II-III (dat)-III (acc) Se me/ se nos / Se te/ se os / se le/ se lo/ me lo/ te lo In a similar fashion, Wanner (1974) proposes the filter in (33) for Italian: (33) MI-VI-TI-CI-GLI-SI-NE {LO LA LI LE} -SI Templates like (32) and (33) have the advantage of capturing the symmetry and transitivity properties of the ordering of two clitics in a language like Spanish. However, several problems have been uncovered in languages like Italian. Wanner (1974) demonstrates that the transitivity property does not follow in Italian. The three relevant clitics in Italian are ne ‘of it’, si (impersonal) and lo (acc). While ne precedes lo as in (34), lo precedes si as in (35). Accordingly, given the nature of transitivity, ne should precede si. This, however, is not the case, as demonstrated in (36). (34) Ne la convinse facilmente of it.gen it.acc convinced easily (35) Lo si vede it.acc Si.imp sees (36) *Ne Si vede of it.gen Si.imp See Another example that does not follow transitivity is the case of the so-called me lui constraint. This restriction, first formalized by Perlmutter, points to the fact that a






first- or second person accusative clitic cannot precede a third person dative clitic. This situation is illustrated in (39), where me (acc) precedes lui (dat) and results in an ungrammatical sentence. However, given the facts in (37) and (38), where le follows me and then precedes lui, we would expect the sentence in (39) to be grammatical, given the properties of transitivity. (37) Il me le donne he me.dat it.acc gives ‘He is giving it to me.’ (38) Il le lui donne he it.acc him.dat gives ‘He is giving it to him.’ (39) *Il me lui donne he me.acc him.dat gives ‘He is giving me to him.’ The me lui constraint led Perlmutter to propose a negative constraint next to the positive filters proposed above. This negative constraint would disallow me lui altogether, thereby protecting the perception of the importance of transitivity to grammar. Perlmutter’s perspective on clitic combinations has been further developed by Bonet in recent years. Bonet, in the spirit of distributed morphology proposed by Halle and Marantz (1993), argued that morphology be considered its own component with its own internal structure and that processes of clitic combination take place in that component. Although she does not deny that there may also be syntactic movement of clitics, in Bonet’s framework, clitics are subject to the rules of templatic morphology. Contrary to S-structure, which only contains filters and constraints, the morphological component is more structured and contains fields, principles and specific operations that link, de-link and erase features coming from the different syntactic elements. Bonet (1995) takes the view that this morphological component acts on the different arguments in the syntax and maps them into different slots in the template. According to Bonet (1995), templates contain two types of slots: those of whole clitics and those of morphological features. The mappings into whole clitics or morphological features depend on different factors (e.g., first/second versus third) in each dialect. The strength of this approach has been that it is able to account for variation in ordering between dialects, something that syntactic accounts up until now have found difficult to address (but see Nicol, this volume). The template Bonet proposed for standard Catalan is in (40). First and second person clitics would map into a clitic while the clitic for en would map into a feature.1


(40)

3 5 6 4 CL [Arg] [] [] [] Arg Arg Arg 1 CL

2 CL

1

2

Although templates are able to capture a description of the data, one inherently problematic aspect of the templatic approach to clitic combinations is that these templates mix different types of information. For instance, Perlmutter’s templates contain information from two different categories: syntax and phonology (acc/dat vs. se). In Bonet’s approach, templates include feature and syntactic constituency information as well as whether the clitics are arguments or non-arguments (a distinction relevant to the syntax). In addition, they contain morphological features internal to the clitic itself such as person and gender. Gender is a morphological feature that generally does not play a role on the possible combinations of clitics.2 This is not the case with person, which crucially determines which combinations are possible. Another broader question posed by templates, one that we would like to focus on in this introduction, is whether they can exclusively determine the order of clitics. Perlmutter maintains the position that templates are the only factor responsible for clitic ordering. Bonet claims that orderings are primarily determined by templates, but that, in some cases, certain syntactic factors may come into play (Bonet 1991).3 The most difficult challenge posed by this mixed position is finding the criteria that will decide when the ordering is determined on one level or the other. One solution to this problem is to take the strong position that templates exclusively determine clitic ordering. This tactic, however, leads to giving up important generalizations on clitic combinations. Interestingly, it is possible to find ordering generalizations when the different possibilities for clitic combinations are captured with respect to their morphological properties and syntactic position. These important generalizations are precisely the ones captured by Anagnostoupoulo (this volume) and Nicol (this volume). For instance, Nicol’s article focuses on the fact that Romance languages generally show the dative first/second person clitic before the accusative clitic. Nicol ties the existence of this general order to the fact that first and second person are syncretic in the Romance languages that he examines. Anagnostoupoulo, crucially links the existence of the me-lui restriction to more general principles of checking theory that can cover different syntactic phenomena such as the impossibility of first- and second person dative or nominative case with a quirky subject in Icelandic.






A final problem with a templatic approach is that since templates are formulated in the morphology component (Bonet 1995; Halle & Marantz 1993; Harris 1995) or in S-structure (Perlmutter 1971), ordering is determined exclusively after the clitic placement has taken place, according to these models.4 This is either done in a post-syntactic component, as in distributed morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), or in a filter, as in Perlmutter (1971). On these assumptions, clitic combinations should be insensitive to the syntactic configurations in which they occur. There should be no difference between the distribution of one clitic alone and the combination of that clitic with another one. Syntax would move the clitics together and morphology would determine the order between them. However, this is not always the case, as demonstrated in (25)–(28) above, and by others such as Terzi (1999), Ordóñez (2002) and Cardinaletti (2000). For instance, Terzi (1999) shows that double object clitics in Cypriot Greek can have a flexible order in post-verbal position in imperatives as in (42), but not in pre-verbal position in finite clauses such as in (41). Moreover, she demonstrates that the post-verbal flexible order is sensitive to whether the verbal form is imperative or if it contains a finite form in Cypriot Greek, as in (42) and (43). Imperatives allow both word orders whereas finite sentences have only one order available to them. (41) a.

Mou to edosan. me it gave-3pp b. *To mou edosan. it me gave-3pp ‘They gave it to me.’

(42) a.

Dos’ mou to! give-imp me it b. Dos’ to mou! give-imp it me ‘Give it to me!’

(43) a.

Ethkiavasen mou to. read-2ps me it b. *Ethkiavasen to mou. read-2ps it me ‘(S/he) read it to me.’

The extent to which proponents of the templatic approach have to allow for language-specific, context-sensitive, and/or non-morphological input into individual grammars is the extent to which the analysis is rendered complex. These difficulties of a purely morphological approach to clitic combinations have prompted some researchers to consider more closely a syntactic approach to clitic ordering in a search for increased coherence in the analysis of these structures.


. A representational approach to clitic ordering In recent years, however, a number of researchers have also appealed to representational approaches such as Optimality Theory to tackle the problems posed by clitic ordering and the existence of non-transparent forms such as spurious se in (31). We will consider the proposal from Grimshaw (1997) that argues that these two problematic issues can be fully captured in Optimality Theory, an approach that relies on an input-output mapping structure in phonology, syntax or morphology. For each input, the grammar evaluates an infinite set of output candidates and selects the best candidate. Constraints are violable and languages differ with respect to how constraints are ranked and which constraints are therefore active. For instance, in some Romance languages, the combination of direct object clitic with indirect object clitics can result in an idiosyncratic output. For example, in Spanish, we have the case where, instead of the indirect object clitic, the reflexive one appears, the so-called spurious se clitic discussed in example (31). In French, we have the straightforward case where the dative clitic does not change. (44) Juan se lo dará Juan SE.refl. it.acc will give ‘Juan will give it to him/her.’ (45) Jean le lui donnera Jean it.acc him/her.dat will give ‘Jean will give it to him/her.’ Grimshaw (1997) proposes that the variation be captured by positing a constraint against sequences of morphologically identical functional heads, a constraint similar to the obligatory contour principle (OCP) in phonology. It avoids the sequence of two third person clitics. This constraint is ranked high in Spanish, but not in French and is therefore overtly expressed only in Spanish. The emergence of the unexpected clitic se is tied to its unmarked nature. Se is not specified for person, gender, number or case and, therefore, it is the best available clitic for the input. In a more recent article, Grimshaw (2001) proposes that the general problem of clitic ordering in Romance can also be better understood under Optimality Theory. By incorporating the idea from phonology that there are alignment constraints, she proposes that some of these constraints can explain the order in which clitics appear in combination. Thus, in French there is a constraint that requires the alignment of the dative (dat) to the right (DatRt), a constraint that is ranked higher than the alignment of the accusative (acc) to the right (AccRt). The fact that dative is ranked higher explains why the combination of two different third persons accusative and dative in French should be le lui while the combination of a first/second person, which is not specified for case under her analysis (C=not spec-






ified for case), with a third person yields me le and never me lui, as shown in the following two tables ( indicates optimal candidate). Table 1. French: first person + accusative Input [1dat+3acc] a. (1C) (3acc) b. (3 acc) (1C)

DatRt

AccRt *!

Table 2. French: third person dative + accusative Input [3 acc+ 3dat] a. (3acc) (3dat) b. (3 dat) (3acc)

Dat Rt

AccRt *

*!

In Italian the orders are obtained simply by having Dative Right play no role in the combination. Accusative Right (AccRt) ensures that all combinations of first/second person and third person and also the combinations of two third person clitics will yield an output in which the accusative clitic is on the right. The following table serves only to explain why person clitics that are not specified for case (PC = person clitic not specified for case) appear to the left when they are combined with a clitic specified for case. Table 3. Italian: accusative + non-accusative Input [+R 3 +3 acc] a. (PC) (3acc) b. (3 acc) (PC)

AccRt

PersLft *

*!

In Spanish, however, the combination of a first or second person clitic with a third person clitic is obtained by having the clitic with Case specification obey the constraint Case Right (CaseRt). Contrary to Italian, person clitics generally are on the right and, therefore, there is a constraint Person Right as well. Table 4. Spanish: first or second person with third person Input [1 dat +3 acc] a. (1C) (3acc) b. (3 acc) (1C)

Case Rt

PersRt *

*!

Assuming that third person clitics are also specified for person, there would be a contradictory requirement between Case Right and Person Right when there are two third person clitics in combination in Spanish, since one of the third person clitics would have to appear on the left. According to Grimshaw, it is precisely this contradictory requirement that leads to the impossibility of le lo in Spanish. The


only clitic that could possibly occupy that position would be the one clitic not specified for person or case (+R = reflexive; P = unspecified for person; N = unspecified for number; C = unspecified for case) i.e, the clitic se. Table 5. Spanish: first or second person with third person Input [–R 3 sg dat+ –R 3sg acc] a. (–R 3sg dat) + (–R 3sg acc) b. (+R P N C) + (–R 3 sg acc) c. (R 1 sg C) + (–R 3 sg acc)

Case Rt

PersRt *

*!

We have observed that an optimality theoretic approach describes clitic combinations and restrictions by adopting a theory in which alignment constraints interact and lead to a contradiction that then requires the need for the language to adopt an unexpected sequence of clitics in order to resolve the contradiction. Under these circumstances, the best clitic is the one that has no person or case specification, the impersonal/reflexive se in Spanish, resulting in the output of se lo, instead of *le lo.5 The exploitation of underspecification in this approach is attractive and is revisited in Heap (this volume) under a Feature Geometry approach and in Nicol (this volume) in a minimalist approach. Optimality Theory captures some of the recalcitrant phenomena of clitic combinations and it does so in an elegant way. The problematic question in this approach is how to decide what we take to be the constraints available in each language. Attempts have been made to restrict the nature of a possible constraint. For instance, in phonological theory, constraints might be ultimately grounded in phonetic or typological reasons (Kager 1999). Bresnan and Aissen (2002) advocated for a theory of optimality whose constraints are functionally motivated. These perspectives have in common that constraints must be universal and that universality is supported by some functional, typological or phonetic reason (Kager 1999). One difficulty related to Grimshaw (1997, 2001) is that her analysis violates this universality requirement in some cases. Observe that three languages, French, Italian, and Spanish, have exactly the same clitic order – dative first/second person and third person accusative. However, three different combinations and rankings of constraints with different specifications are hypothesized to give exactly the same order of clitics in the three languages. Thus, Accusative Right and Dative Left for French, Accusative Right and Person Left for Italian, and Case Right and Person Right for Spanish yield the same order of clitics across these three Romance languages.6 The expressed goal above is that, especially in the case of languages that are so closely related, the generalization of identical output could be captured by constraints that are more similar than dissimilar.






The problem of defining constraints on constraints also surfaces in the multiple explanations available regarding spurious se. One of the explanations is that the surfacing of se is due to the OCP. According to this explanation, the OCP is highly ranked in Spanish, but not in French or Italian, and, therefore, the language avoids the surfacing of two very similar clitics through the insertion of the unspecified spurious se. The second explanation claims that there is a contradictory requirement in Spanish between Person Right and Case Right when there are two third person clitics. This contradiction results in the surfacing of a default unmarked clitic, the spurious se. In order to choose between these two explanations, one must investigate and determine what a constraint should look like and whether it should be phonetically, functionally, or typologically motivated. Another crucial question regarding this perspective is deciding how the input is going to be characterized. Consider the case where the third person clitic lo/la in Spanish is specified for person and is in conflict with appearing on the left edge of a clitic combination, following the constraints in Table 3. In this set, we have two constraints – Accusative Right and Person Left. If the pronoun is accusative, it should be to the right and if it has person, it should be to the left. It is only the ranking of these constraints that allows us to decide on the order. The problem is that an approach that relies on referring to person features as a primitive is necessarily limited, given discussions such as those in Uriagereka (1995, this volume) and Kayne (2000), where the properties of some third person clitics appear to be more determiner-like than argument-like. Another case that would create difficulties is the predicate clitic, which does not carry reference yet has the form of an accusative third person clitic; it does not interact with person clitics at all. The constraint thus makes inaccurate predictions unless the constraints address each case individually, resulting in a proliferation of constraints. It is precisely this unconstrained nature of the input in orthodox OT that Heap (this volume) seeks to remedy, with Feature Geometry as a constraint on possible inputs. In this last section, we have argued that Optimality Theory seems a promising and interesting way to explain the different problems posed by clitic combinations. However, more work needs to be done on the restriction of two different aspects of the theory: constraints on constraints and how to characterize the input. Insights into these areas may then lead to a more explanatory analysis of the data. At present, the different rankings of constraints describe the facts where languages differ, but do not provide interesting generalizations across the different languages. We turn to the goals of an explanatory analysis in the following section.


. Future inquiries As we have seen throughout this introduction, research on clitic combinations, especially templatic and optimality approaches, has tended to focus on understanding the irregularities found in clitic or affix combinations. More recently, however, there has been a newfound interest in understanding the more general properties of clitic combinations. For instance, the investigation of universal gaps in the combinatorial possibilities of clitic groups, exemplified in the me lui constraint, has been recently developed within the domain of syntax (see Anagnostopoulou 2003; Béjar & Rezac 2003; Ormazábal & Romero 2003). As a consequence, new lines of investigation are expanding. In this section, we review some of the general clitic properties in Romance languages that will need to be explained. In some cases the stated observations seem to lend themselves easily to a syntactic explanation; in other cases we simply point them out and leave them open for further research. Some of these observations have to be understood as implicatures. Namely, once certain conditions are established, we observe certain gaps in the paradigm. The remarks to be made below are thus programmatic and should be understood as guidelines for future research. Observation I The clitic combination of first and second person dative object with a third person accusative object yields first or second person before third person. Languages tend to prefer this ordering and tend to change in this direction (cf. Wanner 1974). There are no attested cases of the reverse change.7 If ordering is arbitrary, why would we not find a change in the reverse direction? Observation II In a language with non-syncretic clitics for third person, the dative form must precede the accusative form. An obvious counterexample to this observation, French le lui, is arguably not a counterexample if we agree with Kayne (2000) and Laenzlinger (1998) that lui is not of the same category as accusative le but has a more complex morphological structure, i.e., it is syncretic with the stressed pronoun. Two sets of facts support this position. One, lui seems morphologically more similar to weak pronouns like moi and toi than clitics like me and te. For instance it can appear after a preposition, as in (46). (46) Pour moi / pour lui For me / for him






Second, lui also allows the change in order in imperatives that is allowed in some regional dialects, as in (47) and (48), precisely as do the stressed pronouns (Morin 1979: 308). (47) Donne-le-moi / Donne-moi-le Give it to me (48) Donne-le lui / Donne-lui-le Give it to him/her Observation III It is often the case that the combination of a non-syncretic dative and a non-syncretic accusative clitic is impossible when both are third person.8 In cases of suppletion, if the language has a locative clitic, then the locative clitic may take the position of the dative argument, when dative and accusative third person are combined. There is no language in which the opposite is true; the locative never replaces the accusative. For example, in French, a transitive dative may use the locative y rather than the dative pronoun lui when the object is inanimate, as in (49a). However, the locative can never replace an accusative clitic by itself, as demonstrated in (49c). 9 Réponds à la letter → Réponds-y answer to the letter answer there ‘Answer it.’ b. Réponds à Jean → Réponds-lui answer to John ‘Answer him.’ c. Donne-le → *Donnes-y give it give there ‘Give it.’

(49) a.

It is our hope that such generalizations can lead to deeper explanations of not only clitic phenomena, but also, the nature of argument-marking and its constraints, both morphological and syntactic. To provide an example of this process, consider the fact that, when dative elements lose their preposition, the order becomes dative-accusative.10 We see this phenomenon across ditransitive constructions in Germanic languages like English, as in (50) (cf. Kayne 1984; Larson 1988). (50) a. Give the book to me. b. Give me the book. Whatever analysis we adopt for the Germanic construction, we want to adopt one along the same lines for the Romance counterpart, as captured in Observation I.


The ultimate analysis will crucially depend on the underlying, orginating structure of the clitics and the order in which they merge into their landing site. For example, Anagnostopoulou (2003: 299) argues that dative moves first and the accusative moves later, using the process of “tucking in,” as illustrated below. Desouvrey (this volume) also pushes deeply into this question. (51) VP

Me lo CL1 ME DAT

CL2 LO ACC

Interestingly, the same explanation supports observation II as well, namely that non-syncretic third person clitics never pattern with accusative first and dative second. Once again, dative must precede accusative. With respect to the special behavior of French le lui, one might adopt Laenzlinger’s (1998) solution and propose that since lui belongs to the class of weak pronouns according to Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), it would be unable to adjoin to the same head as the clitic le. According to Laenzlinger, it would have to be adjoined to a lower inflectional projection. This can be understood by assuming that weak pronouns occupy positions such as agro while clitics are attracted to a higher position such as Tense. In this case, the type of movement of lui and the type of movement of le would not interfere since lui belongs to the weak pronoun subclass. Finally, the restriction against two consecutive third person clitics captured in Generalization III can be understood as a restriction against adjoining to each other two clitics specified for Case, following Laenzlinger (1998). This constraint can be reduced to a checking problem, as proposed by Nicol (this volume) or addressed in the morphology, as suggested in Heap (this volume). On the view suggested in Kayne (2000), first and second person are not specified for Case as they are syncretic between dative and accusative and, therefore, can be freely adjoined to a Case clitic, (e.g., lo in Spanish). Many other languages use the locative clitic to circumvent such a restriction on the combination of two third person clitics as the locative is not specified for Case either. Alternatively, some languages such as Spanish use the reflexive, the spurious se form in this instance. Given that Spanish does not have a locative clitic, we tentatively hypothesize that a language that has a locative clitic will not use a reflexive such as spurious se for the default function. Languages that do not have a locative clitic appear to have other options available to






them, such as the default reflexive clitic, as in Spanish. In each instance, the default clitic pronoun is not specified for Case, the relevant morpho-syntactic feature. Many of the above mentioned facts about clitic combination phenomena might be explained by different parts of syntax, such as movement theory, checking theory, and case theory. These tools are only starting to be exploited and they provide the possibility for new solutions to old problems. We are not, however, suggesting that all of the solutions will be found in the syntax. Some data, like the amalgamation of forms in the Italian glielo (Dat 3 person – Acc 3 person), may very well find their best solution in the morphology. One of the most important challenges facing the study of clitic combinations is trying to delimit what belongs to the syntax and what belongs to the morphology or phonology. In this introduction and through this book we are suggesting that more syntactic mechanisms might be explored to explain some of the observations above. We believe that this type of study is crucial to work on the interfaces between syntax and morphology and phonology.

Notes . [arg] = Argument, [gen] = Genitive, [obl] = Oblique, and [neut]=Neutral. . Note, however, the following contrast in Rumanian: L am v zut. I saw him/it (masc.) but Am v zut-o. I saw her/it (fem.). The only factor determining postposition in the latter case is grammatical gender. Other pronouns follow the masculine pattern (preposed to the finite verb) (Heap, personal communication). . This is what she proposes for the ordering of clitics in Italian vs. Spanish (Bonet 1991: 45, Note 22). . In other models which do not assume a hierarchical structure of components, such as Sadock (1991) or Jackendoff (2002), this issue does not arise since all levels (syntax, morphology, phonology)work in parallel. The question for those models is how to restrict the mapping of these different modules, and why and how the mapping diverges. . See Grimshaw (2001) for a very different approach to se where the pronoun is fully specified. . As pointed out by a reviewer, the use of different constraints for different languages is true only of one particular OT analysis and may not necessarily be the case for others working in this framework. . See Pearce (1991) on the diachronic change from the earlier ilum mihi order to the mihi ilum order now predominant across Romance. A few isolated varieties still maintain vestigial usage reflecting the older LO ME order, including Mallocran (Bonet 1991: 74) and Old Aragonese (Heap, personal communication). . Again, French le lui is not a counter-example; lui may be considered a weak pronoun as in Laenzlinger (1998).

Clitic ordering phenomena . According to Heap (personal communication), colloquial Québécois French provides us with the case where, when both arguments are expressed, the locative may surface to substitute for both, as in (i), while the facts in (49c) still hold. i.

Donne-le-lui → Donnes-y give it to him give there ‘Give it to him.

. There are a number of intricate questions when both elements are pronominal that we will leave open to further research. Most dialects have the order in (i), as we would expect from the double object construction. However, there are literary British dialects that also allow (ii): i.

Give me them (non-standard American and British English)

ii.

Give them me (literary British English)

References Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baylon, C. and P. Fabre. 1995. Grammaire systématique de la langue française. Poitiers: Editions Nathan. Béjar, S. and M. Rezac. 2003. “Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects.” In Romance Linguistics: Theory and acquisition, A. Pérez-Leroux and J. Y. Roberge (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beukema, F. and M. den Dikken. 1999. Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, C. and K. Grohmann. 2003. Multiple Wh-Fronting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bonet, E. 1995. “Feature structure of Romance clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. Bresnan, J. and J. Aissen. 2002. “Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 81–95. Cardinaletti, A. 2000. “On different types of clitic clusters.” Workshop on the Antisymmetry Theory of Cortona, May 15–17. Cardinaletti, A. and M. Starke. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, H. van Riemskijk (ed.), 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cunha, C. and L. Cintra. 1984. Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo. Lisboa: Edições João Sá da Costa. Franks, S. 1999. “Clitics at the interface.” In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, F. Beukema and M. den Dikken (eds), 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.






Gerlach, B. and J. Grijzenhout. 2000. “Clitics from different perspectives.” In Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, B. Gerlach and J. Grijzenhout (eds), 1–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grimshaw, J. 1997. “The best clitic: Constraint conflict in morphosyntax.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 169–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Grimshaw, J. 2001. “Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems.” In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw and S. Vikner (eds), 205–240. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributive morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20; Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale and J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Halpern, A. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford CA: CSLI. Harris, J. 1995. “The morphology of Spanish clitics.” In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky (eds), 168–197. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, R 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laenzlinger, C. 1998. Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larson, R. 1988. “On double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392. Lim, H-B. 1996. “Kyochakso-wa kyochakpep-uy cenglip-ul wihaye,” (Toward a theory of agglutinating elements and agglutination), Paper presented at the 24th Presentation of Joint Research Projects, Korean Linguistic Society, Seoul. Morin, Y.-C. 1979. “More remarks on French clitic order.” Linguistic Analysis 5: 293–312. Ordóñez, F. 2002. “Some clitic combinations in the syntax of Romance.” The Catalan Journal of Linguistics Vol 1: 201–224. Ormazabal, J. 2000. “A conspiracy theory of case and agreement.” In Step by Step, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 235–260. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Ormazabal, J. and J. Romero. 2003. “Agreement restrictions.” Ms, University of the Basque Country and Universidad de Alcalá, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Pearce, E. 1991. “On comparing French and Italian: The switch from illum mihi to mihi illum.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds), 253–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Sadock, J. 1991. Autolexical Syntax. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.


Sells, P. 1995. “Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective.” Linguistic Inquiry 7: 119–174. Terzi, A. 1999. “Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 85–121. Uriagereka, J. 1995. “Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1): 79–123. Van Riemsdijk, H. 1999. “Clitics: A state-of-the-art report.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, H. van Riemskijk (ed.), 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wackernagel, J. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz des indogermanischen Wortstellung.” Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436. Wanner, D. 1974 “The evolution of Romance clitic order.” In Linguistic Studies in Romance Languages, R. J. Campbell et al. (eds), 158–177. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Zwicky, A. and G. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language 59: 502– 513.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 12:56

P I

Clitic sequences

F: LA74P1.tex / p.1 (42-68)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.1 (41-107)

Romance clitic clusters The case connection Louis-H. Desouvrey Montreal, Canada

This paper presents a novel account of clitic clusters in Romance. Assuming that features are hierarchically represented, consistent with phonological representations, I show that the appearance of object clitics in a preverbal position, unlike other objects, is due to an effect of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). It is argued that all clitics in French, Italian, and Spanish are Case-specified, as well as the verb selecting them. The interaction of the case of the clitic and that of the verb yields the OCP effect, which moves the clitic outside the domain containing itself and the verb. Variability in feature specification within a clitic system, jointly with the Animacy Hierarchy and the ban on string vacuous movement, account for variation in clitic order, the Me-lui/I-II effect and opaque clitics.

.

Introduction

Clitics in French (and in Romance) are a challenging question for many grammatical theories.1 They involve many different empirical problems, among which the following: their ordering (within a cluster) and their appearance in front of the verb, as exemplified in (1)–(2) (clitics are underlined), an unusual position for object arguments in French (and Romance), and the cooccurrence restrictions, as seen in (3).2 (1) a.

Marie le lui donnera. Marie it him will.give b. *Marie lui le donnera. ‘Marie will give it to him.’

(2) a.

Marie me le donnera. Marie me it will.give

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.2 (107-165)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

b. *Marie le me donnera. ‘Marie will give it to me.’ (3) a. *Marie me lui montrera. Marie me him will.show ‘Marie will show him to me.’ b. *Marie me te présentera. Marie me you will.present ‘Marie will present me to you.’ The sentences in (1) and (2) show a sharp contrast that, to the best of my knowledge, has been overlooked in the literature (but see Nicol, this volume): the direct object clitic must precede the indirect object clitic in a cluster of third person clitics, while the indirect object clitic must precede the direct object clitic when both clitics are not of the same person. As for the sentences in (3), they show that certain clusters are not possible. Furthermore, in each of these sentences, the clitic must precede the verb of which it is the complement. Another well-known puzzle in Romance clitics is found in Spanish. In a cluster of two third person clitics, the indirect object one must be the reflexive clitic se, even though the reflexive interpretation is not intended. This is known in the literature as spurious se: (4) Juan se/*le lo dio. Juan himself/him it gave ‘Juan gave it to him.’ The problems of Romance clitics are tackled from various angles in the literature (see the introduction to this volume), but all approaches rely to some extent on the notion of features borne by the involved clitics, among which [accusative], [dative], [person], [individuation], etc. (cf. Anagnostopoulou this volume; Bessler et al. 1992; Bonet 1991, 1995; Burston 1983; Cummins & Roberge 1994; Grimshaw 1999; Heap this volume; Laenzlinger 1993; Miller & Sag 1997; Nicol this volume; Perlmutter 1971; Watson 1997, etc.). Features, especially Cases, are used more or less naively in most of these analyses; that is, they are generally invoked without a proper theory of the distribution of features within a paradigm.3 To take an example, in Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT), Case features are related to a position; if an element can be in a given position it must acquire such or such Case feature from a relevant head. On this view, a subject pronoun like French il ’he’ and a possible referent like the nominal John may be assigned nominative Case, since they may appear in the same position. The very fact that il has a built-in Case, independent from its position in the structure, is thus irrelevant. In Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, etc.), this view takes another aspect: these elements enter the syntax fully inflected for every relevant feature and therefore need not be

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.3 (165-217)

Romance clitic clusters

assigned Case. In any event, in those approaches Case may not be used to crucially distinguish these two elements. Since Case features are largely accepted, one may ask whether they should be more prominent in the analysis, rather than being secondary ingredients to various types of mechanisms.4 In this article, I will propose a constraint-based analysis of Romance clitics in which features, chiefly Case, are systematically used. In particular, I will show that by taking Case features into account, implemented in a nonlinear type of representation, as discussed in Desouvrey (1997, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, in progress), it is possible to predict the appearance of clitics in a different position from that of other NP arguments. Furthermore, I will show that the ordering of clitics in French, as exemplified in (1) and (2), as well as the spurious se in Spanish, can be accounted for in a highly principled way. From a crosslinguistic perspective, the difference between French, on the one hand, and Spanish and Italian on the other, with respect to clitic order, will be shown to follow straightforwardly from the proposed analysis. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, I present and motivate the features involved in the French clitic system and then I propose their hierarchical feature structure. Also, the constraints that govern their syntax and some assumptions on syntactic representations are put on the stage. Assuming that object clitics are generated in the same positions as nominals, I show in Section 3 that their movement to a preverbal position is due to an effect of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), which interacts with certain well-formedness conditions on the representation. In Section 4, clitic clusters are tackled in French double object verbs; it is argued that both clitics move by virtue of the OCP, but that the variation observed in linear order originates from the fact that the clitics do not bear the same features and that one is closer to the landing site than the other. In Section 5, the analysis is shown to apply successfully to Spanish clitics, including the celebrated spurious se. In Section 6, as the prominent role of Case is discussed, additional data from Italian and French are provided to support the analysis. Section 7 is devoted to the account of the restrictions on cooccurrence of certain clitics, the me-lui/I-II constraints, also known as the Person-Case Constraint (cf. Anagnostopoulou this volume). Section 8 briefly concludes the paper.

. Basic assumptions . Feature inventory of French clitics For the sake of simplicity, I will first give the relevant features for each clitic, and then I will justify them. Most object clitics in French appear in Table 1 with their monovalent Case feature, assuming a privative theory of (under)specification (e.g.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.4 (217-296)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

Trubetzkoy 1967). Person, number and gender are also monovalent features, although they are represented here descriptively. The reason is that they are not crucial to the syntactic phenomena that are the focus of this paper. First and second person clitics me and te (singular), as well as nous and vous (plural) are specified for both [A]ccusative and [O]blique Cases. Third person clitics, le (masculine)/ la (feminine) and lui (both genders) are specified for a single Case, either [A] or [O], as indicated. Third person plural clitics are parallel to the singular ones, except that there is no gender distinction in the accusative form. Also, all oblique-specified clitics bear the feature animate ([α]), as well as the corresponding strong forms. Clitic en is specified for the feature ’thing’ ([τ]). Notice that the strong form for third person singular masculine is homophonous with clitic lui and that first and second person plural pronouns (nous, vous) have a single shape for clitics and strong forms. The feature specification given in Table 1 are quite unusual in the literature in that each clitic is maximally specified for Case, even in the cases displaying formal syncretism (namely, first and second person). The common assumption is that since the syncretic forms can be used either as a direct object or an indirect object, they should not be specified for the Cases related to these grammatical roles, namely accusative and oblique (or dative, as it is referred to in the literature); rather they must be unspecified for both Cases. For instance, Laenzlinger (1993) assumes that third person object clitics are specified for Case, person, number and gender, whereas first and second person clitics are specified neither for gender nor Case (i.e. they are [–gender] and [–Case] in the bivalent feature system he assumes); rather they are only specified for person and number. A similar proposal is advocated by Grimshaw (1997, 1999, on the basis of Italian data). Nicol (this volume) recognizes only three types of clitic features for the object clitic he discusses: Φ (person, number, and gender), Aff (affix), and accusative; dative Case (the oblique Case in Table 1) is referred to as a non-accusative Case. Table 1. Features of French object clitics Clitics

Persons

Case / animacy

Strong forms

Glosses

me te le, la lui nous, vous les leur se en

1 2 3 3 1, 2 3 3 3 3

[A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] / [τ]

moi toi lui, elle ” nous, vous eux, elles ” soi –

me you him/it, her him, her we/us, you them them her/himself of-it/them

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.5 (296-352)


The intuition underlying these views is that underspecification is at work in the clitic paradigm, and therefore certain elements must be deprived of features. While I agree with this view, I believe that it can be better implemented by taking into account the whole paradigm of personal pronouns, i.e. the set of clitic and non-clitic pronouns, as I show immediately.5 Consider the person, number and gender features. The first set may in principle take three values, namely [1], [2] and [3]; the second set may be either [Masc.] or [Fem.], while the third set may be either [Plur.] or [Sing.]. In a privative theory of underspecification, a feature can be omitted in each case. For instance, some pronouns may be specified for the features [1] and [2], while others may be left unspecified. Pronouns that are unspecified for person then acquire the feature [3] by default. Similarly, a paradigm may contain elements specified for a single number feature, either singular or plural. If an element is specified for the feature [Sing.], its plural counterpart need not be specified for a feature [Plur.]; rather it has to take the plural feature by default. Why does such a system not hold for Case features? I claim that it does apply. I suggest that strong pronouns lack Case features, consistent with the idea of underspecification. This is more obvious when one considers the whole paradigm, and not only clitics, as mentioned above. Indeed, in the paradigms of personal pronouns in Romance, to which clitics belong, there are the so-called strong forms, which pattern like nominals (see, among others, Kayne 1975). For instance, strong pronouns can be stressed, and indeed are usually associated with pitch movements. In contrast, clitics can neither be stressed nor associated with such pitch movements. Consider the French examples in (5). The nominal Paul and the strong pronoun lui (third person, masculine) appear in the same environment, while the clitics il and le are excluded from this environment. The same distribution is shown in (6) for first and second person clitics vs. strong pronouns of first and second person. (5) a.

C’ est Paul que Marie aime. It is Paul that Marie likes ‘It is Paul that Marie likes.’ b. C’est lui que Marie aime. It is him that Marie likes ‘It is him that Marie likes.’ c. *C’est il/le que Marie aime. It is he/him that Marie likes

(6) a.

C’est moi /*me qui ai acheté la maison. It is me who have bought the house ‘It is me who bought the house.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.6 (352-408)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

b. C’est toi /*te qui as acheté la maison. It is you who have bought the house ‘It is you who bought the house.’ Furthermore, in order to show that clitic pronouns are specified for Case and that strong pronouns are not, one may use the following procedure. Suppose that in Romance nominative Case is related to the grammatical relation of subject and that accusative Case corresponds to that of direct object. Thus a nominative-specified clitic can only be the subject of a verb while an accusative specified clitic can only be the direct object. If an accusative clitic is intended to be the subject or a nominative clitic the direct object, ill-formedness is expected. This is borne out, as the sentences in (7) show. (7) a.

Paul le/*il connaît. Paul him/he knows ‘Paul knows him.’ b. Il/*le regardait un film. He/him watched a movie ‘He watched a movie.’

More generally, an element specified for a given feature may appear in a muchlimited environment than an element unspecified for any feature. Under the view taken here, nominals and strong pronouns, being Caseless, can be used either as subject or direct object, without any alteration of their morphological shape. Thus, in (8a) the nominal Marie et moi is the subject, while in (8b) it is the direct object. In contrast, a clitic may not acquire a grammatical role by its position in the structure.6 (8) a.

Marie et moi partirons demain pour Dakar. Marie and I will.go tomorrow for Dakar ‘Marie and I will go at Dakar tomorrow.’ b. Paul a vu Marie et moi à Dakar. à Dakar Paul has seen Marie and I ‘Paul saw Marie and I at Dakar.’

Clearly, strong pronouns and clitic pronouns are in complementary distribution and the only difference between them is that strong pronouns, but not clitic pronouns, lack Case features, given the view taken here (see Table 1).7 Therefore, the simplest hypothesis is that this is the type of feature that commands their respective syntactic behaviour. Such a hypothesis is reminiscent of Minimalist Theory, according to which syntax is feature-driven (Chomsky 1995, etc.). Now under this hypothesis, it is clear that beyond syncretism, first and second person clitics must be specified for Case, as proposed above, rather than being unspecified, as in Laen-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.7 (408-460)


zlinger’s analysis, for instance. Under the latter analysis, there would be no intrinsic difference between me and moi, te and toi, etc., since each pair would have the same type of features, namely person and number, and would equally lack Case features. In fact, analyses under which first and second person clitic pronouns are unspecified for Case features must assume some other mechanism in order to distinguish clitics from strong pronouns. Usually, indeed, it is implicitly assumed that clitics are grammatical categories on their own, parallel to nominals, adjectives, etc. Although I cannot discuss this view here, I should point out that many scholars now take the view that clitics may not be considered a genuine grammatical category; all their properties should be explained from other principles (see Zwicky 1994; Desouvrey 2000 for discussion and implementation of such a view). Summing up, I assume that strong pronouns and nominals are not specified for Case, while all clitic pronouns are specified for at least one Case, as given in Table 1. In order to take real advantage of this view, other elements, verbs in particular, should be analyzed in a similar fashion with respect to features. As well, features will be implemented in a more appropriate representation, similar in principle to nonlinear phonological representations.

. The representation of features I assume that all elements in Table 1 proceed from a tree structure where the morpheme is the root node, as shown in (9). The node AGR (for agreement) is present in the representation of every grammatical category and is intended to express the fact that individual categories may combine with one another to make up larger structures. Their terminal features, in brackets, distinguish morphemes from each other. These are Case (whose dominating node is K), thematic features (θ), which is a dependent of K, animacy node (Ω) and its two possible dependent features, α (animate) and τ (thing). Person [p], number [n], and gender [g] are dependent of the node Φ. The nonterminal nodes are mostly similar to class nodes in nonlinear phonology (for instance, see Goldsmith 1990). (9)

Pronoun Ö

AGR Ù

K [k]

[è]

[p, n, g]

[á]

Since Cases are the most important feature in this tree structure, they will be conveniently linked to the morpheme bearing them with an association line, and other



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.8 (460-540)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

features will be only shown when relevant. Notice that morphemes with double Case features have two association lines (from different K nodes), hence two planes, one for each feature, as shown below. Thematic features are dealt with later on. (10) a.

O me (also: te, nous, vous, se) A

b. O

c. lui (leur)

le (la, les)

A

A

Similarly, other feature-bearing elements must have their features attached with an association line as well. Consider verbs, the central element that interacts with clitics. Most verbs in French are specified for accusative Case, which is related to a direct object, as usually assumed in the literature. Thus, a simple transitive verb like connaître ’to know’ displays one accusative Case, as shown in (11a). Furthermore, if it is in a tensed mood it takes a subject as well, which is related to the nominative Case, a very common assumption in Romance linguistics and beyond. The matter is how to represent this feature. While in PPT the nominative feature belongs to a tense node, which the lexical verb merges with at some point in the derivation, I take the view that the verb enters the syntax fully tensed, so that there is no inflectional morphology at that level, consistent with a strong lexicalist hypothesis (Halle 1973; Desouvrey 2000, etc.). On this view, when the simple transitive verb is untensed it shows the Case feature in (11a), and when it is tensed it has two Case features, as shown in (11b).8 (11) a. connaître A

b.

N connaîtrai

(‘will know’)

A

Furthermore, as is well-known, certain verbs obligatorily take an NP complement introduced by a preposition (indirect object), as seen in (12a). The indirect object translates various semantic nuances, but if it is introduced by à ‘to’, it mainly expresses a dative (either benefactive or malefactive). I assume that these verbs bear

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.9 (540-578)


a Case distinct from nominative and accusative, call it oblique, and the benefactive or malefactive meaning is the thematic role they are associated with. Such verbs are only compatible with an oblique/benefactive clitic, as seen in (12b). Notice that the preposition à is just a Case-thematic role marker (Oblique/benefactive) and it is required by the agreement process that takes place in the building phase of the structure (see Desouvrey 2000 for more details). It goes without saying that this preposition must have the same feature specification as the verb that commands its use, as given in (13b) (conveniently, the thematic role will be omitted below).9 (13a) shows that the oblique Case and its associated thematic feature (benefactive) are in different planes, consistent with (9). As for nominative and accusative Cases, in most cases they are defaultly interpreted as agent and theme respectively, with no overt thematic markers. (12) a.

Marie plaît à Paul. Marie pleases to Paul b. Marie lui /*le plaît. Marie him pleases ‘Marie pleases to him.’

(13)

By way of conclusion, notice that hierarchical feature structures for clitics have been proposed in Bonet (1991) and Heap (this volume). They are implemented in a more traditional syntactic representation. Consequently the interaction of clitics and verbs, which is central in the analysis to be presented below, is generally overlooked. On this view, clitics are (incorrectly) assumed to interact only with each other within a template.

. Constraints on features and the representations From the present perspective, verbs and pronouns are feature-bearing elements. One must then expect that their syntactic behaviour be governed by the interaction



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.10 (578-636)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

of their features. Other assumptions commonly found in the tradition of generative grammar and regarding category labels, phrase structure geometry, etc., can all be dispensed with under the nonlinear representation. Instead I propose that a small number of constraints on the features, as well as certain well-formedness conditions on the representation, will account for the derivation of possible sentences. These constraints are the following: (14) Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) Two identical features are forbidden within the same syntactic domain. (15) OCP’ Elements with identical features must be string-adjacent. (16) The Animacy Hierarchy (AH) a. [animate] > [thing] b. *[animate] > [animate] c. *[thing] > [thing] (17) String-vacuous Operations No string-vacuous operation is allowed. (18) Linearization Convention Process the sentence from left to right and embed the adjunct to the right of the host. All these constraints are universal and are used elsewhere in the grammar. (17) and (18) are well-formedness conditions on the representations and, therefore, are absolute constraints, inviolable in any well-formed sentence. The Animacy Hierarchy, essentially (16a), is absolute as well, because it is a semantic requirement implemented in the building phase of the structure, i.e. during the process of merging lexical elements to make phrasal constituents. (16b) and (16c) are predictable corollary, once one assumes a semantic OCP that prevents the generation of such sequences during the merging process (see also Desouvrey 2002). The remaining constraints, the OCPs, deal with arbitrary features that arise in particular grammars and, therefore, are violable. Notice that the violability of constraints exists in other theories, in particular Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky 2002), where all constraints are ranked such that higher-ranked constraints take precedence over lower-ranked ones in any conflicting situation. Quite contrary to OT, the two versions of the OCP are not ranked. When an OCP violation arises in a derivation, a repair strategy is used to defuse it as far as it does not trigger the violation of another constraint, in particular the other version of the OCP. If an OCP violation cannot be safely repaired, it may find its way to the output.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.11 (636-687)


. Clitic movement Consider the derivation of a simple sentence in which the direct object is a clitic, as exemplified in (19). Let’s assume the hypothesis that clitics are generated in the same position as the nominals they replace. Such a hypothesis is commonly found in the literature and it is the simplest one (e.g. Kayne 1975), in contrast to a hypothesis according to which clitics are base-generated in their output position (e.g. Sportiche 1995).10 Under the further assumption that a sentence is made of a single layer, or phrase, that of the VP (see Desouvrey 2000), the derivation must proceed from the input structure given in (20).11,12 (19) Marie le connaît. Marie him knows ‘Marie knows him.’ (20)

N [VP Marie [V’ connaît le]] A

(input)

A

The important point in (20) is that the verb is specified for accusative Case, as is the clitic. Thus there are two elements specified for the same feature, accusative, within the minimal constituent domain, conveniently referred to as the complement domain of the verb and noted V’. Such a configuration is ruled out by the OCP, as defined in (14) above.13 As mentioned above, the OCP violation must be avoided whenever possible. In the above sentence, this can be done straightforwardly by movement of the clitic outside the relevant domain. In the parsimonious phrase structure I propose, there is only one possible element to host the clitic, the subject. Indeed, adjoining the clitic to the (right of the) subject yields the desired output, as seen in (21), where the symbol ’=’ indicates that the right-hand element is adjoined to the left-hand one, the host. I will return to the adjunction process, showing that in fact there is neither right nor left adjunction under the present nonlinear representation. First, let’s strengthen the analysis by ruling out alternative operations and claims. (21)

N Marie=le connaît A

A

(output)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.12 (687-736)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

Consider the detail of the derivation that is intended to avoid the violation of the OCP. The assumptions are: (i) movement of the clitic instead of the verb is required, (ii) the movement must be leftward, and (iii) the adjunction puts the clitic to the right of the subject. I show that these assumptions are not chosen because they fit the desired result or that they are widely attested in natural languages, rather they are enforced by the well-formedness conditions on the representation itself, namely (17) and (18). Consider (i). Its correctness can be easily demonstrated by showing that movement of the other element involved in the OCP violation, namely the verb, is not possible. If indeed the verb escapes the forbidden domain by adjoining to the subject, it would do a string-vacuous movement, since no other element is crossed over, in violation of (17), as seen in (22a). (The t conveniently indicates the original position of the moved element.14 ) This string-vacuous movement cannot be avoided by left-adjunction of the verb to the subject, which would yield the sequence connaît=Marie, given the very nature of the adjunction process to be discussed shortly. Furthermore, if the verb moves to the left edge of the clause, an operation that is otherwise possible for other elements (e.g. wh-operators, as discussed in Desouvrey 2000, 2001a), OCP’ is then violated, since the verb is separated from the clitic by the subject Marie, as shown in (22b). (22) a.

N *Marie=connaît [t A

b.

le] A

N *Connaît [Marie [t le]] A

A

Turning now to (ii), if the clitic were to escape the forbidden domain by rightward movement, in which case it would be juxtaposed to the right edge of the structure, the ban on string-vacuous movement would be violated, as seen in (23), since no element is crossed over by the clitic. (23)

N *[Marie [connaît t] ] le A

A

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.13 (736-792)


It should be clear that the present theory says nothing on the direction of movement. Indeed, rightward and leftward movement are both possible, but the occurrence of either type of movement will always be dictated by the configuration at hand and the well-formedness conditions on the representations. Furthermore, needless to say that the clitic cannot adjoin to the verb, either the verb to the clitic, since both would still be in the same domain. Consider now the adjunction process in the context of the present theory. When an element B is adjoined to another element A, there is no creation of a further phrasal node, as is the case in PPT. Recall that in such a framework, adjunction yields a new phrasal entity headed by the host and such that the adjunct becomes sister to the host. Since a binary structure is obtained, there are two possible types of linear order: either the adjunct precedes the host (this is called left adjunction) or the host precedes the adjunct (right adjunction), as shown in (24a) and (24b) respectively. Generally there is no ground other than the desired result that leads an analyst to opt for either of these alternatives. Moreover, since adjunction is not different from a merging operation of combining a head with its complement, it is necessary to stipulate that adjunction, but not phrasal constituencies, is incorporation (i.e. a kind of morphological unit). In my view, however, adjunction consists of linking the adjunct to the host by a single association line, as shown in (25), an operation that puts the adjunct on a different tier from the host.15 Linearization is quite an independent process, which is ensured by the Linearization Convention (also referred to as the Leveling Convention in Desouvrey 2000), given in (18) above.16 (24) a. [A A B] b. [A B A] (25) a. host adjunct

b. host=adjunct Thus, adjunction is a process that runs on its own. The adjunct is attached to the right edge of the host, forming a single bimorphemic element, as seen in (25b). On this view, adjunction of the clitic to the left edge of the subject (or whatever element) would not be linearizable.17 This is obviously a highly desirable feature: the analyst may not play with the representation to get the desired result. Once the relevant features are isolated, the derivation must deductively lead to the output, somewhat like a mathematical demonstration. Example (19) displays the accusative third person clitic. However, the same OCP effect is obtained with other clitics. Thus, the first person object clitic, which is specified for accusative and oblique, as suggested above, must move since the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.14 (792-837)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

verb selecting it is always specified for at least one of these features. For instance, from the input (26a), the well-formed output (26b) is obtained after movement. The extra Case of the clitic ([O]) does not interact with any feature of the verb, and it is ignored in this context. (26) a.

N

O

[ Marie [ connaît me ]] A

b.

O

A N

[ Marie=me [ connaît t ]] A

(input)

(output)

A

Similarly, with an indirect object verb, the OCP effect is triggered by the presence of the oblique Case of the verb and the oblique Case of the clitic in the specified domain. Thus from the initial structure (27a), the output (27b) is derived after the movement under OCP. (27)

If the clitic complement of an oblique verb is doubly specified for Case, an OCP effect will take place, except that in this situation, the extra Case, which is ignored, is accusative, as seen in (28a). Incidentally, in this example the complex auxiliary plus participle is taken as a complex verb in which only the auxiliary bears a Case feature.18 The clitic moves outside the domain of this complex verb, as seen in (28b). (In me, the vowel e is a schwa, deletable by a phonological rule in most contexts.)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.15 (837-882)


(28) a.

N

A

[ Marie [[a obéi ] me ]] O

b.

A

O N

[ Marie=m’ [[ a obéi ] t ]] O

(input)

(output)

O

Notice that if the first person clitic were Caseless, as it is usually assumed in most analyses, there would be no principle-based account of the movement. That is, one would have to claim that me gets to the preverbal position because it is a clitic, and that it is in the very nature of Romance clitics to precede the verb in tensed clauses.19 As evidence for the analysis that movement is triggered by the OCP, one may note that only Case-specified pronouns move. For instance in (29a), the direct object may not move, since it is not specified for Case. However, indirect object nominals like (29b), even though they are specified for Case (via the Case marker à) may not move either. In contrast to clitics they are not monomorphemic and therefore the preposition and the NP defines a domain (or constituent) on its own, which yields a structure intrinsically different from the syntactic configuration involving a verb and a clitic. Moreover, movement of the à-phrase would be at odd with OCP’, since the string adjacency of the preposition with the verb would be lost.20 (29) a.

Paul [aime [son frère]]. ‘Paul likes his brother.’ b. Paul [nuit [à Marie]] Paul harms to Marie ‘Paul harms Marie.’

Let us now take a brief look to subject clitics in French, which are all specified for nominative Case. Such clitics cannot move either rightward or leftward, in contrast to most analyses in current generative theory. The fact is, although the OCP is violated, any movement of the subject clitic would trigger the violation of either OCP’ or a constraint on the representation. Consider (30a). The two identical Case features are not in the complement domain defined by the first projection of the verb and the object, but in the larger domain, which is the sentence itself. Thus, if the clitic were to be juxtaposed to the left edge of the structure, as in (30b), the ban



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.16 (882-931)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

on string-vacuous movement would be violated. Juxtaposition to the right edge of the structure would yield ill-formedness as well, since OCP’ would be violated, as seen in (30c). Finally, if the clitic were to adjoin to the verb, as in (30d), it would still be inside the same domain as the verb, and a such movement would be pointless.21 (Conveniently features will be omitted sometimes, as in (30b)–(30d).) (30) a.

N

N

[il [voit Marie]]

(intput/output)

A

b. *il [t [voit Marie]] c. *[t [voit Marie]] il d. *[t [voit=il Marie]] To summarize, assuming that clitics are initially generated in the same position as non-clitic arguments, it is shown that their movement to a preverbal position is triggered by the OCP. The clitic is directed outside the syntactic domain containing itself and the verb. We may note that the OCP analysis holds in other Romance languages, as discussed below. In the next section, I will show that French clitic order, which is a problem for many theories, is accounted for straightforwardly under the present view.

. Clitic order The problem of clitic order arises chiefly with two-argument verbs, and in cases involving a simple verb with an ethical dative. Ethical datives, which are not licensed like other clitics, will not be discussed here. In order to treat the ordering of clitics, two claims are needed: (a) twoargument verbs are specified for both oblique and accusative Case, which should not be controversial; (b) the direct object is more embedded than the indirect object (in French). These claims are supported by empirical facts, as I show immediately. Consider the first claim. In French, simple transitive verbs belong to two classes with respect to the type of arguments they take: one class includes verbs that take a direct object (accusative) and the other, less common, includes various verbs that take a complement introduced by a preposition, for instance à and de in most cases. Accusative verbs take accusative clitics, while oblique verbs take oblique clitics as complement. Put another way, a direct object verb is incompatible with a clitic specified only for oblique Case, while an indirect object verb may not take a clitic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.17 (931-997)


only specified for accusative Case as complement. This is illustrated in (31). First and second person clitics are compatible with any transitive verbs, since they are specified for both accusative and oblique Case, as discussed above. (31) a. *Paul l’ obéissait. Paul him.acc obeyed.obl ‘Paul obeyed him.’ b. *Marie lui aime. Marie him.obl likes.acc ‘Marie likes him.’ In double object verbs, one argument must be an indirect object introduced by a preposition, as illustrated in (32), where both arguments are nominals. Each argument in (32) can be replaced by the corresponding clitic, namely le and lui for the direct and the indirect object respectively, as seen in (33). (32) Marie donne le livre *(à) Paul. Marie gives the book to Paul. (33) Marie le lui donne. Marie it him gives. ‘Marie gives it to him.’ In the light of this fact, it is natural to take a double object verb to be specified for both accusative and oblique Cases. If so, the verb will satisfy its argument structure by merging in turn with its arguments. Under this view, sentence (32) must have the structure in (34). Each argument is paired with a Case of the verb: the PP, with the oblique Case, and the Caseless nominal with the accusative Case of the verb. (34) [VP Marie [V” [V’ donne [NP le livre]] [PP à Paul]]] As for the second claim, that the accusative clitic is initially more embedded than the oblique clitic, it appears to be for French the simplest hypothesis, since it corresponds to the normal order of non-clitic arguments, as can be seen in (34) above. In other Romance languages as well, the direct object normally precedes the indirect object when they are not clitics. This suggests that of the two possible orderings, namely direct object>indirect object and indirect object>direct object, if one must be less marked, it should be the former. This leads us to assume the null hypothesis for French according to which the direct object clitic (accusative) is initially generated before the indirect object clitic (oblique), i.e. it merges first with the verb, as illustrated in (35). (Indirect evidence will be provided below.) (35) . . . [V’ [V Verb cl-acc] cl-obl]]



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.18 (997-1046)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

With this assumption in mind, consider input (36), which comes from (34) by replacing each argument by a corresponding clitic. There are three domains in (36), as indicated by the brackets. In the smaller domain (the most embedded), there are two occurrences of accusative Case, one belonging to the verb and the other to the direct object clitic. In the next domain, there are two occurrences of oblique Case, that of the indirect object clitic and that of the verb. Thus, an OCP effect must take place in each case, moving each clitic outside the relevant domain. (The third domain, which is the sentence itself, is irrelevant here.) (36)

O

O

[ Marie [[donne le ] lui ]] A

(input)

A

Such a structure, in which two elements have to move outside of a domain, raises questions regarding the ordering of transformations in syntactic structures. Specifically, the question is whether one clitic moves first and then the second, or both clitics move at the same time. In Desouvrey (2000) I argue that both situations are possible on conceptual and empirical grounds. However, in this paper I will be more concerned with the first situation, in which movement takes place sequentially. In (36) both clitics must move under OCP. If they were to move at the same time, one would face a situation in which both clitics are competing for the first position in their cluster, and it would be impossible to predict any ordering. Since clitic sequences display rigid order in most cases, it is natural to assume that one clitic moves prior to the other. The problem now is to demonstrate which clitic must move first, independently from the expected output. Fortunately, the representation provides the answer on a purely logical basis. In the syntactic structure, the terminal elements are ordered one with respect to the other, such that an element B can be said to be closer to an element A than a third element C. In other words, if we call x the distance from A to B and y the distance from A to C, the following inequality can be assumed: x α) and the OCP, and both have to be repaired. (Conveniently, animacy features are on the horizontal line, but keep in mind they are on their own tier.) In such a case, movement of the pole position clitic (accusative) prior to the oblique clitic would repair the OCP, but not the AH, since the output would yield the ordering en>lui, i.e. *τ > α, as in (38c). Obviously, in order to repair both constraints, the indirect object clitic, though further from the host, must move first, as seen in (38b).



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.20 (1097-1148)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

(38) a.

O [ Marie [[donne

O en

A

ô] lui

á]]

(input)

A

b. Marie=lui=en [[donne t] t] (output) c. *Marie=en=lui donne Consider now the cluster of a third person clitic and a first (or second) person clitic. (The latter is always the indirect object in a clitic cluster, see below.) As is well-known, French grammar displays a conundrum here in that the first (or second) person indirect object clitic must precede the direct object clitic, which is the opposite order to (37). Under the present analysis, this variation in linear order is expected, and may no longer be considered a mystery, as I show immediately. As in (36), the third person direct object initially occupies the pole position, as illustrated in (39). However, unlike (36), the indirect object clitic me in (39) is specified for two different Case features: accusative and oblique. (39) is thus intrinsically different from (36), although structurally they are similar. Since the indirect object clitic bears more features than the direct object one, the latter, though in the pole position, may not win the race. In fact, the direct object clitic may not move first for two independent reasons, one of which is discussed immediately, while the other is considered in a later section. The clitic in the pole position triggers an OCP effect only once, since it is specified for one Case, accusative, while the lower clitic potentially violates the OCP twice, since it is specified for both Cases of the verb, accusative and oblique. (39)

O

O

[ Marie [[donne le ] me ]] A

A

(input)

A

In Desouvrey (2000), it is suggested that the movement of the second clitic is forced by a constraint referred to as the Worst Evil First Constraint (WEFC), where the ‘worst evil’ is the clitic which creates a double OCP violation. Given this constraint, the double Case clitic, me, moves first and then the single Case clitic, le, yielding the correct linear order, as shown in (40).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.21 (1148-1196)


(40)

O

N

[ Marie=me=le [[donne t] t]] A A

(output)

A

Marie me it gives ‘Marie gives it to me.’ The important question is the following. Why must this be the case? Put another way, why does the grammar not contain a constraint stipulating that the lesser evil (i.e. le) must move first? Incidentally, notice that an analogous constraint can be found in Heap (this volume), who names it Least Leafy to the Left (LLL). The least leafy element refers to the clitic that has less features in its tree structure, and in my view it would be the accusative clitic le. If LLL were to apply here, an ill-formed sentence would be obtained, since the sequence le>me (in this order) is not possible. In fact, LLL has no equivalent in the present system. WEFC constraint is rather an expository convenience. Indeed, it follows from the ban on string-vacuous operations, as formulated in (17), which is an important piece of the architecture of natural language grammar, to the extent that it allows the grammar to be learnt. By virtue of this constraint, an operation may take place only if it affects the syntactic structure. An operation affects a structure in a derivation if its application permits the elimination of a constraint violation in a tangible way, accessible to learners, that is to say non-vacuously. To see this, suppose that the clitic in the pole position moves first. The movement would appear to be pointless, since it has no consequence for the structure. Indeed, the OCP violation would persist in both accusative and oblique tiers, since the second clitic bears two Cases. Moreover, the same linear order as a cluster of third person clitics would be obtained, and therefore learners would not be able to entertain the distinctive features of lui and me. On the other hand, by moving the second clitic first, the OCP is definitely resolved with respect to the oblique Case, leaving a single OCP violation in the domain V’, which has to be removed by the movement of the clitic in the pole position. Thus distinctive features in the representation are reflected in the output, allowing learners to entertain them. In Heap’s proposal, however interesting, the LLL is invariably to the left in the Spanish paradigm he discusses, which makes it opaque to learners. Furthermore, how the LLL is better or preferable in natural languages than its contrary, i.e. something like Least Leafy to the Right, is not clear. (See also Nicol (this volume) for an analysis of French clitic clusters in terms of Checking Theory.23 ) This explanation of the variation in French clitic order is as simple as accurate, and relies strictly on distinctive features borne by the clitics and the verb. In a global (i.e. coarse-grained) approach to features, there would be no intrinsic difference between inputs (36) and (39), and one would be led to postulate ad hoc operations



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.22 (1196-1273)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

to account for the observed difference. In the next section, I turn to Spanish clitic clusters, limiting the discussion to argumental clitics.

. Spanish clitic clusters I show that the same analysis carries over to other major Romance languages, for instance Spanish and Italian. In this section I discuss the Spanish facts, postponing the discussion of Italian, which I will use to strengthen the analysis. The OCP being a universal principle, language variation is expected to take place in morpheme and feature inventories of particular languages. As in the case of French, prior to the analysis, feature specifications of the relevant elements must be known. I assume for Spanish object pronouns the Case features given in Table 2.24 (See Desouvrey 2000, for a complete feature structure of the Spanish pronoun system.) As can be seen, this feature structure is significantly different from that of French in that first and second persons are assumed to exist in two different but homophonic morphemes: one is specified as accusative, while the other is specified as oblique. Also, Spanish differs from French in the third person, where there is no proper oblique clitic, as le is also specified as accusative. The other third persons are la, accusative feminine, and lo, accusative masculine and neuter. Table 2 contains the reflexive clitic se, which plays an important role in the system; it is assumed to exist in two homophonic forms, just like first and second person clitics. Finally notice that, as in French, oblique-specified clitics, as well as the corresponding strong forms, are specified as animate ([α]). One can verify that Table 2 is descriptively correct. With respect to the type of arguments, there are two classes of verbs in Spanish: direct object verbs and indirect object verbs, as in French. First and second person clitics are used with either verb type, as expected. As well, the third person clitic le, which is specified for both Table 2. Features of Spanish object clitics Clitics

Persons (sing)

Case / animacy

Strong forms

Glosses

me me te te le la / lo se se

1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3

[O] / [α] [A] / [α] [O] / [α] [A] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A] [O] / [α] [A]

mí mí ti ti él ella / él sí sí

me me you you him / her her, him /it herself / himself herself / himself

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.23 (1273-1316)


accusative and oblique in some instances of Penninsular Spanish, is compatible with direct and indirect object verbs, although its use as a direct object is suspicious to traditional Spanish grammarians. As for the third persons lo (masculine) and la (feminine), they cannot be used as indirect objects in the standard dialect considered (but see below), since they are only specified for accusative Case. The third person reflexive se can be the complement of direct or indirect object verbs. The following examples illustrate these facts. (Examples (41h) and (41i) appear in (4) above.) (41) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

Juan me/te dio la llave. Juan me/te.obl gave the key ‘Juan gave me/you the key.’ Juan te/me ve. Juan te/me.acc sees ‘Juan sees you / me.’ Juan le dio la llave. Juan him/her.obl.acc gave the key ‘Juan gave the key to him/her.’ dio la llave. *Juan la/lo Juan her/him.acc gave the key ‘Juan gave the key to her/him.’ Juan lo/la ve. Juan him/her.acc sees ‘I see him / her.’ Juan le ve. Juan him/her.acc.obl sees ‘I see him / her.’ Juan se ve en el espejo Juan himself.acc sees in the mirror ‘Juan sees himself in the mirror.’ *Juan le lo dio. Juan him/her.acc.obl it.acc gave ‘Juan gave it to him / her.’ Juan se lo dio. Juan himself/herself.obl it.acc gave ‘Juan gave it to him / her.’

Of course these examples show that the proposed features are consistent with the facts, but they do not prove the correctness of these features. From a theoretical view, in order to maintain that the feature specifications of Spanish clitics are as given in Table 2 and not as in French, one needs to show that under the present



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.24 (1316-1373)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

analysis the difference between the behaviour of French clitics and Spanish clitics can be accounted for only under the proposed features. Before proceeding, I argue that in Spanish and Italian the indirect object clitic precedes the direct object one in the input structure, that is, the former is always generated in the pole position. In order to show this, I will consider a situation where the clitics follow the verb. Positive imperative verbs in all Romance languages provide such a context. The crucial assumption is that since clitics are ordered after positive imperative verbs, it must be the case that they have not moved outside the complement domain of these verbs, in contrast to tensed verbs. Notice that here the OCP, which is not an absolute constraint, obviously fails to be satisfied; see Desouvrey (2000) for discussion. The important point is that in French the direct object originally occupies the pole position, as assumed above. But because of movement and its feature specification, its position varies according to whether the second clitic is a third, first, or a second person. But interestingly, in imperative verbs the position of the direct object is constant in standard French, since the movement that causes variation in proclitic order has not taken place.25 This is illustrated in (42).26 (The dashes are an orthographic convention.) (42) a.

Donne-le-moi! Give it me ‘Give it to me!’ b. Donne-le-lui! Give it him ‘Give it to him!’

In Spanish and Italian, the indirect object precedes the direct object in both proclitic and enclitic order. Since in my view there is no movement by OCP in enclitic order, I conclude that the indirect object clitic originates from the pole position, in contrast to French. Enclitic order in Spanish imperatives is illustrated in (43).27 (In Spanish orthographic conventions, enclitics are integrated into verbs, forming a single word.) (43) a.

Dámelo! Give.me.it ‘Give it to me!’ b. Dáselo! Give.himself/herself.it ‘Give it to him!’

With this in mind, consider the derivation of the sentence in (44a). It may have been derived from the input in (45a). In this structure, the indirect object clitic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.25 (1373-1422)


me occupies the pole position and, in addition, is specified for a single Case feature, exactly like the direct object clitic. This structure is then parallel to the cluster of two third person clitics in French. Therefore, under the OCP both clitics must move outside the complement domain of the verb. Since they are equal in features, the indirect object, which originates from the pole position, wins the race, yielding the desired linear order, as illustrated in (45b). (44) a.

Maria me lo prestaba. Maria me it lent ‘Maria lent it to me.’ b. Maria se lo prestaba. Maria herself/himself it prestaba ‘Maria lent it to her/him.’

(45) a.

O

O

[ Maria [[prestaba me ] lo ]] A

b.

(input)

A

O

N

[ Maria=me=lo [[prestaba t ] t ]] A

(output)

A

Consider now (44b), which displays the so-called spurious se. First of all, recall that spurious se is allowed only in cooccurrence with an accusative clitic. If the direct object is a nominal, clitic le is obligatorily used, as illustrated in (46). (46) Maria le/*se prestaba su coche. Maria him.obl.acc /himself.obl lent her car ‘Maria lent her/him her car.’ Of course it would be preferable to treat the indirect object clitic in (44b) in the same manner as the indirect object clitic in (44a), at least at the initial stage of the derivation. This can be done by assuming that the transformation of le into se occurs later on. On this view, the initial structure of this sentence must be as given in (47), where le normally occupies the pole position.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.26 (1422-1484)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

(47)

O

O

[ Maria [[prestaba le ] lo ]] A

A

(input)

A

In (47) le must move first at any rate: it has more features than lo and it occupies the pole position. Now, since the paradigm of personal pronouns is represented by a single feature tree in which the various elements are differentiated from each other by their terminal features, one pronoun can be obtained from the other either by enhancing or deplenishing the tree with features. Thus, deletion of the accusative Case from the tree structure of le must yield the oblique se, since the only relevant difference between le and se is precisely the presence of the accusative feature in the former. This is illustrated in (48a), which yields the desired output (48b) by movement of the shape-shifted clitic (spurious se) and then the accusative clitic lo. (48) a.

O

O

[ Maria [[prestaba se ] lo ]] A

b.

O

(le-into-se transformation)

A N

[ Maria=se=lo [[prestaba t ] t ]] A

(output)

A

At this point, one may note that this derivation of the spurious se phenomenon is analogous to Bonet (1991, 1995), which uses feature manipulation on a hierarchical tree structure. However, as I will show, the present account is superior to the extent that it makes it possible to explain why it only happens in Spanish, but not in other Romance languages. Moreover, an analysis of the spurious se transformation will give us evidence in favor of the proposed feature structure for Spanish and French. Specifically, the analysis will show that only those feature specifications can account for the data. This argument will be strengthened by the claim discussed extensively in Desouvrey (2000) that a pronominal element is a clitic if it is specified for Case, a corollary of which is that a clitic must be licensed by a verb with a relevant and valid Case. I turn to this in the next section.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.27 (1484-1520)


. The prominence of Case . Why does spurious se occur? In the present account, the behaviour of every lexical element is governed by its feature, especially Case. Case is a relational feature and it expresses grammatical relations. An element bearing a relational feature must be used in correlation with some other element that may be specified for the same feature. Pronominal clitics are in a relation of argument with verbs, and both share at least one feature that makes them compatible, as seen above. From this perspective, it makes sense to suppose that clitics have the property of absorbing the Case of the verb they are argument of, such that if a transitive verb has a clitic complement, it may not assign its Case to another element or take another clitic. In other words, under this view only one clitic is allowed per verb Case. And if there is no available Case in a structure, the use of a clitic may not be possible. Let us refer to this as the licensing condition of a clitic. Simply put, a clitic is licensed in a structure only if it is in relation with a verb that bears a relevant and valid Case.28 With this in mind, one can see that there is an anomaly in (47), which presumably causes the le-into-se transformation. In effect, since the clitic in the pole position, le, is specified for two Cases, it absorbs the relevant Cases of the verb, which prevents the second clitic from pairing its accusative Case with a valid corresponding Case of the verb. In other words, the second clitic is not licensed. Hence the delinking process that transforms le into a spurious se in order to make room for the second clitic, as seen above. To further clarify this important point, let us compare Spanish and French clitic clusters. The particular feature configuration, illustrated in input (47) above, where a double-Case clitic occupies the pole position (in a clitic cluster) does not exist in French. Indeed, in all (argumental) clitic clusters in this language the direct object clitic, which is specified for a single Case (accusative), originally occupies the pole position. Compare French inputs (36) and (39) and Spanish (45) and (47), both sets of example repeated below in (49) and (50) respectively. (49) a.

O

O

[ Marie [[donne le ] lui ]] A

A



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.28 (1520-1573)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

b.

O

O

[ Marie [[donne le ] me ]] A

(50) a.

O

A

A O

[ Maria [[prestaba me ] lo ]]

b.

A O

A O

[ Maria [[prestaba le ] lo ]] A

A A

These configurations are discussed above with respect to the OCP and the movement the latter induces. In French the movement gives rise to the now-clear linear order variation, while in Spanish there is no linear order variation, only the le-intose transformation, for which further evidence will be provided. The remarkable point to notice here is that, with respect to the features of each clitic, there are no identities between the examples in (49) and (50). That each should yield some specific behaviour is, therefore, highly desirable. An analysis which does not use features systematically, as advocated here, would deal with identical sequences of verb>direct-object>indirect-object or verb>indirect-object>direct-object, and therefore would face insuperable descriptive and explanatory problems. Now the claim that a clitic must be licensed by an available Case of the verb will be shown to be crucial. If in (49b) the third person clitic le moves first, the doubleCase clitic me, which is in the complement domain of the verb by the time of the movement of le, will then saturate both Cases of the verb, preventing the moving clitic from being Case-licensed. Hence the impossibility of the sequence le>me. On the other hand, one can see that in the correct sequence me>le, such a problem does not arise. In effect, as the clitic me moves first, only the accusative Case of the verb is taken by the remaining clitic le, the oblique Case of the verb is still valid and can license the moving clitic me. When the movement of le takes place, me is still licensed by the oblique Case of the verb and le is licensed by the accusative Case of the verb. The extra Case of me does not intervene in the licensing process and is ignored. It is worth noting that if the first clitic, le, were to move first, a similar process to the spurious se in Spanish would have to take place, converting the second clitic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.29 (1573-1637)


into another equivalent element with less Case, so as to allow the licensing of le. Under the natural assumption that such a conversion is costly, the grammar avoids it by moving first the second clitic. Before concluding this section, consider an objection to the present analysis of spurious se by an anonymous reviewer of a precedent version of this paper. The objection stems from the following observation. Spurious se occurs in all Spanish dialects, even though they display a great deal of variations in the use of personal pronouns, so that with respect to pronouns three dialects are traditionally distinguished, namely leísmo, loísmo, and laísmo. In my view, dialectal or crosslinguistic differences originate all from feature variations and not from constraints, which are universal. Therefore, the question is why such a feature variation does not affect spurious se in any of the three dialects. According to traditional Spanish grammars, the laísmo is the use of la and las instead of le and les for a feminine dative; the leísmo is the use of le instead of lo as singular accusative; and the loísmo consists in the systematic use of lo as the masculine for the dative and the accusative. This is summarized in (51). (51) Laísmo: le / les → la /las (feminine dative) Loísmo: le → lo (masculine accusative and dative) Leísmo lo → le (singular accusative) The descriptive generalization that shows itself is the following. The pronoun le is involved in every alternation, which suggests that it is the disruptive element in Spanish paradigm of personal pronouns. That it is the source of the variation may not be a surprise, since it is the only clitic that bears two Cases. Now, in laísmo dialects, la is the indirect object, instead of le. Obviously this la may not be the accusative la of the standard dialect discussed above, since an indirect object must be related to an oblique Case. This suggests that there is rather a different match between features and morphemes at some level. That is, given a set of features F1, F2, etc. and a set of morphemes M1, M2, etc., a dialect may pair F1 with M1, while another choose to pair F1 with M2 or whatever morpheme in the series. If so, the laísmo can be explained simply by assuming that the feature structure containing both an accusative and an oblique Case is paired with la, instead of le. Therefore, such a la ([A],[O]) in a clitic cluster should become se for the same reason as le above. Similarly, the loísmo is the pairing of lo with the feature structure associated with le in the standard dialect. Such an instance of lo must alternate with se in a clitic cluster. As for the leísmo, it may be due to the loss of lo, since le, which is specified for accusative Case, can be a direct object as well. To conclude, if a double Case clitic is in the pole position, an opaque clitic is expected to arise by transformation, i.e. the clitic in the pole position must be replaced by another clitic with less Case. In the next section, as a further piece



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.30 (1637-1701)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

of evidence, I show that opaque clitics in Italian have the same cause as Spanish spurious se.

. Evidence from Italian I suggest the following feature specification for Italian personal pronouns (see Desouvrey 2000 for more detail). For the singular, first and second person clitics are doubly specified for Case; the third person direct object clitics, la (feminine) and lo (masculine), are specified for a single accusative Case, just as in French. Furthermore, like French, Italian has a third person clitic, gli, which is specified for a single oblique Case, and like Spanish it has a third person clitic doubly specified for Case, le. The singular morphemes and their relevant features (for the discussion below) are given in Table 3. Descriptively, Italian clitics clusters show a strong similarity with Spanish in that the indirect object clitic always precedes the direct object clitic in all contexts, as illustrated in (52). Recall that in French the order alternates according to the person of the indirect object clitic. (Italian orthographic rules concatenate clitics gli and lo.) (52) a.

Maria me lo presta. Maria me it lent ‘Maria lent it to me.’ b. Maria glielo presta. Maria him.it lent ‘Maria lent it to him.’

What is of interest in Italian is the fact that the indirect object clitic in a clitic cluster has the same form as (and in fact is) the corresponding strong pronoun, i.e., the strong pronoun of the same person. When the indirect object is not within a cluster, it must not appear as a strong pronoun, as seen in (53a). (53b) shows that the clitic form is impossible in a clitic cluster. Example (52b) is considered later on. Table 3. Features of Italian object clitics Clitics

Person/sing

Case

strong forms

Glosses

mi ti lo / gli la / le

1 2 3-Masc. 3-Fem.

[A], [O] [A], [O] [A] / [O] [A] / [A], [O]

me te lui lei

me you Him her

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.31 (1701-1761)


(53) a.

Maria mi / *me presta quel libro. Maria me lends this libro ‘Maria lends me this libro.’ b. Maria *mi / me lo presta. Maria me it presta ‘Maria lends it to me.’

Now since in Italian clitic clusters the indirect object clitic always precedes the direct object one, it must be the case that it originates from the pole position. Thus, the pre-movement configuration of (52a) must be as given in (54), where the clitic mi, which bears a relevant oblique Case, is normally selected as the indirect object, instead of the Caseless strong form me. O

(54)

O

[ Maria [[presta A

mi ] lo ]] A

A

Structure (54) is similar to the spurious-se configuration in Spanish in that the clitic in the pole position absorbs both Cases of the verb, leaving no room for the accusative clitic, which is not licensed, as expected. Therefore, a process similar to that giving rise to spurious se in Spanish must take place, specifically a featuredelinking process by virtue of which the indirect object clitic is converted into another element with fewer Case features. This element should be of the same person as the original clitic in order to conserve the meaning. Since the only first person element that has less Case than the clitic is the strong pronoun, which is in fact Caseless, it normally replaces the clitic, yielding the desired output, as seen in (55).29 (55) a.

O

O

[ Maria=mi [[presta t ] lo ] A

b.

(O)

A

A O

[ Maria=me=lo [[presta t ] t ]] (A) A

(step)

A

(output)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.32 (1761-1805)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

Furthermore, Italian has a third person clitic which is specified for two Cases, accusative and oblique. But apparently this clitic does not alternate with si, which is the equivalent of Spanish se; instead one finds (52b), repeated below as (56). (56) Maria glielo presta. Maria him.it lent ‘Maria lent it to him.’ Beyond the fact that a single morpheme is represented in (56) (an orthographic convention), one can easily recognize the morphemes gli and lo. As we know, each is specified for a single Case, oblique and accusative respectively. Since each morpheme is specified for one Case, the one that occupies the pole position moves first as expected, hence the order gli>lo, as shown in the derivation (57).30 (57) a.

O

O

[ Maria [[presta gli ] lo ] A

b.

(input)

A O

O

[ Maria=glie=lo [[presta t ] t ]] A

(output)

A

Italian differs from Spanish precisely by the presence of a one-Case oblique morpheme, gli. While in Spanish the appearance of spurious se is a potential source of ambiguity, due to the reflexive vs. non-reflexive meaning, in Italian the delinking process yields the loss of a gender distinction, as the feminine oblique clitic (indirect object) takes the shape of its masculine counterpart in a clitic cluster. (58) a.

O

O

[ Maria [[presta le ] lo ]

b.

A O

A A O

[ Maria [[presta gli ] lo ]] A

(input)

(A) A

(delinking)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.33 (1805-1860)


c.

O

O

[ Maria=glie=lo [[presta t ] t ]] (A) A

(output)

A

Summing up, the behaviour of Italian clitics confirm that my view of feature specification in French and Spanish is correct to the extent that the same constraints can account for variations found in Italian. In the next subsection, I bring a further argument for the view that Case is crucial in cliticization by showing that oneCase verbs cannot support two clitics, even though they are compatible with two nominal arguments.

. Failure of double clitics in French As noticed above, French clitic en is equivalent to certain NPs introduced by the preposition de, which I refer to as a de-phrase. For instance, the de-phrase in (59a) can be cliticized with en, as shown in (59b). Also, an NP complement of a numeral may be cliticized with en, as seen in (60). (59) a.

Marie connaît [l’auteur de ce livre]. ‘Marie knows the author of this book.’ b. Marie en connaît l’auteur. Marie of-it knows the author ‘Marie knows the author of it.’

(60) a.

Il a mangé deux pommes. He has eaten two apples ‘He ate two apples.’ b. Il en a mangé deux. He of-them has eaten two ‘He ate two of them.’

In my view, en is an accusative clitic and it is related to a special thematic feature, which I call δ (see Desouvrey 2000).31 It is only compatible with accusativespecified verbs, which may or may not be specified for the thematic feature delta. Indeed, manger and connaître are two-argument verbs and are specified for accusative Case, but not for delta. Thus, their complement may or may not be a de-phrase. Now a complex argument of a simple transitive verb may be made of two phrases compatible with clitic en, as seen in (61a). Gross (1968), who first discussed this type of sentence, points out that each NP can separately cliticize with



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.34 (1860-1912)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

en, as seen in (61b) and (61c). As the representation of the latter in (62) shows, in each case, the transitive verb, which is specified for a single accusative Case, normally licenses the clitic. (61) a.

Marie remplit [un verre [de ce vin]]. ‘Marie fills a glass with this wine.’ b. Marie en remplit un verre. Marie of-it fills a glass ‘Marie fills a glass of it.’ c. Marie en remplit un de ce vin. one with this wine Marie of-it fills ‘Marie fills one of them with this wine.’

(62) a.

N Marie=en [remplit [un verre t ]] A

b.

A N

Marie=en [remplit [un t de ce vin]] A

A

However, as expected under the view that a clitic must be licensed by a valid Case of the verb, both NPs cannot cliticize at the same time, as illustrated by the illformedness of (63). The explanation is simple. Once one clitic absorbs the relevant Case of the verb, there is no longer room for the other clitic, which cannot be licensed by the simple transitive verb.32 Indeed (63) is similar to the spurious se configuration in which one clitic prevents the other from being licensed by the verb. However, unlike Spanish le, which is the source of the spurious se, either occurrence of en cannot lose its feature by a delinking process because there would be no result, en being the only clitic in its row. (63)

N *Marie=en=en [remplit [un t t ]] A A

A

This view of the ill-formedness of (63) refers to features, the minimal elements that are part of a morpheme. Moreover, it has cross-linguistic supports, as it is well

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.35 (1912-1965)


grounded within a set of similar phenomena found in Romance languages, as made clear by the present account.

. Clitic cooccurrence restrictions The cooccurence restrictions on clitic are also known as the me-lui/I-II constraint, or the Person Case Constraint (PCC) (Anagnostopoulo, this volume; Bonet 1991, 1995; Perlmutter 1971, etc.). As indicated by its name, this constraint rules out two situations: (i) a third person oblique clitic (lui) in a cluster with a non-third person clitic (me or te), and (ii) the cooccurrence of a first and a second person clitic, as illustrated in (64), which is example (3) above. (64) a. *Marie me lui montrera. Marie me.acc.obl him.obl will.show ‘Marie will show him to me.’ te présentera. b. *Marie me Marie me.acc.obl you.acc.obl will.present ‘Marie will present me to you.’ That these sentences are generally not well-formed in French (and in Romance) translates a semantic gap, that is, a phenomenon quite independent of the syntactic processes discussed above with respect to the Case OCPs. To accurately appreciate the problem, consider the would-be input for (64a) and (64b), as shown in (65a) and (65b) respectively. These configurations have already been met in the discussion of Spanish spurious se and Italian spurious strong pronouns. Recall that the second clitic cannot be licensed by a Case of the verb and therefore the irrelevant extra Case of the first clitic must be deleted, which yields an opaque form. If in the examples above, the irrelevant oblique Case of the first clitic were to be deleted, one would logically expect to obtain a cluster with an opaque form, namely *moi>lui and *toi>me. Since feature delinking may not yield a correct output, the nature of the problem is to be found elsewhere. (65) a.

O

O

O

Marie [[montrera me ] lui ]] A

A

(input)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.36 (1965-2028)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

b.

O

O

O

Marie [[présentera te ] me ]] A

A

(input)

A

Indeed a crucial feature is missing in these representations, the animate feature ([α]) (see Table 1). I suggest that the me-lui/I-II effect is due to the fact that both clitics are specified for the same animacy feature. (But see Anagnostopoulou, this volume, for an account of this phenomenon in terms of checking of person features.) First and second person pronouns in French, as well as the third person lui, are specified for this feature, as shown in (66). The animate feature ensures that they must be used to refer only to animate arguments, even strictly human, which is descriptively true. The configurations in (66) are at odd with the Animacy Hierarchy (13), which requires two things: (i) animate-specified elements must precede nonanimate specified ones, which is irrelevant here (since both clitics are animatespecified), and the dissimilation of arguments with respect to the animacy features if any (13b). Now, since both arguments are animate-specified, there is no hierarchy and therefore these sentences are correctly ruled out by (13b). This kind of structures with an animacy effect exists in other Romance languages as well, for instance Spanish, in which the constraint yields variable results, as I will show shortly. Before considering the Spanish case, let’s see how input structures like those in (66) are avoided. (66) a.

b.

O

O

O

Marie [[montrera me

á] lui

A O

A O

O

Marie [[présentera te

á] me

A

A

á]]

(input)

á]]

(input)

A

If a delinking process were to take place in (66), it would have deleted the irrelevant Case of the first clitic in order to make room for the second clitic, as seen above, and one of the clitics would have lost its animacy feature. However, deleting an animacy feature may not be possible, since there is no first or second person pronoun in French that lacks the animate feature. Thus the animacy effect would subsist even in a cluster of a clitic and a (spurious) strong pronoun. I suggest that the grammar

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.37 (2028-2060)


resorts to an alternative input in which one of the clitics is replaced by an à-phrase, made up of the agreement marker à followed by a strong pronoun. In the present theory, it is not necessary to stipulate which clitic will appear as a strong pronoun, since obviously the latter must avoid the problems that arise from the doomed inputs in (66). In fact, by taking into account the grammatical role that each clitic is intended to bear, four different outputs are to be considered for (66a), as given in (67). (The strong pronoun lui, which is homophonous with clitic lui, is in capital for clarity.) Inputs (67a) and (67b) may not be acceptable, since the animacy effect persists; (67d) is not viable either, since it contains two indirect objects, clitic lui being specified for a single oblique Case can never be a direct object, neither an á-phrase a direct object in French. The remaining input (67c) is the correct one for two reasons: (i) clitic me, specified for accusative and oblique, is normally the direct object and the à-phrase the indirect object, and (ii) since the à-phrase delimits a different domain for the strong form it includes, the animacy effect is defused. Put another way, the configuration *α > α is ruled out only if both elements are in the same domain and of the same phrasal category. The correct derivation is given in (68). (67) a. b. c. d.

*[[Verb me] lui] *[[Verb moi] lui] [[Verb me] à lui] *[[Verb lui] à moi] O

(68) a.

O

O á] á 

Marie [[montrera me A

b.

O Marie=me A

á]]

(input)

A O

O

á] [[montrera t] á 

á]]

(output)

A

In a I-II cluster, however, either clitic can be replaced by a strong form in the alternative input, since I-II clitics in French are specified for both oblique and accusative Case, and therefore can be either a direct object or an indirect object, as seen in (69). (69) a.

Marie=me [[présentera t] à toi] (output) Marie me will.present to you ‘Marie will present me to you.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.38 (2060-2120)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

b. Marie=te [[présentera t] à moi] (output) Marie you will.present to me ‘Marie will present you to me.’ Let us turn now to the me-lui/I-II effect in Spanish. First of all, I claim that there is an important difference between French and Spanish with respect to animacy features. All Spanish verbs, unlike their French counterparts, are specified for the feature animate. That Spanish verbs are specified for animate is supported by the fact that all human arguments must be introduced by the animacy marker a (animate), a well-known peculiarity of Spanish grammar, as illustrated in (70). Under the set of assumptions that underlie the present analysis, this morpheme is an agreement marker for animacy, just like the preposition à in French is an agreement marker for the Oblique Case. The animacy morpheme appears with NPs, which are not animate-specified, but need (and may) not be used with clitics which are animate-specified. (70) a.

Maria ama (*a) el vino. Maria likes the wine ‘Maria likes wine.’ b. Maria ama *(a) su hermano. Maria likes her brother ‘Maria likes her brother.’

Now, while some Spanish dialects pattern like French with respect to the me-lui/I-II constraints, some others do not, as shown by the variability of judgement on (71). Notice that (71) is ambiguous for the speakers who accept it (see below). However, (72) as well as the cluster in (73) are unacceptable for all Spanish speakers (Bonet 1991; Perlmutter 1971). (71) (*)Te me recomendaron. you me recommended.3pl. ‘They recommended me to you.’ ‘They recommended you to me.’ (72) *Me te recomendaron. Me you recommended.3pl. (73) a. *Me Me b. *Te you

le him/her le him/her

recomendaron. recommended.3pl. recomendaron. recommended.3pl.

The present line of thought makes it possible to provide a fine-grained account of (71)–(73). For the speakers who reject them altogether, it must be the case that in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.39 (2120-2167)


their dialect first and second person clitics, as well as third person le, are specified as animate. On this view, there is no animacy dissimilation in these sentences and therefore all of them are unsound with respect to the Animacy Hierarchy (*α > α). Suppose now that for another group of speakers first person clitics are not specified as animate. Under this hypothesis, there is no violation of the AH in the cluster te>me and therefore sentence (71) is acceptable for such speakers. I will return on the ambiguity of (71). Now what is of interest is why (72) and (73) are not well-formed for the speakers who accept (71). I show that the ill-formedness of (72) is due to the impossibility of the first person clitic to move first, whether it is intended to be the indirect object or the direct object. Consider the two possible inputs for this structure, as given in (74). As can be seen, clitic te appears in the pole position in both (74a) and (74b), irrespective of its Case feature. In (74a) it is the indirect object (oblique), whereas in (74b) the direct object (accusative). The reason is that it bears the feature animate in both structures, which ensures its merging with the verb, also specified for this feature, prior to the other clitic. Thus in both structures, the second person clitic must move first, yielding the ambiguous structure (71). Clearly, (72) can never make it to the output. (74) a.

O [pro [[recomendaron

b.

O á te

A O [pro [[recomendaron A

á] me]]

(input)

A O á te

á] me]]

(input)

A

Let us turn now to (73). The ill-formedness of (73b) is clear; it violates the AH, since for all speakers both clitics are specified for the feature animate. As for (73a), which regards the speakers that have first person clitic me unspecified for animate, I show that it is ruled out by a blocking effect, since its intended meaning can be obtained in a regular way, without costly delinking operations. Both (75a) and (75b) are possible inputs for (73a), depending on whether le is intended to be the direct or the indirect object. These configurations are similar to the spurious-se one and, therefore, the first clitic must be altered by a delinking process.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.40 (2167-2217)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

(75) a.

O [pro [[recomendaron

b.

O á le

A O [pro [[recomendaron

A O á le

A

á] me]] A O á] me]]

A

Now since in (75b) le is the direct object, its irrelevant oblique feature must be delinked in order to make room for the second clitic (oblique). However, in the paradigm there is no third person clitic that is specified for accusative and animate. Thus the animate feature must be delinked as well so as to obtain an existing accusative clitic. The latter could be either se or lo and, therefore, there would be two possible outputs, as seen in (76) (conveniently, features are omitted). Obviously, however, the grammar need not go through costly manipulations from (75b) to obtain a result which is directly derivable from the normal computation of accusative lo and oblique me, which yields the order me>lo, as discussed above (see (45)). Therefore, input (75b) is not an option and the derived structures in (76) are ungrammatical. (76) a. *pro=se=me recomendaron. b. *pro=lo=me recomendaron. In the same vein, the irrelevant accusative feature of le in (75a) would have to be delinked to make room for the second clitic (accusative). This would give rise to a spurious oblique se, as shown in (77), which is identical to (76a). Since this sequence of clitics is already ruled out on independent grounds, (77) may not be acceptable even though the clitics bear different grammatical roles from their (76a) counterpart. On the simplest assumption, a grammar cannot both rule in and rule out the same sequence of argumental clitics. This would be a vacuous operation, and learners would not be able to process it. The inputs in (75) may not be possible and therefore structures derived from them are ruled out. (77) *pro=se=me recomendaron. Now consider the strategy that is used to avoid the me-lui/I-II effect in Spanish. In a me-lui context, a strong pronoun must be used, as in French, as seen in (78a). But the strong pronoun cannot arise from the first person clitic, as seen in (78b). Why is this the case? The fact is, the alternative derivation that yields (78a) may

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.41 (2217-2264)


not proceed from a completely new basis by abstracting away from the result of the doomed input (75a); rather it must precisely repair what goes wrong in the latter. Now, recall that in the me-lui input (75a) the problem comes from clitic le, from which a well-formed sentence cannot be obtained by a delinking process, as seen in (77). Therefore, le must be replaced by a strong pronoun, but not the second clitic me. To repeat, (78b) is not needed, since its intended meaning is exactly that of (78c). (78) a.

Me recomendaron a él. Me recommended.3pl. to him ‘They recommended me to him.’ b. *Le recomendaron a mí Him/her recommended.3pl. to me ‘They recommended him/her to me.’ c. Me lo recomendaron. Me him/her recommended.3pl ‘They recommended him/her to me.’

Consider now the I–II context, which is ill-formed for the speakers who have first person me specified for the feature animate. Since each clitic can ambiguously be either the direct object or the indirect object (see (74a, b) above), the strong pronoun may arise from either of them, as seen in (79) and (80). Expectedly, these sentences are ambiguous in Spanish, in contrast to their French counterparts. The reason of the ambiguity is the following. Direct objects in Spanish must be introduced by the animacy marker a, which is homophonous with the oblique/benefactive marker a. In other terms, in Spanish either the direct object or the indirect object may be an a-phrase, while in French only the intended indirect object can be an à-phrase. (79) Me recomendaron a ti. Me recommended.3pl to you ‘They recommended me to you.’ ‘They recommended you to me.’ (80) Te recomendaron a mi. Te recommended.3pl to me ‘They recommended me to you.’ ‘They recommended you to me.’ Summarizing, the cooccurrence restrictions on clitics is due to the Animacy Hierarchy, which prevents a verb from taking two arguments specified for the same animacy feature. Variations observed cross-linguistically, or even within a particular language, and regarding the felicitousness of the forbidden clusters, is only due



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.42 (2264-2323)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

to variation in feature specification. There is no need to invoke a strong or a week version of me-lui/I–II/PCC constraint, either some kind of parameter.

. Conclusion My main goal in this paper was to account for the intriguing behaviour of Romance clitic clusters. The preverbal position of clitics in Romance, the variation in linear order in French clitic clusters, the cooccurrence restrictions, and the appearance of opaque clitics in Spanish and Italian, including the well-known spurious se, are accounted for straightforwardly. In contrast to most analyses, only two features are relevant to the syntax of clitics: Case (and associated thematic roles) and animacy. Other features such as person, number, gender are recognized, but they are not relevant to the distribution of clitics. I use simple constraints which are stated in terms of features and not in terms of morphemes, allowing for a fine-grained explanation. The constraints used here are not ad hoc, as they are explained in relation with the representation that makes them arise. Furthermore, a key constraint in the present account, the OCP, plays an important role in nonlinear morphology and phonology. Just as in these fields, it acts upon distinctive features implemented in nonlinear representations. Thus, in the overall architecture of the grammar, an important benefit is gained to the extent that a single principle is at work in various places.

Notes . This paper has been presented at the Workshop on Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement and Affix Combinations held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, July 1999. I am indebted to this audience for helpful comments. Many thanks to the organizers of this event, Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordoñez, who allowed me to read my paper and for being patient later on during the revision process. I am grateful to Lorie Heggie for comments on a preliminary version of this paper. Also, I am grateful to the reviewers who read my paper. I am particularly indebted to one of the latter for detailed comments and suggestions to improve both the contents and the form of the paper. Inadequacies are mine. . Further information will be added in the interlinear when the English glosses are not sufficient. In (1a), it is obvious that it is accusative (direct object) and him oblique (indirect object). . In the technical sense of a grammatical feature, Case will be capitalized throughout for clarity.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.43 (2323-2388)

Romance clitic clusters . In fact, Miller and Sag (1997) uses features more systematically and so less naively than the other work cited, as it is embedded in the HPSG framework, where complex feature matrices are crucial while phrase structures are downgraded. . The strong form for reflexive se, soi, has a more limited use. Compounds like lui-même and elle-même are used instead. Clitic en, as well as y (not discussed here), has no strong form. . Notice that compared to clitics, use of strong pronouns is quite marginal. The reason is that a blocking effect takes place at the building stage of most types of sentences, selecting elements that are specified for the relevant features of the verb instead of unspecified ones. Thus a sentence like *Marie voit moi ‘Marie sees me’ is excluded, since there exists a pronoun which is specified for the same relevant feature as the verb, namely accusative (me). However, and expectedly, if the verb has no Case, only strong pronouns or a null pronoun (pro) may be selected, as in Moi/*je épouser ce type! ‘Me to marry this guy!’ This type of exclamative sentence is marginal, because in most cases verbs are used with tense. . A reviewer points out that if strong pronouns were unspecified for Case, they could not appear as object of a preposition, as in à moi ‘to me’, pour toi ‘for you,’ etc. To repeat, if an element is specified for a given feature, i.e. it has a built-in feature, it need not appear with any elements, whether affix or not, that usually supply such a feature. Thus, since preposition à is an oblique-benefactive provider, it may not be used with clitics specified for this feature, as in *à me ‘to me,’ in contrast to moi which lacks such a feature. . Verbs have a complex feature structure, like pronouns, which need not be represented here (see Desouvrey 2000). . All phrases introduced by à are not necessarily benefactive. Certain à-phrases express a goal or a locative, as in (i). A goal à-phrase is incompatible with a benefactive clitic. There is a goal/locative clitic, y, but it is not compatible with human/animate arguments. (i)

a.

Marie pense à Paul. Marie thinks to Paul b. *Marie lui pense. Marie him thinks ‘Marie thinks to him.’

. A third hypothesis is to treat clitics as morphological affixes entering the syntax attached to their host. For instance in Miller and Sag (1997), which assumes Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, sequences of verbs and clitics are formed in the lexicon. Indeed, in their analysis there are neither movement nor transformations. . Case-free arguments, like Marie in (17), are Case-marked by the verb according to a spreading process, which is submitted to a well-formedness condition, namely the ban on line crossing in the representation. This is not crucial for my purpose in this article and I leave it aside (see Desouvrey 2001b). . The assumption that the verb dominates the structure is the simplest one and the most obvious, since the verb has an argument structure that must be satisfied during the building of the structure. Anyway category labels are used as a taxonomic convenience and has no theoretical status in the present theory. In subsequent examples, they are omitted.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.44 (2388-2446)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

. The type of configuration in which two elements bearing a common feature appear within some domain at an earlier stage of the derivation has been the object of considerable work in nonlinear phonology and morphology, where the OCP has first been proposed by Goldsmith (1976), drawing on Leben (1973). . No trace is needed. When an element moves to another place in the structure, the branch it was linked to is deleted, assuming some appropriate version of the Stray Erasure Convention, which is commonly used in nonlinear phonology. . In fact the leftmost segment of the adjunct melody is attached to the rightmost skeletal slot of the host. An empty node is also generated in the tree structure of the verb. For simplicity, such technicalities are ignored here, but see details in Desouvrey (2000: 93–95). . Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) makes it possible to eliminate the two alternatives in adjunction within PPT, since it is only compatible with left adjunction. However, many researchers fail to see how PPT is constrained by the LCA and reject or weaken it, without addressing the issue of two-way adjunction allowed by the logic of the structure. . Notice that I am not saying that a clitic must adjoin to the subject of the clause. Once a clitic moves out of the forbidden domain, it must adjoin to the first (or the closer) element it meets, given OCP’. Such an element may be the subject of the clause, as in the examples discussed in the text, the negative particle ne or the null subject of infinitive verbs, as exemplified in (i) and (ii) respectively. (i)

Marie ne=le sait pas. Marie not it knows not. ‘Marie does not know it.’

(ii) Marie est allée pro=la voir. Marie is gone her to-see. ‘Marie went to see her.’ . That the tensed auxiliary is endowed with the Case that the main verb would have if it were tensed is the minimal claim one can make, since the clitic may not be the argument of either the auxiliary or the past participle individually. The auxiliary and the past participle must thus form a complex structure, since they conjointly contribute to the meaning of the sentence. . Under an analysis in which clitics are base-generated in the position they appear, the problem would be the same: one would have to explain why they are not generated elsewhere in the clause, in particular in the same position as other nonclitic arguments. . A reviewer points out that if the OCP were the cause of clitic movement in Romance, one would expect that NPs in language with Case morphology would move in the same condition, a prediction which is not fulfilled. The discussion around (29) is sufficient to answer to this objection. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the OCP is not the only constraint on features. It is possible that in such languages, NPs bear a further feature that is not compatible with movement. As discussed in Desouvrey (2000), in Spanish and Italian clitics and infinitive verbs are specified for a scopal feature, like wh-operators, which induces a superiority effect that forces them to remain in situ in simple infinitive clauses. In Portuguese,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.45 (2446-2510)


clitics do not move in simple clauses, whether infinitival or tensed, because presumably all verbs bear the scopal feature (Desouvrey in progress). . Notice that (30d) sounds grammatical with the interrogative meaning of Does he see Mary?, if spelled out with the appropriate intonation. However, the interrogative structure would have a completely different input, as discussed in Desouvrey (2000, 2001b). . A well known property of clitics is that no element, except another clitic, can intervene between them and a verb. In the light of the present account, this traditional observation is readily explained by an OCP’ effect. There is no clitic exception under this type of adjunction, which is different from the merging operation that forms phrasal units. . As mentioned above, Nicol identifies two main features that govern the ordering of clitics: an affixal feature and a morphological feature µ that he equates to accusative Case. In the cluster me>le, both clitics are specified for accusative Case and are each generated in a specifier of the verb, the direct object clitic being in the first specifier. Nicol suggests that these two clitics can simultaneously check the corresponding accusative Case of the verb (though crucially the first-specifier clitic cannot do so alone), hence there is no need for the derivation to go farther, and the order me>le readily obtains. In the cluster le>lui, however, lui is not accusative-specified, in fact bearing a non-accusative Case, and therefore it can’t check the accusative Case of the verb. In order to lose its Case the verb moves to a small v, thus attracting the closest clitic, i.e., the non-accusative lui, and then the accusative le to the second specifier of the small v, hence the order le>lui. In his perspective, this order is acceptable because le being no longer in the thematic specifier (the first one) can check the accusative Case of the verb. The reader is referred to Nicol’s article for details. . Only Peninsular Spanish is considered. In this dialect, plural object clitics behave exactly like singular clitics, as far as argumental clitics are concerned, and I set them aside for the sake of simplicity. . In fact, in a less formal register the first person indirect object clitic may precede the direct object clitic. Thus, parallel to (27a), Donne-moi-le! is possible. This variation will not be discussed here, See Desouvrey (2000) and Terzi (1999), for two different accounts of this fact). . First and second person clitics take the shape of the corresponding strong pronoun in positive imperative verbs, i.e. moi and toi replace me and te respectively. This fact is accounted for in Desouvrey (2000). . The assumption that indirect object clitics in Spanish and Italian are placed in the pole position is warranted by the animate feature which both the verb and the indirect object clitics are specified for. As discussed in Desouvrey (2000), constraints on the merging process that takes place during the building phase of the structure force the verb to merge first with the argument which it shares most features with. Since the indirect object clitic is specified as animate, just as the verb, it takes precedence over the direct object, which is not specified for animacy, during the merging process. In addition, if both arguments are specified for an animacy feature, the one that is specified for animate must be placed before the one that is specified as thing, so as to satisfy the Animacy Hierarchy (see below in the text). . This notion of licensing of clitics is somewhat analogous to the notion of checking (Chomsky 1995). For instance in Anagnostopoulou (this volume), clitics must move to



JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11



F: LA7402.tex / p.46 (2510-2584)

Louis-H. Desouvrey

check their phi-features with a functional head (Tense). Depending on which clitic move first, ill-formedness may result (me-lui/I-II effect, see below), as the second clitic may not correctly check its own phi-features. . Strong pronouns that come from clitics by a feature-delinking process still exhibit cliticlike behaviour, which suggests that the deleted features remain floating in the structure. . Clitic gli in a cluster shows up as glie, in which ie is spelled as e, the same vowel as in me (see (55)). It may not be the case that a delinking process occurs here, since the corresponding strong pronoun, lui, does not contain such a vowel (e). Rather, the appearance of vowel e instead of i in gli is likely to be due to the phonological harmonization of the third person cluster with clusters including first and second person pronouns. . The meaning of the thematic feature delta is that of a de-phrase, from which clitic en arises. A de-phrase may convey the following meanings: part of a whole (partitive), source, location, etc. The examples discussed in this paper deal only with partitive en. Feature δ has thus the value of a partitive phrase. . Notice that this phenomenon of double clitics is different from what is referred to in the literature as clitic doubling (of an NP). As discussed in Desouvrey (2000), clitic doubling is possible because NPs, unlike clitics, need not be Case-licensed by the verb. Once the clitic is used to absorb the relevant Case of the verb for some reason, the corresponding NP is no longer Case-marked by the verb.

References Bessler, P., S. Cummins, D. Heap, T. Nadasdi and Y. Roberge. 1992. “Cliticisation morphologique ou catégories fonctionnelles.” In Proceedings of the 1992 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association [Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics], C. Carrie, J. Gomeshi and T. Wilson (eds), 28–42. Toronto ONT: University of Toronto. Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Bonet, E. 1995. “Feature structure of Romance clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. Burston, J. 1983. “Clitic object sequence and cooccurrence restrictions in French.” Linguistic analysis 11(3): 247–275. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cummins, S. and Y. Roberge. 1994. “A morphosyntactic analysis of Romance clitic constructions.” In Issues and theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the linguistic symposium on Romance Languages XXIII, M. Mazzola (ed.), 239–257. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Desouvrey, L.-H. 1997. “Relativization in French without complementizer.” In Proceedings of the 1996 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association [Working Papers in Linguistics]. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary. Desouvrey, L.-H. 2000. Romance clitics and feature asymmetry: An autosegmental basedapproach. Doctoral Dissertation, Montreal.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/12/2004; 13:11

F: LA7402.tex / p.47 (2584-2676)


Desouvrey, L.-H. 2001a. “Adverbs, negation and OCP effects in French and English.” Ms. Desouvrey, L.-H. 2001b. “French and English DO-support, tiered features and OCP effects.” Ms. Desouvrey, L.-H. 2002. “The syntax of coreference relations: Constraint interaction and nonlinear representations.” Ms. Desouvrey, L.-H. In progress. “Superiority effect and the optimal position of Portuguese clitics.” Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Goldsmith, J. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Cambridge MA: Blackwell. Grimshaw, J. 1997. “The best clitic: Constraint conflict in morphosyntax.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.). Boston MA: Kluwer Academic. Grimshaw, J. 1999. “The alignment of Romance clitics.” In Workshop on Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement Affix Combinations. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Gross, M. 1968. Grammaire transformationnelle du français: Syntaxe du verbe. Paris: Larousse. Halle, M. 1973. “Prolegomena to a theory of word formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16. Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. The transformational cycle. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Laenzlinger, C. 1993. “A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences.” Probus 5: 241– 270. Leben, W. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Miller, P. and I. Sag. 1997. “French clitic movement without clitics or movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639. Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 2002. “Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.” Online: http//roa.rutgers.edu. Sportiche, D. 1995. “Clitic constructions.” In Phrase structure and the lexicon, L. Zaring and J. Rooryck (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Terzi, A. 1999. “Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 85–121. Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1967. Principes de phonologie. Paris: Klincksieck. Watson, K. 1997. “French complement clitic sequences: A template approach.” French Language Studies 7: 69–89. Zwicky, A. 1994. “What is a clitic?” In Clitics. A comprehensive bibliography 1892–1991 [Library and Information Sources in Linguistics 22], J. Nevis, B. D. Joseph, D. Wanner and A. M. Zwicky (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.1 (42-103)

Constraining Optimality Clitic sequences and Feature Geometry* David Heap University of Western Ontario

Almost all formal accounts of clitic ordering, from Perlmutter (1971) to Grimshaw (2001) have accepted without question the assumption that clitic clusters always appear in a rigidly fixed order. Past analyses have thus focussed on which features (Case, Person, etc.) or combinations of features can best be used to determine the order of clitics in such sequences. Data from nonstandard varieties of Spanish show however that the internal order of clitic sequences is not always completely fixed. By taking such variability seriously, and carefully examining the conditions under which this highly constrained variation in clitic order occurs, we arrive at a structural markedness model based on Harley and Ritter (2002), which allows for just such a restricted margin of variation. This Feature Geometric analysis can capture both standard Spanish fixed clitic orders, and nonstandard variable orders, without resorting to stipulation. Unlike previous analyses, the account proposed here does not rely on any one feature or combination of features as decisive in clitic ordering, but rather on differences in the overall complexity (Harris 1994; Harris 1995) of clitics’ internal morphological structure.

.

Introduction

The class of phenomena included under the catchall term “clitic” (which may or may not turn out to be a descriptive cover term without any real theoretical content; see Wanner 1987) is highly heterogenous. It is at least plausible that some data may be more amenable to a syntactic treatment while others are more suited to a morphological treatment. The Czech clitic-climbing facts examined by Rezac (this volume), for example, would seem to be best analysed syntactically; on the other hand, a wide variety of Romance clitic sequences would seem to warrant a morphological treatment. The two research directions are clearly complementary: if I have chosen to concentrate primarily on morphological treatments, it is only because

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.2 (103-167)

David Heap

syntax has historically tended to dominate analyses of clitics (but see for example Dinnsen 1972; Wanner 1977). There remains, however, a great deal of work to be done in the area of principled morphological accounts which can capture, in a constrained manner, the range of attested variation in clitic sequences. While my attitude remains in principle agnostic regarding syntactic treatments of clitic phenomena, i.e. movement vs. base generation (but see among others Bessler et al. 1992; Heap et al. 1993; Auger 1994; Cummins & Roberge 1994; Bessler 1999; for arguments against syntactic movement accounts), there are certain clitic combinations (such as opaque outputs, see Bonet 1991, 1994, 1995a, b, among others) which would seem to require some additional post-syntactic mechanism, under whichever movement account one might assume (if indeed one assumes any movement account at all). Furthermore, as discussed by Heap (1996, 1998), there does not seem to be any fruitful way to treat variable clitic orders under a syntactic movement account. But the fact that at least some aspects of clitic combinations seem best handled without assuming syntactic movement certainly does not mean that all aspects should necessarily be dealt with by, for example, Optimality Theory: the choice in each case should be for the most principled account as dictated by the data. It is argued here that Optimality Theoretical accounts do not in fact capture all aspects of clitic combinations we want to account for. This view is based not only on the general programmatic grounds suggested above (i.e. clitic combination phenomena are too heterogenous to fit a single treatment well), but also on specific theory-internal grounds: OT alone is too unconstrained to account for variable clitic orderings in a non-stipulative fashion. The claim here is therefore that (at least) one aspect of clitic combinations can best be captured by a theory which includes ranked, violable constraints (OT happens to be the current instantiation of such a theory, but nothing crucial in my proposal depends on this particular formalism). Furthermore, such an account also requires the addition of a theory of hierarchical morphological structure (such as Feature Geometry) in order to constrain possible orders and co-occurrences. Note also that the relevant theory of Feature Geometry is by no means peculiar to clitic phenomena: it has also been applied successfully to other pronominal and verbal morphology agreement data (see for example Harley & Ritter 1998, 2002; Béjar 1999, 2000). This paper is organised as follows: in Section 2, I discuss some empirical and theoretical problems which arise from Grimshaw (1997, 2001), and contrast her OT treatment with a Feature Geometric approach. In Section 3, I present empirical data on variable clitic orderings which shed light on the question at hand, and which lead us to discard the notion of fixed clitic-ordering templates (or their equivalents in align constraints). In Section 4, I present a specific Feature Geometry hypothesis which accounts for both standard and nonstandard Spanish clitic-ordering data, including variably-ordered clitic sequences.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.3 (167-225)

Constraining Optimality

. Grimshaw’s OT accounts of clitic selection and ordering The most complete OT accounts to date of Romance clitic phenomena are to be found in Grimshaw (1997, 2001). There are significant differences between these two accounts – for example the former, but not the latter, has in common with Heap (1996, 1998) the use of the OCP (Obligatory Contour Principle), in interaction with other constraints, to account for certain striking clitic co-occurrence restrictions, including the notorious “spurious se” facts of Spanish. There are, however, a couple of theoretical weaknesses shared by both of Grimshaw’s accounts; they suggest that the model could be strengthened by the addition of increased morphological structure.

. Universal Markedness Hierarchies Grimshaw (1997: 170) gives the following Universal Markedness Hierarchies (UMHs) for Person and Case to account for clitic sequencing in Italian and Spanish in (1):1 (1) *2 >> * 1 >> * 3 *dat >> *acc While these constraints seem to be descriptively adequate, they are simply stipulated without being motivated in any way. Is there any principled reason why we would not find rankings different from the above which target grammatical persons or cases? In the absence of some such motivating constraints, the default assumption with an OT account is that all possible rankings should be attested. This approach seems therefore to seriously overpredict the set of possible clitic orderings. A constraint (whether universal or grammar-specific) which relates the ordering of clitics to their internal morphological structure is surely preferable. In addition, Grimshaw’s Person UMH (* 2 >> * 1 >> * 3) treats all three grammatical persons as if the sg and pl of each person were always ordered identically with respect to the other persons (an assumption which is shared by templatic accounts as far back as Perlmutter 1971). As shown in Heap (1996, 1998) and recalled below in Section 3.1, this assumption is false: the sg and pl clitics for any given Person do not necessarily behave in the same way in clitic sequences. Such asymmetries require us to refer to specific combinations of Person and Number features, something which is not possible under the UMH approach, at least as formulated thus far.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.4 (225-287)

David Heap

. A ‘flat’ feature inventory The Clitic Lexicon of Italian which Grimshaw posits for Italian (1997: 172) is displayed in (2): (2) Clitic Lexicon of Italian si (R)(P)(N)(G)(C) self mi (R)1sg(G)(C) me, to me, (self) ti (R)2sg(G)(C) you, to you, (self) ci vi

(R)1pl(G)(C) (R)2pl(G)(C)

us, to us, (self) you, to you, (self)

lo/la -R (P) sg m/f acc him, her, it li/le -R (P) pl m/f acc them gli/le -R (P) sg m/f dat to him, her, it R= Reflexive feature present, ( ) = unspecified value, or “- “= negative The features here are Reflexive, Person (1st/2nd), Number (Sg/Pl), Gender (M/F) and Case (acc/dat). Note that values can be either positive (where a feature is present), negative, or unspecified (feature is in parentheses), thus providing a potentially ternary opposition which is exploited by Grimshaw (1997 but not 2001). Grimshaw appears to assume without comment the same clitic lexicon for Spanish, mutatis mutandis (i.e. no other Clitic Lexicon is provided specifically for Spanish) despite the fact that Spanish has no equivalents of either the Italian locative clitic ci or the Italian partitive clitic ne. Although much of what I propose below may be applicable to Italian si (and indeed, to other Romance clitics), I will only be explicitly referring to Spanish clitics such as se. As Grimshaw points out (1997: 172) “the most interesting clitic in this analysis is si, the clitic which is usually described as a reflexive clitic. In this view it is really no such thing. It is a clitic with no properties.” While I find it more useful to think of se as a clitic with no features, or perhaps, with the minimum of features (i.e. the maximally underspecified clitic), I am in basic agreement with Grimshaw’s (1997) position that featural underspecification is the primary property of this clitic. In contrast, Grimshaw (2001: 207) takes the position that clitics such as si (and presumably Spanish se) must be positively specified as +R[eflexive] (although she later vacillates on this same point, referring to it as “the still-remaining clitic si, which has no properties.” This use of binarism plus underspecification leads to a (potentially overgenerating) ternary opposition, where se is +R, third person clitics are –R, and first and second person clitics are unspecified for reflexivity (R). As we shall see below, privative monovalent features in fact provide a much more constrained framework, with no need to refer to the feature Reflexive at all.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.5 (287-329)


Grimshaw also claims (1997: 172) that her proposed Clitic Lexicon as shown here in (2) “is the essence of the proposal of Bonet (1995), slightly rephrased.” Crucially, what is lost in this “rephrasing” is the morphological Feature Geometry for clitics which is at the core of Bonet’s dissertation (1991), and, in a modified form, her (1994, 1995a, b) articles. Thus what is missing in Grimshaw’s Clitic Lexicon in (2) as well as in her (2001) rephrasing are the implicational relations provided by a hierarchical structure of a Feature Geometry of the type which Bonet proposes. Instead what we have in (2) is a ‘flat’ (i.e. unstructured) list of featural specifications, or ‘feature bundles’, in which se has just as many specifications as each of the other clitics. Each clitic in Grimshaw’s Romance Clitic Lexicon must have five featural specifications, even though in less-marked clitics some of these may in fact be nonspecifications, i.e. the absence of a feature. In contrast, a Feature Geometry would represent such featural non-specifications as exactly that: absent features. Under a Feature Geometric approach markedness is reflected directly in the morphological representation: the most unmarked (maximally underspecified) clitic is also the clitic with the least morphological structure. This reflects Bonet’s treatment of markedness: “the more complex in number of nodes the structure of a clitic is, the more marked it is.” (1991: 16). This view of markedness has been reflected in other work, for example by Harley (1994), Harley and Ritter (1998, 2002), Rice (1999), Pirvulescu and Roberge (2000), and Bruhn de Garavito, Lamarche & Heap (2002). In contract, Grimshaw’s rather counter-intuitive approach reverses this view of markedness, treating the clitic with the fewest properties and thus the least structure (Italian si, Spanish se) as the most marked clitic (2001: 208).

. “Fault lines” in Grimshaw’s lexicon As Grimshaw herself notes (1997: 172), there are some significant “fault lines” in her Clitic Lexicon which involve the R(eflexive) and P(erson) specifications. Furthermore, [t]he two fault lines, the R and P specifications, are connected. Apart from si, all and only (R) clitics mark person. Apart from si, all and only –R clitics are (P). Other generalisations hold, but will not be analyzed here: for example, all and only (R) clitics are (G) and (C), so the (R) clitics don’t vary for gender and case and the –R clitics do. (1997: 172)

What is unsatisfactory here is that such fundamental generalisations about Romance clitics should be presented as some kind of coincidence about these particular inventories, or as an external stipulation about the features in a Clitic Lexicon. If this is possible, one has to ask why we do not find, for example, another system where all and only P(erson) clitics are specified for G(ender) and all and only N(umber) clitics are unspecified for C(ase). Such a clitic lexicon is of course unat-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.6 (329-371)

David Heap

tested among Romance pronoun systems, but Grimshaw’s (1997, 2001) approach seems to predict that it should be just as likely as the attested clitic systems. In Grimshaw (2001) she proposes that the featural specifications of the Clitic Lexicon can in fact be ‘derived’ from a constraint hierarchy, one which uses markedness constraints to ban certain combinations of features. On this view, the unanalysed generalisation described above is expressed by a conjoined constraint with the form mark 1st/2d & refl/gen/case, which in turn is ranked above the constraint faith refl/gen/case, which requires the preservation of these features. But this approach simply pushes the stipulation back to another level: why is this particular combination of features marked, and why does the constraint banning this combination outrank the constraint preserving them? Under basic assumptions of the OT framework, we would expect that the reverse ranking should occur in some grammar somewhere, but there in no suggestion in Grimshaw (2001) of where such a ‘derived’ Clitic Lexicon might be attested. A more satisfactory analysis would of course be one in which the co-occurrence restrictions between different features fall out directly from the morphological representations of the clitics themselves, and do not have to be stipulated by markedness constraints or by their ranking. As it stands, neither Grimshaw’s (1997) Clitic Lexicon nor her (2001) ‘derived’ Lexicon predict, for example, what combinations of featural specifications are likely to be attested and which are not: in principle, all possible combinations of features (or of clitics) are presumably equally likely (a prediction clearly not borne out by the attested Romance clitic facts).

. An empirical ‘detail’: Clitic sequences are not always fixed Like virtually all previous accounts of clitic sequencing since Perlmutter (1971),2 as well as most descriptive grammars, Grimshaw’s analyses rely on one crucial factual assumption: that fixed, invariant order is a necessary property of clitic sequences. This assumption is almost, but not quite, correct: in the overwhelming majority of cases attested, clitic sequences appear in such a fixed order. There are however a few grammars which tolerate variable clitic orders (see Hetzron 1977; Todolí 1995; Wanner 1994), but even in these cases, the variable orders still only occur with a small number of (combinations of) clitics. The fixed-order generalisation is so close to being categorically true that it is hardly surprising so many linguists have ‘idealised away’ from this pesky problem by sweeping it under the rug (or simply not noticed it), and dealt with only invariably fixed-order clitic sequences without taking into account variable sequences. But what exactly is the (theoretical or empirical) significance of a phenomenon which is doubly marginal, in that it occurs in a small minority of forms, in a small

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.7 (371-420)


minority of grammars? For strictly categorical models of grammar, such data are quite problematic: as shown in Heap (1996, 1998), neither a syntactic movement account nor a templatic output filter can deal satisfactorily with a grammar which admits data such as those below in (3). Here, in each case the nonstandard a. forms alternate freely with the standard Spanish b. forms: (3) i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

a. El globo me se escapó de la mano. b. El globo se me escapó de la mano. ‘The balloon got away from my hand.’ a. El hígado lo como frito, pero en el arroz me se queda en la garganta. b. El hígado lo como frito, pero en el arroz se me queda en la garganta. ‘Liver, I can eat it fried, but in rice it sticks in my throat.’ a. Su nombre me se olvidó. b. Su nombre se me olvidó. ‘I forgot her/his name.’ a. La naranja me se cayó. b. La naranja se me cayó. ‘The orange fell down.’ a. Si no riego, me se seca todo. b. Si no riego, se me seca todo. ‘If I don’t irrigate, everything dries up on me.’ a. La he atado para que no te se caiga. b. La he atado para que no se te caiga. ‘I tied it so that it wouldn’t go and fall.’ a. Si soplas al fuego, igual te se apaga. b. Si soplas al fuego, igual se te apaga. ‘If you blow on the fire, it may go out on you.’3

These data are from rural Murcian (a Castilian-based southern Spanish variety akin to Eastern Andalusian), but analogous forms can be found in many other regional varieties of Spanish (see for example Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica, Heap 2002c; also Alvar et al. 1979–1983). This ‘inversion’ or ‘clitic metathesis’ has been a feature of nonstandard varieties, in both Spain and Latin America, for several centuries at least (see Martín Zorraquino 1979: 347–352; Heap 2004, forthcoming), and it is sufficiently widespread to be condemned by prescriptivists: “En el habla vulgar se oye con frecuencia Me se cae la capa, Te se ve la intención; pero esta construcción es estimada en todas partes como solecismo plebeyo.” (Real Academia Española 1973: 427). While other cases of variable clitic orders are attested in Ro-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.8 (420-481)

David Heap

mance (see for example Hetzron 1977), the data in (3) will suffice to illustrate the relevant aspects of variable-order clitic sequencing.

. Number asymmetry What makes the data in (3) so challenging is that this ordering variation is restricted to the 1sg and 2sg: neither 1pl nor 2pl can occur before se, as shown in (4): (4) i.

a. Se nos van los jóvenes. b. *Nos se van los jóvenes. ‘The young people go away on us.’ ii. a. Se os van a quedar pequeños. b. *Os se van a quedar pequeños.4 ‘They are going to stay small on you (2pl familiar).’

This observed restriction is borne out by the descriptive literature on the subject: El se pospuesto: Es general el vulgarismo, que incluso se prodiga en medios sociales algo elevados, de posponer el se a las formas átonas personales: me s’ha caido, Te se vale! . . . Pero esta posposición incorrecta sólo se da cuando dichas formas átonas están en singular; nunca alcanza al plural: se nos quedó muerto (y nunca nos se quedó muerto). (García Martínez 1986: 117)

It has been suggested (by Eulàlia Bonet, p.c.) that this apparent number asymmetry (‘clitic inversion’ being possible with 1sg and 2sg, but not with the corresponding plurals) is in fact a phonological antigemination constraint which avoids the sequence of identical segments in /(n)os#se/. Apart from the general undesirability of making phonological information available to the morphology, I find this explanation unsatisfactory on phonological grounds. While Spanish does not in general favour geminate consonants, all standard and nonstandard varieties distinguish forms like (5a), with a bimorphemic geminate /n#n/ sequence, from forms like (5b), without such a sequence: (5) a.

Mándennos noticias. ‘Send (2pl formal) us news.’ b. Mándenos noticias. ‘Send (2sg formal) us news.’

However this distinction is realised phonetically, it is clear that there is no phonological constraint having the effect of a general ban on bimorphemic geminates in Spanish. If *nos se and *os se are to be excluded on phonological grounds, it would have to be by means of a constraint specific either to sibilants, or to the domain of clitic sequences (rather than to the juncture between a verbal desinence and a clitic, as in (5a)). Rather than go to such ad hoc lengths, it seems preferable to seek

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.9 (481-537)


a principled, non-phonological mechanism capable of blocking *nos se and *os se while allowing me se and te se. This number asymmetry also strengthens the case against both surface templates and syntactic movement accounts of clitic ordering. In order to account for forms such as those in both (3) and (4), a syntactic movement account would have to include an optional movement rule which could affect only me and te, but not nos and os. A templatic account would have to include a disjunctive optional ordering, in which te and me could appear either before or after se (but not both), while their plural counterparts could only appear after se. Both of these solutions seem sufficiently implausible to motivate a continued search for an alternative. Optimality Theory could perhaps provide such an alternative account of variable orders, but only if we can motivate the sg ∼ pl distinction in terms of structural markedness. As Grimshaw points out in her treatment of Floating Number (1997: 189), there are clear markedness relationships between pairs like singular and plural (as there are between masculine and feminine, or accusative and dative), but she makes no attempt to represent these markedness relationships in her proposed Clitic Lexicon other than by stipulation.5 If however we can build these markedness relationships directly into the morphological representations themselves, then perhaps, in order to obtain the attested clitic sequencing effects, the sg ∼ pl opposition could be exploited in an OT framework. Of course, we would like to retain the descriptive generalisation that clitics almost always appear in fixed orders, and that variable orders are highly-marked phenomena. Such ‘near universals’, while problematic for strictly derivational (syntactic or templatic) accounts, are a natural outcome of a theory which allows constraint violation. Thus, from a theoretical perspective, variable clitic orders could provide support for an OT approach over the available alternatives; from a methodological perspective, they serve as a reminder that ‘marginal’ or ‘marked’ data can be crucial in evaluating competing analyses, and should not be ‘idealised’ too quickly out of the picture.6

. Theoretical and empirical desiderata An improved account of clitic ordering would therefore include (at least) some motivation for the ordering constraints formulated by Grimshaw as the UMHs in (2), and some internally hierarchised morphological structure for clitics that reflects markedness relations. This morphological structure for clitics should embody the “fault lines” in clitic inventories evoked by Grimshaw, but without simply resorting to stipulation. In addition, whichever constraints determine clitic orderings should also allow for some, but not completely unconstrained, variation in



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.10 (537-584)

David Heap

clitic sequences. Recent proposals for a morphological Feature Geometry can be adapted to satisfy all of these desiderata.

. A Feature Geometry for Spanish clitics The particular proposal made here is a hybrid which combines elements of Bonet’s (1991, 1994, 1995a, b) Feature Geometry for clitics with Harley and Ritter’s (1998) Feature Geometry for number and gender paradigms. Specifically, I retain Bonet’s use of a case node (which is absent in Harley and Ritter’s model), but I assume case is a daughter of Harley and Ritter’s class node. The internal structure of the other node is a simplified version of Harley and Ritter’s geometry, and cl replaces their root node, Referring Expression (since the clitic inventory includes anaphorics like se, which are clearly not REs).7 Thus, the overall Feature Geometry proposed here for Spanish clitics has the structure in (6): (6)

CL PARTICIPANT [speaker]

OTHER [group]

CLASS

GENDER

CASE

[feminine]

[dative]

The terminal nodes in this geometry are monovalent privative features while the nodes in BOLD small caps are organisational Major Class nodes. Most of Harley and Ritter’s claims regarding this type of geometry in general are also applicable here, specifically: (7) i.

Cross-linguistic variation and paradigm-internal gaps and syncretisms are constrained by the hierarchical organization of features in the universal geometry. ii. The interpretation of sub-trees of the geometry may be relativized in tightly constrained ways so that language-specific interpretation of a given feature will depend in part upon the contrasts available within the feature system of that language. (1998: 1, 2002: 482)

As Ritter (1997) points out, such a geometry can in principle permit either an unmarked second person (if the feature Speaker is specified) or an unmarked first

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.11 (584-639)


person (if the feature Addressee is specified): here the former is chosen, for reasons which will become apparent below. While Harley and Ritter’s Feature Geometry is proposed as a universal representation made available by the language faculty, and they both base it on and test it against an impressive cross-linguistic survey of pronominal and agreement systems, it also corresponds rather closely to what we find in Romance clitic systems. In general, the split between participant and other corresponds to a distinction made since at least Bloomfield (1933) and Benveniste (1956) between ‘real persons’ (first and second persons) and ‘non-persons’ (third persons). This split also neatly captures the fact that in Romance, first and second person clitics are not inflected for gender (and usually not for case), while third person clitics are typically marked for both. This interrelation of features, which needs to be stipulated in Grimshaw’s Clitic Lexicon, becomes a straightforward consequence of the geometry under the view adopted here. The geometry in (6) and the claims in (7) also reflect some of the widely-shared assumptions about markedness alluded to above, in particular, the principle that markedness correlates with structure: more complex structures are more marked, less complex structures are less marked (Rice 1999; Pirvulescu & Roberge 2000). To return to Grimshaw’s (1997) observation that all and only Person clitics lack a specification for Reflexive, we see that under this account ‘reflexive’ is in fact a non-specification, and not a positive feature as proposed in Grimshaw (2001). In fact, under this analysis se is the least marked clitic and correspondingly has the least morphological structure. Clitics with a participant specification (such as me, te, nos) may be interpreted as anaphoric (if they are preceded by an argument which matches this Participant specification), but they need not be: they can also be interpreted as pronouns, in the absence of such an antecedent. Clitics under the other node which have case and gender specifications cannot be anaphoric, but will be interpreted as pronouns, and seek antecedents or discourse referents with corresponding features (see Bruhn de Garavito, Lamarche, & Heap 2002). On the other hand, our one ‘true reflexive’ se crucially has no participant specification, and therefore can act as anaphor for any preceding argument also lacking a participant specification. The apparent binding properties of these different clitics thus follow directly from their respective morphological specifications, and there is no need to specify a feature [reflexive] anywhere.8 Assuming the Feature Geometry in (6), a partial inventory of Spanish clitics required to account for the variable ordering data above is given in (8):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.12 (639-679)

David Heap

(8) Partial clitic inventory for standard Spanish CL

CL

PARTICIPANT

PARTICIPANT

[speaker] me

[speaker] te

[speaker] se

CL

CL

CL

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

CLASS

CLASS

CLASS

GENDER

CASE

GENDER

CL

CASE

GENDER

CASE

[feminine] lo

la

[dative] le

Note that all these clitics can be pluralised by adding the feature [group] under the other node.

. Linearizing the geometry Before considering the more specific question of how to achieve variable clitic orderings like those in (3), we need to consider the more general problem of how clitics are ordered linearly in the ‘normal’ or fixed standard Spanish sequences. While align constraints can be used to achieve the desired orders (see Anderson 1995, 1996; as well as Grimshaw 1997, 2001), such an approach radically overpredicts: freely reranking align constraints predicts that all possible ordering permutations should occur, and thus, in effect, makes no prediction at all.9 Instead I retain the constraint proposed in Heap (1996, 1998: 240), as given in (9): (9) Least Leafy to the Left (Lll): Arrange clitics from the morphologically least specified to most specified. The intution behind this constraint, which echos James Harris’ generalisation “syncretism before contrast” (1995: 189), is that the linearisation of clitics corresponds to a sort of ‘crescendo effect’, beginning with the least morphological specifica-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.13 (679-728)


tion and ending with the most. Or as Harris puts it “Slogan (45) [=(9) here] has an arboreal interpretation as well. Given the conventional assumption that nodes without dependents are not present in geometrical representations [. . . ], left-toright order in clitic clusters corresponds to increasing tree size and leafiness.” (1995: 189). While originally postulated with reference to a feature representation which differed considerably from the Feature Geometry advanced here, the Lll constraint still holds under the present account, and has the merit of being (at least) descriptively adequate.10 In addition, the Lll constraint relies on morphological information that must be supplied anyway, and on markedness relationships, a desirable addition to any model of grammar unfortunate enough not to have them already.11 The Lll constraint in (9) and the clitic inventory in (8) combine to provide just the clitic orders attested in standard Spanish, as shown in (10), where se, the least specified clitic, must precede all other clitics: (10) a.

El globo se me escapó de la mano.(=3ib) ‘The balloon got away from my hand.’ b. Si soplas al fuego, igual se te apaga. (=3viib) ‘If you blow on the fire, it is just as likely to go out on you.’ c. Buscó la pala y se la trajo a la casa. ‘She looked for the shovel, and brought it home with her.’ d. No se le habla así a la mamá. ‘One does not speak that way to mum.’

This same constraint also accounts for the relative order of person and non-person (i.e. third person) clitics. All participant clitics have less specification than the least specified third person clitic, lo, and thus must always precede it, as well as all other third person clitics (which have even more specification): (11) a.

Te lo daré mañana. ‘I will give it to you tomorrow.’ b. Me las traje en el maletín. ‘I brought them with me in my briefcase.’

Finally, the Lll constraint ensures that te will always precede me, and not viceversa, since the latter has more featural specification, cf. (8). The ordering contrast in (12) would require a special stipulation or constraint under other accounts: (12) a. Te me has hecho grande. b. *Me te has hecho grande. ‘You have grown up on me.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.14 (728-797)

David Heap

Not all Spanish speakers accept forms like (12a), but where this combination of persons is possible, (12a) is definitely preferred to (12b), a stipulation which Harris (1995: 188) expresses as a filter: (13) *[1per]-[2per] Under the present account, this ordering contrast flows naturally from the status of 2sg as the unmarked Participant in the geometry in (6), thus motivating the choice of [Addressee] rather than [Speaker] as the default participant (see above Section 4).12 Thus the interaction of the Lll constraint in (9) and the Spanish clitic geometry in (6) will result in all and only the orders predicted by Perlmutter’s (1971) template, reproduced here in (14), or any of the notational variants proposed since (e.g. Harris 1995; Wanner 1994):13 (14) Output filter (SSC or Surface Structure Constraint) SE

II

I

III

(Perlmutter 1971: 45) Inasmuch as it allows us to dispense with stipulative ordering statements such as the UMH shown in (1) or the many markedness constraints required to ‘derive’ a lexicon like the one in (2), not to mention the numerous ad hoc align constraints used by Grimshaw (1997, 2001), the present account of standard Spanish clitic sequencing is simpler than preceding proposals, and therefore preferable. While still ultimately descriptive, the present analysis reduces the number of required stipulations to a minimum by relying on a Feature Geometry with robust and independent motivation (see Heap 2002a, b among others).14

. Variable clitic orders Since the interaction of the Lll constraint in (9) and the Feature Geometry in (6) provides an analysis for standard Spanish clitic ordering which is equivalent, or superior, to previous accounts, then we can turn our attention to the thornier question of non-standard (variable) clitic orders. The problem is not just how to get variation: this is relatively straightforward once we allow either unranked constraints (Heap 1996, 1998) or Floating Constraints (Reynolds & Nagy 1994; Reynolds & Sheffer 1994; Nagy 1996; Nagy & Reynolds 1997). The real challenge is to allow for all and only the attested range of variation in clitic ordering. Such variation may indeed arise as a result of underspecification: as Anttila suggests “Variation emerges in environments where the grammar underdetermines the output.” (1995: 24)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.15 (797-865)


The relevant question therefore becomes: which of the clitics from the inventory in (8) can be variably underspecified? It seems unadvisable to fiddle with the specifications of me and te, since the contrast in (12) depends on the latter being less specified; on the other hand, if se is the least specified clitic, then how can its featural specification vary? The key here is to realise that the maximally underspecified representation of se in (8) gives all the featural information that is required by se: in order to be interpreted as an anaphoric, this clitic must not have any specification for participant. There are however other features in the geometry which, although not strictly required by the anaphoric clitic, are nonetheless compatible with it.15 In addition to the bare cl root node, se may in fact have the feature class, and / or other. In other words, the possible geometrical representations for se include: (15) i. CL

C se

ii.

CL

iii.

CL

OTHER

OTHER

CLASS se

CLASS se

Notice that under (15ii) se has the same amount of specification as te in (8), and under (15iii) se has the same amount of specification as me in (8): this means that when they are linearly ordered by the Lll constraint in (9), there can in effect be a tie between se and te, or between se and me. In the event of equal featural specification, the Lll constraint correctly predicts that both orders will surface, variably. Crucially, in all cases se still has less featural specification than any of the other clitics which must follow it (plural nos, os, and any of the third person clitics). It may seem redundant or even ad hoc for me to postulate that the ‘same’ clitic se can in fact correspond to different morphological Feature Geometries, but let us not forget that this hypothesis is proposed for highly marked grammars. In the unmarked grammar (for standard Spanish, and the majority of modern nonstandard varieties as well), se corresponds only to the minimum featural specification it requires, i.e. the one in (15i), and thus does not cause variably-ordered sequences. But there is a gap between the features it requires and those with which it is compatible: it is precisely this morphological ‘space’ which allows for the variable nonstandard specifications in (15ii) and iii., and thus for the ordering variation attested in (3).16



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.16 (865-913)

David Heap

. Conclusions Within the rich spectrum of Romance clitic phenomena, there are many clitic sequencing phenomena for which Optimality Theoretic analyses are at least as satisfactory as previous accounts, if not more so. For example, the treatment of ‘spurious se’ facts as an OCP violation (Grimshaw 1997, 2001) is more insightful than previous accounts, which treated this ‘rule’ as an ad hoc stipulation, and it compares favourably (in terms of economy) to the case-based account proposed by Desouvrey (this volume). There are a wide range of clitic phenomena which can be analysed in a similarly constrained OT framework: Bonet’s (1994) treatment of the Person-Case constraint comes to mind, as well as the interaction of constraints on the length of clitic sequences and the Avoid Pronoun Strength constraint. What I have shown in this paper is that, in addition to a theory of constraint interaction and violation, we need a theory of hierarchical morphological representation which can allow for variable underspecification. The Feature Geometry proposal presented here can capture both standard and nonstandard Spanish clitic ordering facts, without either ignoring ‘marginal’ data or resorting to ad hoc stipulations. Related work (Heap 2002a, b) has shown that Feature Geometry can usefully account for the variable third person object clitic paradigms in geolectal varieties of Spanish and in partial paradigms of subject clitics in Italo-Gallo-Romance and elsewhere (Tosco 2002). If this type of account is correct, then further research is required to discover whether constraints involving structural markedness (Béjar 1999, 2000) can help shed light on other clitic ordering phenomena.

Notes * I would like to thank the workshop organisers Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez for allowing me to participate despite being unable to attend, Susana Béjar, Eulàlia Bonet and Mauro Tosco for helpful discussions, as well Barbara White and Stephanie Kelly for invaluable help in preparing the final manuscript. All remaining errors and oversights are mine. This research was supported in part by Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grant #410-2003-0461. . The UMH used by Grimshaw is, in turn, based on Noyer’s (1992) proposal; for a general critique of the UMH approach, see Harley and Ritter (1998, 2002). . See Heap and Roberge (2002) for an overview of treatments of clitics over the last three decades. . I assume herein that all the forms in (3) are produced by the same grammar. This assumption reflects the context of elicitation (the same subjects freely produced type a. and type b. forms in the same contexts). It is of course possible to posit that these subjects in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.17 (913-966)


fact possess two parallel grammars, one which produces se te, se me and the other te se, me se. While such a ‘dual grammar’ proposal might work formally, it is a less interesting option theoretically. We can always posit multiple grammars and code-switching as a last resort: the more challenging project is to construct a formal model which allows for exactly the attested range of variation within one grammar. It should be noted that these variable orders, though superficially similar, are in fact quite distinct from the classic ILLUM MIHI > MIHI ILLUM cluster switch, as discussed by Desouvrey (this volume) and Nicol (this volume), among many others. The data of interest here participate in synchronic variation, whereas the (Old) Romance ‘cluster switch’ is primarily a diachronic phenomenon (but see Heap & Kaminskaïa (2001) for a geometric account of synchronic cluster variation in French dialects). . Forms with os are actually quite rare in some of the relevant varieties: in rural Murcian, for example, reflexive os tends to be replaced by se in all contexts (Vosotros se vais, se sentáis, etc.), a syncretism which is predicted by Bonet’s (1991: 28) typology of reflexive syncretisms. The sequence which would hypothetically result here (?* Se se van a quedar pequeños) is not to my knowledge attested anywhere, and seems implausible in any variety of Spanish. . Grimshaw (2001: 219–220) proposes that Murcian data like those in (3) correspond in fact to an inversion in her constraint hierarchy, in which PersonLeft >> PersonRight; but this analysis is inadequate for two reasons. First, it does not take into account the variable nature of the clitic sequences in (3) – unless her proposal is modified to make these two constraints unranked or perhaps, in the spirit of Nagy and Reynolds (1997), Floating Constraints. More seriously, Grimshaw’s account would necessarily treat all 1st and 2nd Persons the same way, while the Murcian facts clearly show that only singular me and te alternate with se, and not the plurals os and nos, contra her claim that “only person and case specifications prove important for alignment” (Grimshaw 2001: 211). Her constraint-based account would have to resort to a further stipulation, i.e. a markedness constraint against the particular combinations of these persons and the plural feature, in order to account for such number asymmetries. . Another example of such a ‘near universal’ is Bonet’s generalisation that “nontransparent output forms will have the same surface form as other clitics of the language instead of becoming an arbitrary phonological sequence.” (1991: 2–3). There exists a small number of exceptions to this generalisation, i.e. cases where the output sequence is not made up exclusively of other clitics from the inventory of the same language, such as the Old Spanish le + lo > gelo (cf. Heap et al. 1993). But this generalisation is otherwise quite robust, and thus constitutes an ideal candidate for the type of ‘near universals’ which flow naturally from a theory of violable constraints. Note also that the Old Spanish gelo facts invalidate Grimshaw’s claim (2001: 237, Note 11) that such a “specialised” clitic cannot occur. . My proposal in (6) omits some of the Case feature nodes proposed by Bonet (which are necessary for Catalan but not for Spanish) and a number of the nodes proposed by Harley and Ritter (Group | Minimal, for example, which they propose in order to account for duals, is not required here). Desouvery (this volume) proposes an alternative hierarchical representation which relies more heavily on case than either the present analysis or those cited here. . A further advantage of eliminating the feature [Reflexive] is that it permits a unified representation for other uses of se, some of which are incompatible with a reflexive specification.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42



F: LA7403.tex / p.18 (966-1033)

David Heap

For example, in the pseudo-passive Aquí se habla español, underspecified se corresponds to a generic (pro-arb) subject which is compatible with the ‘clitic with no features’, but not with a [+Reflexive] specification (see Bruhn de Garavito, Lamarche, & Heap 2002 for details). . Align constraints can even be crucially unranked if so desired, in order to achieve attested variable orders (see Heap 1998: 233–234), but again, this formal possibility predicts nothing. . A similar intuition seems to be behind John Harris’ (1994: 170–173) ‘Complexity Constraint’, whereby subphonemic elements are organised linearly according to the ‘slope’ in their degree of complexity (a connection which I am indebted to Stephanie Kelly for helping me to see). It may turn out that such observationally adequate generalisations about complexity slopes correspond in fact to processing effects (i.e. the least complex element being the easiest to hold in memory for longest), but the formal parallelism with e.g. sonority hierarchy effects in syllables remains nonetheless striking. . It should also be noted that this constraint seems to hold in Romance varieties which have more clitics in their inventory than Spanish, and those which allow longer strings: although the French and Catalan data are not treated here, both these languages have locative clitics (y or hi) and a partitive clitic en, which would necessarily have additional Case features and which also come later in clitic sequences, as predicted by the Lll constraint. . I have suggested elsewhere (Heap 2002a), for independent reasons, that 2sg is the unspecified Participant in variable Gallo-Italo-Romance subject clitic paradigms. . Like all previous templatic treatments I am aware of, the present account has the drawback of slightly overpredicting, in that it allows for sequences such as *? se te me, or even **? se te me la; the latter of which is ungrammatical for most if not all Spanish speakers, while the first may be acceptable to some (cf. Cuervo 2001). This may be a case where, in addition to constraints on ordering, grammars vary with respect to the length of clitic sequences which they permit. . A similar but independent analysis (Tosco 2002) has shown that Feature Geometric representations help shed light on variation and change in subject clitic paradigms throughout the Cushitic family of languages and the one dialects. . This featural variability is reminiscent of Wanner’s (1996: 33) observation regarding his proposed “Two Term Sequencing Patterns” or binomios de secuencialidad: “Lo propio de los binomios de secuencialidad es su libre combinación para producir efectos locales, en principio variables según hablantes, registros, regiones y períodos.” . One interesting consequence of this hypothesis is the prediction that there should be grammars where se corresponds to just (15i) and ii., and not (15iii), which would mean that we would expect to find varieties where se te and te se alternate, but not se me and *me se. Recent empirical research using dialect atlas data from nonstandard Peninsular varieties (Heap 2002c, 2004, forthcoming) strongly suggests that while te se can occur with or without me se, the inverse is not true: the presence of me se in a grammar necessarily implies that te se is already present.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.19 (1033-1120)


References Alvar, M., A. Llorente y T. Buesa. 1979–1983. Atlas Lingüístico y etnográfico de Aragón, Navarra y Rioja. Departamento de Geografía Lingüística, Insitución Fernando el Católico, y el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científias. Anttila, A. 1995. “Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives.” MS., Stanford University. (=Rutgers Optimality Archive #63). Anderson, S. R. 1995. “Rules and constraints in describing the morphology of phrases.” In Papers from the 31st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Volume 2, Parasession on Clitics, A. Dainora, R. Hemphill, B. Luka, B. Need and S. Pargman (eds), 15–31. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Anderson, S. R. 1996. “How to put your clitics in their place, or why the best account of second-position phenomena may be a nearly optimal one.” The Linguistic Review 13: 165–191. Auger, J. 1994. Pronominal Clitics in Québec Colloquial French: A morphological analysis. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Béjar, S. 1999. “Structural markedness and minimalist checking theory.” In WCCFL 18: Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, S. F. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen and P. Norquest (eds), 27–42. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Béjar, S. 2000. “Structural markedness and formal features.” Revue québécoise de linguistique 28.1.47–72. (Special thematic issue on “Traits et interfaces”, D. Heap and J. Ndayiragije (eds).) Benveniste, É. 1956. “La nature des pronoms.” In For Roman Jakobson, 251–257. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Bessler, P. 1999. Une analyse morphosyntaxique de l’accord grammatical en français. Montréal, Québec: Presses Universitaires de Laval. Bessler, P., S. Cummins, D. Heap, T. Nadasdi, and Y. Roberge. 1992. “Cliticisation morphologique ou catégories fonctionnelles?” In Proceedings of the 1992 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association [Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics], C. Dyck, J. Ghomeshi and T. Wilson (eds), 29–42. Toronto: University of Toronto. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York NY: Holt. Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bonet, E. 1994. “The person-case constraint: A morphological approach.” The MorphologySyntax Connection, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 33–52. Bonet, E. 1995a. “The feature structure of Romance clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–617. Bonet, E. 1995b. “The where and how of clitic ordering.” Revue québecoise de linguistique 24(1): 61–81. Bruhn de Garavito, J., J. Lamarche and D. Heap. 2002. “French and Spanish se: Underspecified, not reflexive.” In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, S. Somesfalean (ed.), 42–54. Montréal, Quebec: UQÀM. Cuervo, M. C. 2001. “Spurious se and what it tells us about morphology and linearization.” Ms., MIT, presented as talk at the University of Western Ontario.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.20 (1120-1203)

 David Heap

Cummins, S. and Y. Roberge. 1994. “Romance inflectional morphology in and out of syntax.” The Morphology-Syntax Connection, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 53–70. Dinnsen, D. 1972. “Additional constraints on clitic order in Spanish.” In Generative Studies in Romance Languages, Bogdan Saciuk and Jean Casagrande (eds), 175–183. Rowley MA: Newbury House. García Martínez, G. 1986 (1960). El habla de Cartagena: Palabras y cosas (Notas para el estudio del castellano vulgar actual y de la propagación del aragonés y del catalán por el Sur). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. “The Best Clitic: Constraint Conflict in Morphosyntax.” Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed), 169–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. “Optimal Clitic Position and the Lexicon in Romance Clitic Systems.” In Optimality Theoretical Syntax, Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, Sten Vikner (eds), 205–240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi. 1994. “Hug a Tree: Deriving the Morphosyntactic Feature Hierarchy.” Papers on Phonology and Morphology, A. Carnie and H. Harley (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 289–320. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 1998. “Meaning in Morphology: Motivating a FeatureGeometric Analysis of Person and Number.” ms. University of Calgary and University of Pennsylvania. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Person and Number in Pronouns: A FeatureGeometric Analysis.” Language 78(3): 482–526. Harris, James. 1995. “The Morphology of Spanish Clitics.” In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Héctor Campos and Paula Kempchinsky (eds), 168–197. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Harris, John. 1994. English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell. Heap, David. 1996. “Optimalizing Romance Clitic Sequences.” Paper read at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXVI, Universidad Metropolitana, Mexico City. Heap, David. 1998. “Optimalizing Iberian Clitic Sequences.” In Theoretical Advances in Romance Linguistics, José Lema and Esther Treviño (eds), 227–248. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 157, series editor K. Koerner] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heap, David. 2002a. “Split Subject Pronoun Paradigms: Feature Geometry and Underspecification.” In Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the XXIXth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Teresa Satterfield, Cristina M. Tortora and Diana Cresti (eds), 129–144. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 220, series editor K. Koerner]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heap, David. 2002b. “Morphological Complexity and Spanish Object Clitic Variation.” In Romance Phonology and Variation: Selected papers from the XXXth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Caroline Wiltshire and Joaquim Camps (eds), 55–68. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 217, series editor K. Koerner]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heap, David. 2002c. “Segunda noticia histórica del ALPI, a los cuarenta años de la publicación de su primer tomo.” Revista de filología española LXXXII: 5–19.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.21 (1203-1298)

Constraining Optimality 

Heap, David. 2004: “Structural Markedness and Variable Clitic Sequences: Evidence from Nonstandard Spanish Dialects.” Invited talk, Linguistics Department, University of Oslo. Heap, David. Forthcoming. “Secuencias “invertidas” de clíticos: un cambio (¿?) en tiempo real.” To appear in Actas del VI Congreso de Historia de la lengua española. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Heap, David, and Svetlana Kaminskaïa. 2001. “Variable Clitic Sequences in Non-standard French: Feature Geometry or Optimality?” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7.3: 101–114. Heap, David, Silvana Mastromonaco, Terry Nadasdi, and Paul Bessler. 1993. “If a Template Fits...: Case Studies in Morphological Cliticization.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Canadian Workshop on Lexical-Syntactic Relations, Carrie Dyck (ed). Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12(1): 109–124. Heap, David and Yves Roberge. 2002. “Cliticisation et théorie syntaxique, 1971–2001.” Revue québécoise de la linguistique. 30(1): 63–90. Hetzron, Robert. 1977. “Clitic pronouns and their linear representation.” Forum Linguisticum 1: 189–215. Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia. 1979. Las construcciones pronominales en español: Paradigma y desviaciones. Madrid: Gredos. Nagy, Naomi. 1996. Language Contact and Language Change in the Faetar Speech Community. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation. Nagy, Naomi, and Bill Reynolds. 1997. “Optimality Theory and Variable Word-Final Deletion in Faetar.” Language, Variation, and Change 9(1): 37–56. Nicol, Fabrice. 2004. “On Diachronic Changes and Cross-Linguistic Contrasts.” This volume. Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation, Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Pirvulescu, Mihaela and Yves Roberge. 2000. “The Syntax and Morphology of Romanian Imperatives.” In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, V. Motapanyane (ed), 295– 313. New York: Elsevier. Real Academia Española. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Rezac, Milan. 2004. “Island Constraints on Clitic Climbing in Czech.” This volume. Reynolds, Bill, and Heidi Sheffer. 1994. “Variation and Optimality.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics I: 103–110. Reynolds, Bill and Naomi Nagy. 1994. “Phonological Variation in Faetar: An Optimality Account.” Chicago Linguistic Society 30.2: 277–292. Rice, Keren. D. 1999. “Featural markedness in Phonology: Variation.” Glot International “State of the Article” (Part I) 4.7: 3–6 and (Part II) 4.8: 3–7. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1997. “Agreement in the Arabic Prefix Conjugation: Evidence for a Non-linear Approach to Person, Number and Gender Features.” Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference Proceedings, L. Blair, C. Burns and L. Roswell (eds), 191–202. Calgary: University of Calgary, Department of Linguistics.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/12/2004; 11:42

F: LA7403.tex / p.22 (1298-1322)

 David Heap

Todolí, Júlia. 1995. Aproximació a la sintaxi dels pronoms clítics catalans. València: Universitat de València Dissertation. Tosco, Mauro. 2002. “The Diachronic Development of the Subject Clitics in Cushitic: A Feature-Geometric Account.” ms., Istituto Universitario Orientale (Naples) and Universität zu Köln (Cologne). Wanner, Dieter. 1977. “On the Order of Clitics in Italian.” Lingua 42: 101–128. Wanner, Dieter. 1987. The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: from Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wanner, Dieter. 1994. “El orden de los clíticos agrupados en castellano.” Thesaurus. Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 48: 1–57.

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech* Milan Rezac University of Toronto

Second position clitics in Czech may originate in the infinitival complement of the matrix verb, giving rise to clitic climbing. Climbing provides a probe into the implementation of argument cliticization. Cliticization is argued to be driven by the Case/φ-agreement system, and not by an A’ or clitic-specific system. This explains four properties. First, climbing is restricted to infinitives without an internal Case licenser. Second, it may cross a matrix argument, but not an accusative one, which absorbs matrix Case by Relativized Minimality. Third, the dative > accusative order of clitics is given by multiple A-movements as in Object Shift. Fourth, the clitic cluster shows the Person-Case Constraint, which is a consequence of the A-system implementation in the Minimalist Program.

.

Introduction

Czech has ten disjoint sets of second or ‘Wackernagel’ position clitics, each set mapping to a single position in a partially ordered cluster (Franks & King 2000: 90f. and references therein). The sets are listed in Table 1. For argumental clitics, bracketed forms have homophonous non-clitic forms.1 The cluster is located approximately after the first constituent of the clause, but it is not tied to any overt syntactic element such as the finite verb. It has certain prosodic characteristics such as resistance to being broken up by or parsed into separate intonational phrases; see Fried (1994), Toman (1996), and Franks and King (2000: 112f.) for detailed discussion of both properties. The clitic cluster has certain internal properties: only one element of each cluster set may be realized, and the sets are partially ordered with respect to each other. The following order seems nearly universal among speakers (Franks & King 2000: 104f.): (1) li > conditional > auxiliary > se/si > dative > accusative

 Milan Rezac

Table 1. The second position clitic cluster Description

Forms

Interrogative particle Modal auxiliary Perfect auxiliary Se-type clitic Dative of address Argumental dative

li 1.sg bych, 2.sg bys, 1.pl bychom, 2.pl byste, 3.sg/pl and uninflected by 1.sg jsem, 2.sg jsi, 1.pl jsme, 2.pl jste accusative se, dative si 2.sg ti, 2.pl (vám) 1.sg mi, 2.sg ti, 3.sg.masc/neut mu, 3.sg.fem (ji), 1.pl (nám), 2.pl (vám), 3.pl (jim) 1.sg. (m˘e), 2.sg. t˘e, 3.sg.masc/neut ho, 3.sg.fem (ji), 1.pl. (nás), 2.pl (vás), 3.pl (je) 1.sg (m˘e), 2.sg t˘e, 3.sg.masc/neut ho, 3.sg.fem (ji), 1.pl (nás), 2.pl (vás), 3.pl (jich) v˘sak prej

Accusative Genitive Adversative particle Quotative particle

Variation is found in the order of the dative of address and the reflexive se/si, the placement of the adverbial clitics prej and v˘sak, and in the murky ordering between the accusative and genitive clitics. In the dialect described here, the argumental dative and accusative sequence is absolutely fixed and the two are not separable (cf. Toman 1999: 205 Note 2).2 At a first approximation, the linear order of the cluster reflects the expected hierarchical positions of the clitics based on their meaning and form (Toman 1999; Rezac 2000). Within the C-system, expanded for concreteness following Rizzi (1997: 297) as Force0 > Foc0 > Fin0 , we find the question particle naturally fits into Force0 and the conditional clitic into Fin0 , to which T0 moves with its φ-inflection if it is not independently lexicalized by a raised verb or the perfect auxiliary. The φ-inflected perfect auxiliary is in T. Se plausibly originates in [Spec, vP] when interpreted as an arbitrary pro and in the voice locus v when inchoative, inherent, and perhaps reflexive. Finally, the dative and accusative arguments are base-generated with the dative c-commanding the accusative in the double object construction. Under these rather default assumptions, the order within the cluster emerges from the c-command relations of the base positions of the clitics: (2) [FocP Foc0 :li [FinP Fin0 :cond. [TP T0 :perf. [vP se v0 :se [VP dat. [V0 acc.]]]]]] The adverbial clitics in the less strictly ordered part of the cluster evidently correspond to speaker-oriented adverbs; analyzing the dative of address in a similar way as Toman (1999: 217–219) does, the relative positional freedom of these elements is not surprising. The properties of many of these categories also explain the co-occurrence restrictions on the cluster, that is, the existence of sets only one member of which

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

can be realized. Thus only one interrogative, conditional, and auxiliary clitic will surface, because only one corresponding syntactic category is licensed per clause. In Section 3.2 and 3.4 we will see further that the approach to cliticization that will be developed there predicts that are no relevant double accusative structures. The principal empirical domain of this paper is clitic climbing in Czech, whereby clitics associated with an infinitival complement appear in the second position of an upstairs clause. Example (3) illustrates. In the clitic cluster in bold, the conditional particle by and the inflected perfect auxiliary jsem belong to the functional architecture of the matrix finite verb, the dative of address ti and the adversative particle v˘sak represent functional categories also found only in finite clauses (see below), and the inherent se-type clitic si is lexically selected by the matrix verb p˘rát si ‘wish’. On the other hand, the arguments mu and je belong thematically to the infinitive vysv˘etlit and would be equally grammatical if realized in a second cluster following vysv˘etlit . In the example, they have climbed to the matrix clause.3 (3) Já by jsem si ti mu je v˘sak p˘rála I-n cond am se-d you-d him-d them-a however wished-sg.f vysvˇetlit explain-inf ‘You know though, I would wish to explain them to him.’ The argument of this paper is that the dislocation of the dative and accusative clitics under climbing, and in general, is an instance of A-movement, and that this hypothesis explains the intricate patterns of cliticization that will reveal themselves as we proceed. In Section 2, it will first be shown that the domain of clitic climbing is the same as the domain of A-movement, and climbing thus requires that the matrix verb and the infinitive be in the same domain for φ-agreement, Case assignment, and A-movement. In turn, such a structure requires climbing. Thus, argumental clitics must A-move into the matrix clause for Case reasons. Properties of climbing and argument cliticization in general, like the restriction to a single accusative per cluster and the dative > accusative order, follow from this formulation, since identical properties restrict the A-movement and Case system in general. This is supported in the aftermath of Section 3.1, which presents a constraint on climbing that refers to the Case of the DPs across which a clitic climbs, and which turns out to follow from Relativized Minimality in the Case system. Finally, Section 3.4 investigates the Person-Case Constraint that applies to dative-accusative sequences in Czech whether formed by climbing or not, which also emerges as a consequence of the A-movement and φ/Case-system formulation in the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (2000). Tying clitic climbing and argument cliticization in general to this system provides an explanatory account of all these patterns.

 Milan Rezac

The investigation is limited to dative and accusative argumental clitics. Of the others, the auxiliaries, the quotative, adversative, and interrogative particles, and the dative of address, can only appear in finite clauses, from which they cannot be dislocated: (4) Po˘zádala (ti) (prej) Jana pomoc (*ti) ji requested-3.sg.f you-d apparently John-a help-inf you-d her-d (*prej) apparently ‘She asked John to help her.’ The genitive clitic in Czech usually represents extraction of the genitive portion of a quantified NP, a subset of the en/ne-cliticization of the Romance languages, and falls outside the scope of this paper; see Toman (1986) and the remarks in Section 4 here. More rarely the genitive is an argumental genitive with the few verbs that allow it. In the latter case, judgments regarding position, ordering, and climbing are unclear to native speakers (see Franks & King 2000: 107f.), and I will exclude it as well. Lastly, the se-type clitics can climb and would indeed shed additional light on the topic. However, the variety of interpretations available for se/si is similar to that of Spanish se and Italian si (Burzio 1986: 36f.; Cinque 1988): reflexive, inchoative, inherent, middle, impersonal both with and without object agreement; and since their syntactic properties in Czech have not yet been investigated, I must leave them for future discussion.

. Clitic climbing and restructuring . Introduction This section presents the basic facts of clitic climbing in Czech. The infinitival transparency which allows clitic climbing is known as restructuring in the literature on Romance, and has been the subject of rich investigation: among others Strotzer (1976), Rivas (1977), Rizzi (1978), Aissen and Perlmutter (1983), Burzio (1986), Kayne (1989, 1991), Roberts (1997); for other languages, particularly Germanic and Japanese, see Wurmbrand (2001) and the literature cited therein. Strotzer (1976) and Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) argue that the distinction to be drawn between restructuring infinitives (RIs) that undergo clitic climbing, and nonrestructuring infinitives that do not (NRIs), is that RIs are bare VPs, lacking for example a subject of their own, while NRIs are (closer to) full clauses. Strotzer (1976) implements the hypothesis by simply base-generating RIs and NRIs as VPs and clauses respectively, while Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) derive the reduced structure of RIs by the application of Clause Union in the Relational Grammar

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

framework. However, the shared intuition of the two approaches is the same: clitic climbing is both permitted and necessitated by the impoverished RI structure. In current terms, RIs are missing the functional architecture which licenses clitics (Cardinaletti & Starke 1999), which come to depend on that of the upstairs verb; at the same time, this relationship is not impeded by barriers to syntactic dependencies precisely because it is the missing functional structure that would be responsible for barrierhood.4 A recent implementation of this tradition is Wurmbrand (2001), who delimits more precisely the amount of functional architecture that must be missing in RIs.5 Not only CP and TP, but also the vP category responsible for the base-generation of the subject and the Case licensing of objects must be missing, so that RIs end up as bare VPs. These translate semantically into properties rather than propositions, and are predicated of one of the arguments in the matrix clause by a meaning postulate that is part of the semantics of the matrix verb (Chierchia 1984). The structure of RIs is thus as schematized in Figures 1 and 2 (cf. Wurmbrand 2001: 17, 27, 227), where the subject of the RI is interpreted as identical to an argument of the matrix verb, either the subject in Figure 1 or the object in Figure 2.6 The absence of the C/T/v functional categories under restructuring, which is necessary for clitic climbing, predicts a substantial number of diagnostic correlates for it. The aspect of this hypothesis that is crucial for the rest of this paper is that RIs are transparent to Case assignment and φ-feature agreement, forming with the upstairs predicate a single domain for this system; NRIs are not. This trans-

CP C

TP DP John1

íP

T t1

í

VP V tried

VP

V DP to visit his sister

Figure 1. John tried to visit his sister

 Milan Rezac CP C

TP DP John1

íP

T t1

í

VP DP Mary

VP

V advised

DP

V DP to visit his sister

Figure 2. John advised Mary to visit his sister

parency correlate of RIs will be extensively tested below, after introducing clausal complementation and clitic climbing in Czech.

. Clausal complements in Czech Czech has both finite and non-finite clausal complements: Jana ˘rekla Petrovi z˘e utekl Jana-n told Peter-d that ran.away-3.sg.m ‘Jana told Peter that he had run away.’ b. Jana p˘rikázala Petrovi aby utekl Jana-n ordered Peter-d that-cond ran.away-3.sg.m ‘Jana ordered Peter to run away.’ c. Jana p˘rikázala Petrovi utíct Jana-n ordered Peter-d run.away-inf ‘Jana ordered Peter to run away.’

(5) a.

Verbs taking non-finite complements can be demonstrated to be of both the raising and control type, the latter distinguishing subject and object control, and the latter further dative and accusative controllers. There do not seem to be genuine accusative-assigning ECM verbs with infinitival complements, although there are both perception verbs with apparently similar infinitival complements and ECM

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

verbs with small clause complements, as in German, French, and Italian (cf. Burzio 1986: 234f., 287f.). A standard diagnostic differentiating raising and control is the theta criterion. Raising predicates impose no selectional restrictions on their subjects, while control predicates do. Consequently, raising but not control allows non-subcategorized subjects in the matrix clause. Since Czech has a rather free word order, eye should be kept on matrix agreement and nominative assignment. Consider the following contrast between chtít ‘want’ and za˘cnout ‘begin’: (6) Mýdla za˘cly/*ch˘etly stát dv˘e koruny u˘z p˘red soaps-n began-pl/*wanted-pl cost-inf two crowns-a already before inflací inflation ‘Soap bars began/*wanted to cost two crowns already before the inflation.’ The subjects of both chtít and za˘cnout when used with a DP object must denote something capable of wanting or beginning something. As in English, this changes when these verbs take infinitival complements. Chtít ‘want’ behaves as a control verb and still requires its subject to be capable of wanting something; za˘cnout ‘begin’ imposes no requirements on its subject, which must only satisfy the selectional requirements of the infinitival clause. These and other tests (see Van˘ek 1977: 225–227 for factivity) consistently distinguish raising and subject control verbs in Czech. Among raising verbs are some modals, muset ‘have to’, moci ‘be able’, but not sm˘et ‘be allowed’, chtít ‘want’, p˘rát ‘wish’; the modal uses of být lit. ‘be’, dát se lit. ‘give oneself ’, jít lit. ‘go’, nechat se lit. ‘let oneself ’, all approximately meaning ‘be possible’; perhaps all phasal verbs, such as za˘cít ‘start’, p˘restat ‘stop’, skon˘cit ‘finish’, pokra˘covat ‘keep on, continue’; and the classical raising examples zdát se ‘seem’ (Van˘ek 1977: 227), stra˘sit, hrozit ‘promise, threaten’ (as in “the price of soap threatens to go up”). Subject-control verbs are the non-raising modals listed above; motion verbs, p˘rijít ‘come’, jít ‘go’, vrátit se ‘return’, be˘zet ‘run’, pospíchat, let˘et ‘hurry’; and propositional attitude verbs, skusit, pokusit ‘try’, rozhodnout se ‘decide’, odhodlat se ‘resolve’, dokázat ‘manage, succeed’, mínit, hodlat ‘intend’, plánovat ‘intend, plan’, umínit si ‘intend, decide’, odmítnout ‘refuse’, zapomenout ‘forget’. A special class of monadic control verbs have a single argument in the dative or accusative: examples are líbit se ‘appeal to’ and vadit ‘inconvenience’ with the dative, and ˘stvát ‘annoy, bother’ with the accusative.7 Object control verbs do not pass ECM tests; for example, they do not preserve idiomatic meaning of sentential idiom complements, except for perception verbs. Some verbs that correspond semantically to ECM verbs in English, e.g. o˘cekávat ‘expect’ and po˘cítat ‘reckon, expect’, take finite complements in Czech, while others like seznat ‘acknowledge’ take either finite or small clause complements. Object

 Milan Rezac

control verbs in Czech fall into two classes depending on the case of the controlling object: dative or accusative. Among dative-control verbs are p˘rikázat, poruˇcit ‘order’, dovolit ‘allow’, doporu˘cit ‘recommend’, (po)radit ‘advise’. Among accusativecontrol verbs are (p˘ri)nutit ‘force’ and po˘zádat ‘request’.

. Clitic climbing Clitic climbing refers to a phenomenon whereby the clitic argument of an infinitive shows up within the clause of a c-commanding verb. To clarify the thematic relation of the clitic, I will throughout use a superscript I in the glosses for clitics that thematically belong to the infinitive: (7) Jan jiI cht˘el ukázat svou televizi Jan-n her-d wanted show-inf own televizion-a ‘Jan wanted to show her his television.’ In this section I will discuss the scope and basic properties of climbing. Climbing is never possible from finite complements, which in Czech are headed by complementizers or wh-words. In such clauses, the clitic has to be realized internally. The {} brace convention indicates from now on that one and only one element is to be realized: Dana {*t˘eI } zapomˇela že/jestli/kde {t˘eI } potkala Dana-n you-a forgot that/whether/where you-a met-3.sg.f ‘Dana forgot that/whether/where she met you.’ b. Dana {*t˘eI } chce aby {t˘eI } potkala Dana-n you-a wants that-cond you-a met-3.sg.f ‘Dana wants to meet you.’

(8) a.

Clitic climbing is allowed out of infinitival complements of raising, object-control, and subject-control verbs:8 Dana {hoI } chtˇela pohladit {hoI } jemn˘e Dana-n him-a wanted caress-inf him-a gently ‘Dana wanted to caress him gently.’ b. Dana mi {hoI } p˘rikázala hlídat {hoI } Dana-n me-d him-a ordered guard-inf him-a ‘Dana ordered me to guard him carefully.’ c. Honza {seI } chce jít {seI } schovat {seI } Honza-n se wants go-inf se hide-inf se ‘Honza wants to go hide into the hayloft.’

(9) a.

opatrn˘e carefully do seníku into hayloft

In these examples, the clitic ho belonging to the lower verb can be realized in either the matrix or the embedded clause. There is no clitic ‘lowering’: the clitic mi in

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech

(9b), an object of the matrix verb, can only be placed as in the example. Climbing is theoretically unbounded in the number of infinitival boundaries crossed, as in (9c), which also shows that it can target other infinitival clauses rather than only finite ones. Finally, climbing is limited to complement infinitives, and barred from adjuncts: (10) Dana {*t˘eI } radši uteˇce než {t˘eI } políbit Dana-n you-a rather runs.away than you-a kiss-inf ‘Dana will run away rather than kiss you.’ When climbing occurs, it is an all-or-nothing phenomenon: either all the clitics of an embedded verb climb, or none does. In the following example the lower verb is ditransitive and both of its arguments are realized as clitics: Jana chce ukázat tiI hoI zejtra Jana-n wants show-inf you-d him-a tomorrow ‘Jana wants to show him to you tomorrow.’ b. Jana tiI hoI chce ukázat zejtra c. *Jana tiI chce ukázat hoI zejtra d. *Jana hoI chce ukázat tiI zejtra

(11) a.

The all-or-nothing nature of climbing was one of the original arguments that it is a consequence of a different structure rather than of a special clitic movement rule, which could presumably affect clitics selectively (Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 364). Clitic climbing is thus obligatory when the restructuring structure is present, and impossible when it is not. This argument can be extended, as much work beginning with Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) and Rizzi (1978) has done, to find other correlates of restructuring and show that they necessarily co-occur. Recently, Wurmbrand (2001: Chapters 2, 4) gathers an impressive array of such co-occurring diagnostics, and uses them to argue for the correctness of Strotzer’s (1976) hypothesis that RIs are VPs and NRIs contain at least v and their own subject (trace or PRO). An initial indicator that there is something about the size of the infinitival complement that allows restructuring is that the presence of a CP layer blocks it. Wh-infinitives cannot be climbed out of in Czech:9 (12) Nevím {*hoI } jak/komu {hoI } p˘redstavit not-know-1.sg him-a how/who-d him-a introduce-inf ‘I don’t know how / to whom to introduce him.’ The other indicators of reduced structure for RIs we will consider below are the following: transparency of RIs to Case assignment and φ-agreement, indicating a lack of internal v and T categories; absence of a subject of any kind, including PRO, for the purposes of Binding Theory, implying lack of T and/or v; and lack of PF-





Milan Rezac

independence, showing RIs are not phases (CP/vP). The necessary co-occurrence of all of these with clitic climbing and with each other, where testable, leads to the conclusion that RIs are bare VPs on the C-T-v-V distinction, where we take T to be the locus of tense, nominative Case assignment and nominative φ-agreement, and v of accusative Case assignment (and φ-agreement). It is the absence of T and v, so defined, will be crucial to the argument in this paper, which starts by identifying the domain of clitic climbing with the domain of A-movement, Case assignment, and φ-agreement.10

. Structure of restructuring infinitives .. Domains of Case licensing and φ-agreement One of the most impressive correlations between two different processes sensitive to restructuring is the correlation of clitic climbing with promotion of the internal argument of the infinitive to the derived agreeing nominative subject of the finite verb. This is demonstrated by Aissen and Perlmutter (1983: 375f.) for the Spanish impersonal se construction with object agreement, which I will follow closely.11 In Czech there is a productive impersonal formation using the clitic se, which suppresses the external argument. It has the option of retaining an internal argument in the accusative, or promoting it through nominative assignment and φ-agreement (cf. Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 369f. for Spanish; Burzio 1986: 42–53 for Italian):12 Musí se jeI dob˘re prozkoumat must-3.sg se them-a well examine-inf b. Musej se dob˘re prozkoumat must-3.pl se well examine-inf ‘One must examine them well.’ (both)

(13) a.

Verbs that take infinitival complements enter into this alternation, and its results can be used to show that climbing is only possible when the infinitive does not have a Case licenser for its object clitic(s). Three exemplar verbs are given in (14a): skusit ‘try’, chtít ‘want’, and plánovat ‘plan’. All allow clitic climbing, as can be seen by the possible positions of the dative clitic mu. In (14b), we see that these verbs can appear with impersonal se, in which construction they are interpreted with an impersonal external argument. One option then is for the object of the infinitive to remain accusative and the matrix verb to take default 3rd.sg.neut. agreement, with optional clitic climbing as shown in (14b):


Honza {muI } tyhle vla˘sky skusí/chce/plánuje prodat Honza-n him-d these bottles-a try-sg/want-sg/plan-sg sell-inf {muI } a˘z za rok him-d even after year ‘Honza will try/wants/plans to sell him these bottles only after a year.’ b. Tyhle vla˘sky se {muI } skusí/chce/plánuje prodat {muI } these bottles-a se him-d try-sg/want-sg/plan-sg sell-inf him-d a˘z za rok even after year ‘One will try/wants/plans to sell him these bottles only after a year.’

(14) a.

By the hypothesis we will proceed to verify directly, (14b) exemplifies a structure where the matrix verb assigns accusative to the infinitival object when that is a bare VP, licensing climbing, and a structure where the infinitive’s complement is a full control CP and the object receives accusative internally to it, with no clitic climbing. The other possibility is for the matrix verb to assign nominative to the infinitival object and agree with it. This is shown in (15a) (slightly odd, cf. Note 12). Here, the infinitive must lack the accusative Case assigner v to permit the relation between matrix T and its object. The infinitive is thus reduced with respect to infinitives that have their own Case assigner, an RI. If RIs correlate one-to-one with clitic climbing, then climbing should be required in this case. This is splendidly confirmed in (15b), where the assignment of agreeing nominative to the direct object of the infinitive requires climbing of the indirect object clitic: (15) a.

?Tyhle

vla˘sky se skusej/cht˘ej/plánujou prodat a˘z za these bottles-n se try-pl/want-pl/plan-pl sell-inf even after rok year ‘One will try/wants/plans to sell these bottles only after a year.’ ? b. Tyhle vla˘sky se {muI } skusej/cht˘ej/plánujou prodat these bottles-n se him-d try-pl/want-pl/plan-pl sell-inf {*muI } a˘z za rok him-d even after year ‘One will try/wants/plans to sell him these bottles only after a year.’

This correlation between climbing and cross-infinitive Case assignment is quite a strong demonstration that a VP that does not contain a Case assigner necessarily forms the same cliticization domain with its matrix verb.





Milan Rezac

.. Binding domains The difference between RIs and NRIs has binding-theoretic implications. An RI should have no subject in any technical sense of the word – agreeing subject, tensed clause subject, PRO, subject of predication – and therefore does not constitute a minimal domain for Conditions A and B. We predict consequences for Condition B, which rules out coreference between a pronoun and a c-commanding NP within the same minimal domain. The principle permits NRIs to contain a pronoun coreferential with an argument α (say the subject) in the matrix clause provided that the PRO subject of the infinitive is controlled by a distinct argument β (say the object). Since RIs do not contain PRO or another subject, they will not constitute a binding domain of their own, and coreference between a pronominal argument of the infinitive and any argument of the upstairs verb should be blocked (cf. Miyagawa 1987 for Japanese). This prediction is correct for Czech as the following example illustrates: {jiI *i/j } dovolila políbit {jiI i/j } nashledanou (16) Annai mu Anna-n him-d her-a permitted kiss-inf her-a goodbye ‘Ana permitted him to kiss her good-bye.’ A clitic that has climbed cannot be coreferential with the matrix subject, while one that has not can. This difference follows immediately from the RI/NRI structures in Figures 1 and 2, if climbing diagnoses RIs, without a subject. Languages with subject-oriented anaphora should also display another bindingtheoretic difference between RIs and NRIs when the interpretive subject of the infinitive is the object of the upstairs verb. Only in NRIs should such a matrix object be able to bind a subject-oriented anaphor, via the PRO subject it controls; in RIs where there is no PRO, the anaphor should not be able to be bound by the matrix object. Wurmbrand (2001: 233–236) shows this is the case for German. In Czech clitic climbing should block a subject-oriented anaphor within the infinitive from being bound by a matrix object, even though it is interpreted as the subject of the infinitival predicate. There is a series of subject-oriented anaphors such as the possessive adjective sv˚uj ‘his/her own’ (inflected for gender, number, and Case), whose properties are discussed in Toman (1992).13 Object-control complements are an apparent exception to this rule, and sv˚uj in an embedded clause is obligatorily bound by the matrix object if climbing does not take place. This yields strong evidence for the presence of PRO in them.14 (17) Paveli p˘rikázal Janovij [PROj dát jeI svým*i/j p˘ráte˚um] Pavel-n ordered John-d give-inf them-a own-d friends-d ‘Paveli ordered Janj to give them to his*i/j friends.’ However if climbing does take place here, sv˚uj cannot be coreferential with a matrix object:


(18) *Paveli jeI Janovij p˘rikázal [dát svými/j p˘rátel˚um] Pavel-n them-a John-d ordered give-inf own-d friends-d The inability of Janovi to bind sv˚um follows from the RI structure, where neither Janovi or any coindexed category is a subject.15 This in turn is evidence for the hypothesis that a crucial distinction between RIs, which require climbing, and NRIs which do not allow it, is the presence of a subject only in the latter. NRIs therefore must have a source for PRO, that is v implicated in external argument selection, and a PRO licenser, that is T whether construed as the assigner of Chomsky and Lasnik’s (1995: 119–120) null Case or implicated in Borer’s (1989) anaphoric agreement (see Martin 2001; Landau 2000 respectively for development of these options); RIs must lack these.

.. Phasehood Chomsky (2000, 2001) develops a theory of cyclicity where certain categories called phases are granted special status because they define the domain of cyclic spell-out. As spell-out units, phases are independent at LF and PF. A consequence of the latter fact is that only they have sufficient PF-independence to undergo operations like fronting and (pseudo-)clefting. Independent considerations identify the CP and vP as phases, but not the TP (Chomsky 2000: 108–109, 144 Note 48, 2001: 14–15). Chomsky (2000: 106, 2001: 8, 43 Note 13) uses the PF-cohesion of phases to explain contrasts observed in Rizzi (1982), cited in Chomsky (1981: 62), between control and raising infinitives in fronting and (pseudo-)clefting constructions: only control complements may appear in them, diagnosing them as CP phases and raising complements as TP non-phases. The constructions may also involve complements that look like simple VPs, but Huang (1993) demonstrates for them the presence of a subject trace and therefore a vP phase. The following paradigms illustrate the effect: (19) a. b. c. d.

[vP Kiss Mary], I never expected that Kate would *[T’ Would kiss Mary], I never expected that Kate *[TP Kate would kiss Mary], I never expected that [CP That Kate would kiss Mary], I never expected

(20) a. What Kate wanted is [CP to kiss Mary] b. *What Kate seemed is [TP to kiss Mary] This PF-independence diagnostic of phasehood may be applied to clitic climbing. Rizzi (1978) observes that while complements of potential restructuring verbs in Italian may indeed appear in such constructions without clitic climbing, they may not if clitic climbing takes place (cf. Burzio 1986: 326; Wurmbrand 2001: 132f.). In terms of the present distinction, NRIs are therefore phases (CPs or vPs), while RIs are not (VPs, assuming they are not TPs).





Milan Rezac

Turning to Czech, while pseudoclefting is not a productive strategy, fronting is. As the following example shows, an infinitival complement with potential clitic climbing (21a) may undergo fronting, but only if clitic climbing does not take place(21b): Katka {muI } cht˘ela [být {muI } p˘redstavena] Kate-n him-d wanted be-inf him-d introduced ‘Kate immediately wanted to be introduced to him.’ b. [Být {muI } p˘redstavena] {*muI } cht˘ela Katka be-inf him-d introduced him-d wanted Kate-n ‘Kate immediately wanted to be introduced to him.’

(21) a.

okam˘zit˘e immediately okam˘zit˘e immediately

We thus conclude that NRIs are phases but RIs are not, converging with their analysis as VPs in Strotzer (1976) and Wurmbrand (2001).

.. Conclusion The preceding discussion has shown that infinitival complements subject to clitic climbing have no Case licensing and φ-agreement architecture for their internal arguments and no subject for binding-theoretic purposes; while complements that do not undergo climbing have these. One kind of infinitival complement, the NRI, is thus a CP and blocks clitic climbing; another kind, the RI, is a bare VP and requires climbing. Since the RI VP is the complement of a V, it shares the relevant Case licensing and φ-agreement functional architecture with the upstairs V. If cliticization involves relation to clausal functional architecture, for example because a clitic is deficient in the sense of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), then we have an explanatory account for why clitics must climb out of RIs. However, this leaves underspecified the actual mechanism by which clitics climb; much as saying that wh-phrases move for scope leaves underspecified the implementation of A’movement, which then may be through Agree between [Q-] on C and [Q], [wh-] on the wh-word as in Chomsky (2000: 128). The rest of this paper argues that argumental clitic movement is implemented by the same system as φ-agreement, Case assignment, and A-movement. Because it is limited to RIs which lack T and v, argumental clitic climbing, and by implication all argumental clitic movement, is limited to the domain of structural Case assignment, φ-feature agreement, and A-movement: the A-domain. Empirically, A-domains are always CP-bounded, while there is no limit on the number of predicates they main contain since they may encompass complex predicate constructions such as RIs and causatives (cf. Burzio 1986: 232, 258 for independent evidence from passivization in the latter). Chomsky (2000: 108) argues that the size and distribution of A-domains is derivable from the mechanism that underlies the φ/Case/A-movement system, the A-system. Each A-domain consists of a single functional category with uninterpretable φ-features and the ability to assign


structural Case, e.g. T for nominative and v for accusative, and all material in its c-command domain as far as locality constraints on the Probe-Goal system (Relativized Minimality) permit. Considering a simple transitive construction, then, we have the A-domain of v c-commanded by the A-domain of T: (22)

Limitation to A-domains thus begins the argument that clitic movement is driven by the A-system. In the next section we will see that in cases where more than one DP falls into an A-domain, there are certain limitations on the A-system mechanism which show up as limitations on the licensing of multiple DPs in monoclausal constructions. They will also turn out to predict patterns of clitic climbing. The results show that argumental clitics are displaced within the A-domain by the Asystem, which treats them as other DPs, with which they therefore interact. Clitics, or more neutrally the clitic-base position relation, do not have the option of skipping the A-system nor of using the long-distance A’-system (contrast Sportiche 1996: 244, 251–260 respectively for French clitics). Rather, the picture that will emerge is one where the displacement of a clitic is driven by the A-system, modulo possibly a very short and largely inert final step of cliticization itself.

. Clitic climbing, Case, and agreement . Interaction between Case and climbing The results of the previous section indicate that in order for clitic climbing to occur, the target position and the base position must be within a single A-domain, which suggests that argumental clitic climbing is implemented by the A-system. The functional layers that block climbing are a barrier to the A-system as well. In this section, we will turn to a constraint on climbing that is initially of quite a different nature. This constraint allows clitics to climb only when the overall configuration of Case patterns between the target of climbing and the origin of the clitic matches certain criteria; otherwise climbing is blocked, and a non-restructuring structure is forced on the infinitive. The claim about the constraint will be that it shows up independently for DPs in constructions with only a single predicate, and that it follows from the basic derivational mechanics of the A-system. The constraint can be stated as follows, where I make the usual assumption that the position of a clitic is necessarily outside of the basic thematic domain, the VP; on Cardinaletti and Starke’s (1999) proposal for example that follows because





Milan Rezac

clitics require licensing by clausal functional categories whose counterparts they themselves lack, unlike full DPs. (23) Where Θ is the theta-related position of a clitic and K its final position, and co-indexing indicates the theta-selection relation between a verb and an argument, α cannot be accusative or the copy/trace of an accusative in the following configuration (linear order irrelevant): K. . . [. . . Vj . . . αj . . . [. . . Vi . . . Θi . . . ]] In the possible combinations of Case-marked arguments in Czech in a potentially climbing construction, where we restrict ourselves to the dative and accusative, (23) rules out clitic movement past a non-co-argument accusative: (24) Climbing allowed: V1 [V2 D2 /A2 ] V1 D1 [V2 D2 /A2 ] Climbing blocked: V1 A1 [V2 D2 /A2 ] If V1 has no arguments, climbing is free for all argumental clitics that instantiate arguments of V2 : (25) Dana muI hoI cht˘ela ukázat Dana-n him-d him-a wanted show-inf ‘Dana wanted to show him to him.’ If V1 has a dative argument, whether that is itself a clitic or a dative DP, climbing of an accusative clitic is fine:16 (26) Dana {ti} hoI {Iren˘e} doporu˘cila poslat dom˚u Dana-n you-d him-a Irena-d recommended send-inf home ‘Dana recommended to you/Irene to send him home.’ If V1 has an accusative argument, no climbing is allowed. This is true regardless of whether the argument of V1 is a clitic or a full DP, showing we are not dealing with a clitic-specific or morpho(phono)logical constraint. Furthermore, the position of the accusative DP intervener is not really relevant; left and right-peripheral positioning improves the sentence only slightly. (27) a. *Dana muI ho/Irenu p˘rinutila pomoc Dana-n him-d him-a/Irene-a forced help-inf ‘Dana forced him/Irene to help him.’ b. ??{Irenu} muI Dana p˘rinutila pomoc {Irenu} Irena-a him-d Dana-n forced help-inf Irena-a ‘Dana forced Irene to help him.’


(27) is fine without climbing – if the clitic does not climb, or if the downstairs argument is realized as a full DP. In that case, the infinitive is an NRI; for example, it counts as a separate binding domain, allowing the subject-oriented possessive sv˚uj to be bound by the matrix object via PRO: (28) Danai hoj /Pavlaj p˘rinutila pomoc svýmj/*i nep˘rátel˚um Dana-n him-a/Pavel-a forced help-inf own enemies-d ‘Dana forced him/Paul to help his/*her (own) enemies.’ The restriction (23) is not limited to Czech. It has been extensively investigated in Rivas (1977: Chapter 5) for climbing and causative constructions in Spanish (as well as French and Italian), and the pattern is the same as described here for Czech.17 Rivas’s proposal is that (23) follows from a filter on possible clitic sequences (CL stands for clitic): (29) CL Filter: The only possible order among CLs is refl dat acc. (Rivas 1977: 171) The filter blocks both permutations of this order and the realization of one slot by more than one clitic, the latter deriving (23). However, it only applies to clitic sequences, whereas an important aspect of (23) is that the illegitimate accusative intervener α can be a full DP. Rivas accordingly assumes that there is universal clitic doubling of dative and accusative DPs regardless of whether it can show up, as variously in Spanish dialects, or not, as in standard French or in Czech; his CL Filter then applies correctly to the covert clitic double of α in (23) even if α is a full DP. As a start on an explanatory theory of (23), we may observe that an abstractly similar restriction constrains Case patterns in faire-type causatives in Romance and elsewhere (Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 379). The generalization for such causatives is that if the embedded verb is unaccusative, its sole DP argument shows up with accusative assigned by the matrix causative verb; if it is transitive, its external argument must become dative: LosI hice caminar toda la noce them-a made-1.sg walk-inf all the night ‘I made them walk all night.’ (Spanish; Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 380) b. LesI hice poner sus nombres en la lista them-d made-1.sg put-inf their names in the list ‘I made them put their names on the list.’ (Spanish; Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 380)

(30) a.

As Aissen and Perlmutter (1983: 385) and others observe, clitic climbing in such causatives is obligatory, showing we are dealing with obligatory RIs (se is the form le(s) takes before another clitic):



 Milan Rezac

(31) Se/LeI {lasI } hice buscar {*lasI } her-d them-a made-1.sg seek-inf them-a ‘I made her look for them.’ (Spanish; Aissen & Perlmutter 1983: 385) There is thus a single A-domain for both verbs (cf. Burzio 1986: 232, 258 for matrix passivization of embedded causee and theme in Italian), and arguments of the infinitive are necessarily dependent on the A-system of the matrix verb. The Case of the causee in these causatives is independent of clitic climbing. However, both it and the constraint in (23) are restrictions on possible Case patterns, and both refer to the effect of an accusative as distinct from a dative intervening between a Case licenser and another accusative. We see that in both causatives and RIs, the infinitive and the matrix predicate fall into a single A-domain. Thus, we can unify the two patterns as a constraint on possible A-domains, if we assume that the constraint on climbing in (23) is really a constraint on the A-system, and that therefore there is no argumental clitic climbing except through the A-system. The unification can then be stated as follows, with an eye on full generality and assuming the approach to the A-system in Chomsky (2000): (32) The Case Licensing Generalization: In the following configuration, where F is a φ/Case head and DPβ is assigned structural Case by / φ-agrees with / is A-moved by F, DPα must not have structural Case: [F . . . DPα . . . . DPβ ] where (a) v assigns accusative and T assigns nominative, while (b) the dative is not a structural Case nor does it allow φ-agreement. For (23), DPα is a matrix object that intervenes in climbing of the clitic DPβ through the A-system; for causatives, DPα is the causee and DPβ the theme. In both cases, DPβ cannot be in a bare VP when DPα is accusative, which forces an NRI structure for infinitives and blocks a causative construction altogether. The Case Licensing Generalization is a universal generalization about Adomains, and should show up whenever we find combinations of multiple DPs in the domain of a single φ/Case head. In the next section, we will verify this prediction by seeing that it holds of the arguments of a single predicate as well. This will lead in Section 3.3 to deriving the generalization from the locality constraints on A-system mechanics.

. The Case Licensing Generalization The Case Licensing Generalization is in part inherent in the syntactic approaches to Case since Chomsky (1981), which require the closest eligible DP to a Case licenser to receive Case and ignore DPs that bear inherent Case. A problem for this approach historically arose from the ‘quirky’ Case phenomenon: instances of DPs


with inherent Case that are eligible for A-movement, unlike DPs/PPs with inherent Case that are inert, but that are assigned theta-related morphological Case and do enter into the φ-agreement and structural Case assignment system, which can instead target a farther DP. Quirky Case DPs are found along the path of both T-nominative and vaccusative A-systems. In the former, we find quirky subjects in languages like Icelandic, where a dative subject qualifies for A-movement to [Spec, TP] but does not interfere between T and its nominative assignment to and number agreement with a lower DP (Zaenen et al. 1985); examples come from psych-verbs and passives of double object ditransitives (see Chomsky 2000: 126–128; Rezac 2001; Anagnostopoulou 2003: 104f. for this analysis T-dative-nominative Case checking and agreement in these constructions): (33) Jóni1 voru [VP t 1 gefnir þessir sokkar] John-d were-3.pl given these socks-pl.n ‘John was given these socks.’ (Icelandic; Jónsson 1996: 148) In the v-accusative system, we find interfering along the path between v and the accusative datives with theta-related morphological Case that are nevertheless eligible for A-movement like Object Shift, and that become quirky subjects in passive constructions. Examples are dative goals of ditransitives in the double object construction, which undergo Object Shift in the following example; see Richards (1997: 92–93), Rezac (2001, 2002) for this analysis of v-dative-accusative pattern here: (34) Ég 1 gef Jóni2 ekki [vP t1 [VP t2 þessa sokka]] I-n give John-d not these socks-a ‘I will not give John these socks.’ (Icelandic; Jónsson 1996: 147) The reason why quirky Case DPs may enter into the A-system is not crucial in this section: it has been proposed that they are displaced by the EPP/D property of their target (Schütze 1993), that they bear a defective or partial Case feature (Belletti & Rizzi 1988; Chomsky 2000: 127–128), or that they are displaced because they enter the φ-system partially (Chomsky 2000: 128, 130–131; Rezac 2001; Anagnostopoulou 2003: Chapter 5, this volume, Béjar & Rezac 2003; cf. the next section). What is crucial is that in all instances where multiple DPs enter into the A-system in a single A-domain, we find that the Case Licensing Generalization holds. A DP between the φ/Case head of an A-domain (T, v) and the corresponding DP that gets structural Case (nominative, accusative) must not itself have full structural Case and/or value φ-agreement. Much work bears this out. To be sure, apparent counterexamples exist in the form of transitives whose two internal arguments are accusative, even if we eliminate predicative structures (the only kind to allow double nominatives as well),



 Milan Rezac

cognate objects, and adverbial accusative objects: setting aside the first group completely, in the latter two cases a cognate or adverbial accusative is not structural if there is another accusative (see Zaenen et al. 1985: 472f.). This leaves a group of verbs like teach, pay, and serve which take two accusative arguments in various languages. However, Anagnostopoulou (2001) shows that even here, the second accusative is not structural. In Czech, this is reflected by the fact that such verbs allow only the first accusative argument to be cliticized or to become nominative under passivization; examples of such verbs are nau˘cit ‘to teach’ and krmit ‘feed’: (35) a.

Nau˘cil jsem ho zem˘epis taught am him-a geography-a ‘I taught him geography.’ b. *Nau˘cil jsem ho Honzu taught am him-a Honza-a ‘I taught it to Honza.’

(36) a.

?Honza

ho byl nau˘cen Honza-n him-a was taught ‘Honza was taught geography.’ b. *Zemˇepis ho byl nau˘cen geography-n him-a was taught ‘Geography was taught to him.’

It remains a point of investigation exactly how the second accusative is assigned. Holmberg and Platzack (1995: 205f.) treat the other apparent exception to the Case Licensing Generalization, where an accusative c-commands a dative in a class of ditransitive verbs in Icelandic, and show that as expected the dative is in fact beyond the reach of the A-system; it cannot undergo Object Shift or become a quirky subject. The Case Licensing Generalization thus holds empirically in A-domains containing a single predicate, as well as in the restructuring and causative constructions we saw in the previous section. In the Chomsky (2000) approach to the A-system, the Case Licensing Generalization follows from the fact that a DP without inherent Case fully matches and values the uninterpretable features of the φ/Case head of an A-domain (its Probe): specifically, it values uninterpretable φ-features through the Agree operation, gets assigned Case as a reflex of this, and can move to satisfy the EPP.18 In other words, the relation between a φ/Case head and a DP with structural Case is necessarily symmetric and unique: the φ and Case requirements of both categories are satisfied by the relationship, and locality allows only the closest such pair to relate. By contrast, DPs with inherent Case, or DPs with ‘quirky’ Case however it is implemented, can evidently never value φ-features since they never trigger agreement, even if they undergo A-movement. This allows a relationship


between a φ/Case head and a more remote DP. The Case Licensing Generalization follows in A-domains generally. We thus reach the conclusion that the original constraint (23) on clitic climbing constructions is a specific instance of a more general observation, the Case Licensing Generalization, which itself results from the mechanics of the A-system. This is significant independent evidence added to the limitation of climbing to Adomains that climbing is implemented by the A-system. In the next two sections, we will look in more detail at A-system mechanics, and see that both the dative > accusative ordering of argumental clitics and a special constraint on person combinations in clitic clusters follows from a more articulated statement thereof.

. The A-system The Case Licensing Generalization allows a DPα without full structural Case (quirky) to enter into the A-system with a φ/Case head F if situated between F and the closest DPF with full structural Case: (37) F . . . DPα . . . DPF Examples of such quirky Case DPs were given in the previous section: Icelandic dative subjects that undergo movement for EPP, and dative primary objects in the double object construction that undergo Object Shift. The investigation of these constructions has yielded an important result: DPα and DPF may both undergo A-movement triggered by a relation to F via the A-system, and they may undergo such movement alone or jointly; but the ccommand relation between DPα and DPF must be preserved. The patterns of A-movement are accordingly the following: (38)

DPα DPF

DPα *DPF DPF DPα

F F F F F

. . . DPα . . . tα . . . DPα . . . tα . . . tF

... ... ... ... ...

DPF > by A-movement DPF tF tF tα

This result is argued for A-movement in Icelandic by Richards (1997: 92–93) and Rezac (2001, 2002). To exemplify, the possible A-positions of the dative goal and accusative theme in a double object construction active ditransitive in Icelandic are exhaustively given in the following example, where the negation ekki demarcates the left edge of the vP: (39) Ég lána {ekki} Maríu {ekki} bækurnar {ekki} I-n lend not Maria-d not books-a not ‘I do not lend Maria the books.’ (Collins & Thráinsson 1996: 406)



 Milan Rezac

A-movement of either argument is allowed, but their in-situ order must be preserved. Richards (1997) shows that order preservation under movement is a general characteristic of multiple specifier constructions, here of the head F. Chomsky (2000: 131), Anagnostopoulou (2003), and Rezac (2001, 2002) argue that F necessarily enters into relations with the DPs in its A-domain in this same order: the F-DPα relation must be established first, yielding A-movement, and only then can the F-DPF relation be established, optionally also yielding A-movement which ‘tucks in’ under the first movement.19 The pattern in (38) is exactly the pattern we find with multiple clitic climbing. As discussed in Section 1, argumental clitics in Czech necessarily display the dative > accusative order. This holds true whether the clitics are co-arguments of a single predicate or distributed across several predicates in a climbing construction. The Case Licensing Generalization dictates that in all cases, the only possible combination in the cliticization domain will be dative > accusative; the tuckingin constraint requires that this order be preserved. Construing argumental clitic movement as movement due to the A-system, then, independently predicts the correct ordering of argumental clitics. The next section will show that this yields one further result: it predicts an important limitation on the distribution of person features in argumental clitic clusters, the Person-Case Constraint.

. The Person-Case Constraint The Person-Case Constraint (PCC) is a universal condition on the distribution of marked person features. Bonet (1991: 177) characterizes it at a first approximation as the requirement that an accusative clitic or agreement morpheme be 3rd person if there is also a dative: (40) a.

Je le/*vous lui ai presenté I-n him-a/you-a her-d have introduced ‘I have introduced him/*you to her.’ (French) b. Je vous ai presenté à lui I-n you-a have introduced to her ‘I have introduced you to her.’ (French)

(41) Je le/*vousI luiI ai fait aider I-n her-a/you-a him-d have made help-inf ‘I have made him help her/*you.’ (French) In (40a) the accusative clitic is limited to the third person if there is also a dative clitic. In (40b) this is obviated because the dative is a PP in the prepositional construction, not a clitic originating as the high dative of the double object construc-


tion (cf. Kayne 1975: 134–169). Example (41) shows that the constraint applies to complex predicate constructions like causatives. Anagnostopoulou (2003: Chapter 5) and Béjar and Rezac (2003) argue that the PCC is a product of A-system mechanics: in the configuration T/v-dativenominative/accusative, the person φ-feature [π] on T/v cannot agree with the [π] feature of the nominative/accusative DP because of the intervention of the dative. On the implementation in Béjar and Rezac (2003), [π] on a φ/Case head (say v in ditransitives) enters into a relation with the closer dative DP, and the number φ-feature [#] then enters into a relation with the more distant DP, yielding number agreement and Case assignment. Both relations may result displacement (cliticization, A-movement), but only the second leads to feature valuation since Agree requires of the valuing DP to have structural Case (Chomsky 2000: 122–124): (42) v

DAT ACC [π] feature finds and displaces the dative [#] feature finds, Agrees with, and displaces the accusative

In such configurations then, the [π]-accusative/nominative relation is blocked. Béjar and Rezac (2003) claim that this leads to a crash if the latter is a clitic, because a marked 1st/2nd [π] feature on a deficient element must be licensed at LF by entering into an Agree relation with a functional category: the Person Licensing Condition (Béjar & Rezac 2003: 53). Thus there can be no 1st/2nd person clitics in such configurations, deriving the PCC. PPs, as in (40b), and full DPs, contain their own internal φ-head (P, D) which licenses their [π] feature (Béjar & Rezac 2003: 54–55; cf. the DP-internal γ’ complementizer of Cardinaletti & Starke 1999: 179–192). The PCC arises from locality conditions on the mechanics of the A-system, which is implemented through φ-agreement following Chomsky (2000). In Czech, the PCC holds in monoclausal constructions of dative-accusative clitics when the dative is a goal, experiencer, benefactive or possessive dative, but not with the dative of address (cf. Franks & King 2000: 106 on the PCC in Czech; Toman 1999: 217–220 on distinctions among dative clitics):20 (43) a.

Uká˘zu mu ho/??t˘e zítra show-1.sg him-d him-a/you-a tomorrow ‘I will show him/?*you to him tomorrow.’ b. Pozvu mu ho/?* t˘e zítra invite-1.sg him-d him-a/you-a tomorrow ‘I will invite him/?*you for his sake tomorrow.’ c. Vid˘el jsem mu ho/?* t˘e v rukou saw am him-d him-a/you-a in hands ‘I saw him/?*you in his hands.’

(goal/experiencer)

(benefactive)

(possessive)



 Milan Rezac

d. Vona ti ho/ t˘e ale nenávidí she-n you-d him-a/you-a but hates ‘You know, she really hates him/you.’

(address)

This distribution is one of the arguments given by Anagnostopoulou (2003: 302) and Béjar and Rezac (2003: 50) that the PCC applies in A-domains; datives of address are adverbial datives, not present in the A-system. Now just as in the French case (41), PCC in Czech applies in restructuring (climbing) constructions; this holds regardless of which predicate the two arguments originate with, so long as they share a clitic cluster: Honza mu hoI / jeI / ?* t˘eI poradil pozvat na Honza-n him-d him-a / them-a / you-a advised invite-inf for ve˘ce˘ri supper ‘Honza advised him to invite him/them/?*you for supper.’ hoI / jeI / ?* t˘eI chce ukázat b. Honza muI Honza-n him-d him-a / them-a / you-a wants show-inf ‘Honza wants to show him/them/?*you to him.’

(44) a.

Non-restructuring constructions, where there is no climbing, do not show the PCC: (45) Honza mu poradil pozvat tˇeI / hoI na ve˘ce˘ri Honza-n him-d advised-3.sg invite-inf you-a / him-a for supper ‘Honza advised him to invite you/him for supper.’ The application of the PCC to climbing constructions in exactly the same form as to clitic combinations belonging to a single predicate shows that the two should receive a unified analysis. The works cited above argue that the PCC is a consequence of the mechanics of the A-system, providing one further argument that argumental clitic climbing, as an instance of argumental clitic movement generally, is driven by the A-system.21

. Appendix: The double dative ban I end this section with a discussion of a constraint on clitic climbing that has not been subsumed under the Case Licensing Generalization.22 Clitic climbing is additionally blocked in Czech for a dative clitic if the matrix verb contains a dative argument, where we have seen that accusative climbing is fine:

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

Dana {*muI } doporu˘cila Iren˘e pomoc {muI } s mytím Dana-n him-d advised Irena-d help-inf him-d with washing.up *with climbing, o.k. without: ‘Dana advised Irene to help him with washing up.’ (matrix clitic: ‘Dana advised him to help Irene with washing up.’) b. Dana {*muI } doporuˇcila Irenˇe dát {muI } knihu. Dana-n him-d advised Irena-d give him-d book-a *with climbing, o.k. without: ‘Dana advised Irene to give him a book.’ (matrix clitic: ‘Dana advised him to give Irene a book.’)

(46) a.

This prohibition is found in Czech against all constructions with two argumental datives, clitic or not. First, Czech has no double dative ditransitives such as are found for example in Icelandic (Holmberg & Platzack 1995: 185f.). Second, considering the addition of possessive dative arguments to simple transitive constructions (see Landau 1999 on a recent treatment), the following contrast shows that such a dative is fine if added to a clause with the verb pohlídat ‘watch’ which takes an accusative object, but bad if added to pomoc ‘help’ which takes dative object:23 (47) a.

Dana mu / Pavlovi pohlídá Dana-n him-d Pavel-d watch ‘Dana will watch his/Paul’s kids.’ b. ??Dana mu / Pavlovi pom˚u˘ze Dana-n him-d Pavel-d help ‘Dana will help his/Paul’s kids.’

d˘eti kids-a d˘etem kids-d

Whatever is at work here, it is not morphological, since a full DP triggers it in (46), and it limits combinations of dative arguments, since a dative of address is not affected by it. Thus mu could be replaced by the dative of address ti in the above example to yield a grammatical example “Dana will watch/help the kids, you know.” This constraint does not have the same cross-linguistic scope as the other consequences of the A-system described above: the constraint (23), the PCC, or the ban on ditransitives with two structural accusative objects that arises from the Case Licensing Generalization. Limiting ourselves to clitic or agreement sequences, we find that like Czech in banning double datives is Spanish (Rivas 1977: 89f., 169f., 205f.) and French (Kayne 1975: 174–175), but not Italian (Rivas 1977: 212f.) or Choctaw (Davies 1986: 45, 53–55, 116).24 Casting the net a little wider, generalizations are not simple in this domain. Landau (1999: 20) observes that in constructions like (47) above, Hebrew dative objects resist the addition of a possessor dative DP but not of a possessor dative clitic. In French, both a possessor dative DP and clitic are fine with another argumental dative, unless both cliticize.25 Czech,

 Milan Rezac

Hebrew, French, and Italian thus make for pair-wise contrasts in this matter; and throughout, it is not clear how much can be attributed to what differences, such as the availability of analyzing the relevant datives as high and low (cf. Note 24 for French). The problem seems closely connected or identical to the treatment of dative objects of transitives (unergatives) and of ditransitives, when embedded under the faire-type causatives which requires that the external argument causee become dative (see Section 3.1). The options for cliticization or agreement of the dative object vary significantly within languages and among speakers; and failure to do so results varyingly in ungrammaticality or not. For many speakers of French, for example, there is no way to replace à Pierre in (48a) with a pronoun, since a pronominal goal must cliticize, there is no cliticization site in the infinitive, and two argumental dative clitics are ruled out in the matrix clause. For many speakers of Italian, the analogous (48b) is fine (gli gli being realized as gli ci): (48) a.

À Jean, Marie les lui fera porter à Pierre to Jean Marie-n them-a him-d will.make bring-inf to Pierre ‘Jean, Marie will make him take them to Pierre.’ (cf. Kayne 1975: 290) b. Gli ci ho fatto scrivere him-d him-d have-1.sg made write-inf ‘I made him write to her.’ (Rivas 1977: 214)

For Romance these issues are discussed among others by Kayne (1975: 281f, 309f.), Rivas (1977: 205–219), Burzio (1986: 240–247, 257–258, 273), and arise in various forms elsewhere such as Basque, which prefers to simply omit agreement with the dative object, and Georgian, which does so as well but by putting the dative object into a distinct PP. Of the various directions to explore, for example that some datives but not others require structural Case checking which Landau (1999: 20) suggests for Hebrew, none seem to me to make much inroad into the range of variation at this point.26 I leave the matter in this unsatisfactory state.

. Conclusion: Clitic movement in the syntax Within the Principles and Parameters framework, the richest analyses of clitics exist for the Romance languages (see the papers collected in Borer 1986, for example). Much of the discussion has concerned the question of whether argumental clitics are to be analyzed as relating to their thematic position by the same mechanism that underlies movement (e.g. Kayne 1975, 1989; Sportiche 1996: 244), or by the mechanism that underlies pronominal binding and/or PRO control phenomena (Rivas 1977; Jaeggli 1982; Borer 1983; Burzio 1986). As Sportiche (1996: 223f.) points

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

out, the arguments for a movement relation remain persuasive. Since argumental clitic movement is sensitive to islandhood constraints typical of movement and not that of binding or control chains, it or a concomitant of it should be analyzed as involving a movement chain.27 The present paper is an exploration of the evidence that Czech clitic climbing brings on the movement approach. In these constructions, the long distance relationship between the clitic and its gap lets us abstract from both very local processes like X0 -incorporation and prosodic inversion, and also somewhat from the relative freedom of ordering available to Czech. The latter is a non-trivial problem. ¯ and A-movement to the left periphThe language has available to it familiar A ery (Rezac 2004: Chapter 4), both interpretively neutral and interpretively marked scrambling into the middle field, remnant movement, left branch subextraction from subjects (Toman 1986), Long Head Movement (Rivero 1991), and a perhaps variable position for verb-raising within the TP aside from feature-driven verbraising (cf. Van˘ek 1977: 182f.; Veselovská 1995: Chapter 3). These all interact to map the right periphery to new information focus, the middle to the background, and ¯ the optional left periphery to discourse topic or various A-readings (cf. Veselovská 1995: Chapter 10). The following example is a good illustration, with the varying positions of the finite verb all available: (49) Honza {musel} to okno {musel} tady {musel} n˘ekde {musel} Honza-n must.have that window-a here somewhere vid˘et {musel}. see-inf ‘Honza must have seen the window somewhere here.’ The fact that the direct object to okno can be separated from the infinitive vid˘et by the matrix adverb tady requires scrambling; the finite verb can precede or follow its infinitival complement, one of which requires remnant movement since it contains the trace of to okno; and the finite verb may intervene between the infinitive and its locative adverb, calling for a more complicated analysis. Nevertheless, the language is thoroughly configurational, as the preceding references and others cited above make clear. Limiting ourselves to monoclausal constructions, the displacement possibilities make tempting an in-situ analysis of clitics, with other movements deriving the surface order (cf. Toman 1999 for such an approach). The distance between the left-peripheral target of clitic climbing and the rightperipheral position of the infinitive it climbs out of provides some control for this. For the rest, it is up to the coherence of the movement account of clitics to speak for itself. An investigation of the pattern of this movement has revealed that argumental clitic climbing is restricted to A-domains, shows intricate interactions with DPs

 Milan Rezac

along the path of movement, results in the same ordering pattern as multiple A-movement, and is subject to the Person-Case Constraint. These conclusions follow if the clitics obligatorily enter into the A-system, as implemented in Chomsky (2000) and related work, in order to cross the gap between their base-generated position and the functional categories that drive this system. The conclusions would be largely nullified if clitic climbing had available to it also A’-movement, capable of extracting a clitic from the A-domain in which it starts, of skipping parts of the A-system (cf. Sportiche 1996: 244), or of re-ordering the dative > accusative order. We thus conclude that clitic climbing is implemented solely by the A-system, modulo a possible cliticization step that does not have the unwanted side effects of A’-movement. Since the properties of monoclausal clitic movement are the same as that of clitic climbing in so far as can be seen – for example, there is less opportunity to explore clitic/DP interaction relative to Case – we may generalize to all argumental clitic movement. The conclusion dovetails nicely with Chomsky’s (1982: 64f., 87f.) demonstration that accusative clitics in Italian do not license parasitic gaps (a result difficult to test for Czech), for which the most straightforward explanation is that they are not in an A’-position. Given the systematic parallelism in the behavior of Czech and Romance argumental clitic movement which we have seen above in such matters as the domain of climbing, the Case Licensing Generalization, and the Person-Case Constraint, this is predicted. Their argumental clitic movement is the same, other differences between the languages aside (see Note 19).28 Beside dative and accusative argument clitics, the Czech second position clitic cluster also has adverbial clitics like the dative of address and the quotative particle prej; the clitics se/si; and genitive clitics. Adverbial clitics do not climb, presumably because they are generated in the CP/TP layer, and are not relevant here. The clitics se/si present issues familiar from the Romance group (Kayne 1975: 385ff.; Burzio 1986: 36–53), as well as some special problems of their own (Van˘ek 1977: 223–224, 233 Note 34). Finally, the omission of the genitive is significant. Genitive clitics in Czech come in two varieties. One are genitive arguments with a few verbs, such as bát se ‘to fear’ or litovat ‘regret (with genitive), feel pity for (with accusative)’. The other are genitive DP complements of numeral quantifiers, similar to the partitive use of the en/ne clitics of Romance (Toman 1986). Both can climb: Tak jsem seI jichI pomalu p˘restal bát so am se them-g slowly stopped fear-inf ‘So I slowly stopped fearing them.’ b. V˘cera jsem jichI šel koupit p˘et yesterday am them-g gone buy-inf five-a ‘Yesterday I went to buy five of them.’

(50) a.


The distribution of the latter would correctly fit into this system if they target a functional projection between T and v, a QP category available for short A’movement after which the clitic freezes in its scope position. There is considerable evidence for such a category in that position: for example movement of quantifiers like tout and rien in French (Sportiche 1988; Starke 2001: 68f.), negative and quantified object movement in Icelandic (Svenonius 2000 and references therein), wh-movement in Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2001). However, I have no suggestions to offer on how genitive arguments fit into the A-system, and thus on how they climb. In order for the patterns of dative and accusative cliticization to follow from the A-system, any other step involved in clitic movement must have severely limited powers. In particular, it must not be allowed to move a clitic out of an A-domain, to violate the Case Licensing Generalization by attracting a dative clitic past an accusative clitic, and to reorder the tucking-in dative > accusative cluster. It is possible that there is no such step in Czech, and the second position requirement of the clitic is satisfied by a combination of other movements; Toman (1999) explores such an approach. Alternatively, there is a step of presumably X0 -incorporation into some functional category. This would be fed by the A-system along the lines of Sportiche’s proposal reviewed in Sportiche (1996: 244), where clitics undergo XPmovement to a landing site from which clitic-to-head incorporation takes place. The amount of cross-linguistic variation in this domain is large: second position clitics differ strikingly from Romance-style head-adjoined clitics, and within Romance clitic ordering shows both dative > accusative and accusative > dative orders as well as ordering principles based on such features as person (see Bonet 1991; Desouvrey, this volume; Nicol, this volume). In this respect, weak object pronouns in Icelandic (Jónsson 1996: 54–55, 67– 69) make for a particularly good comparison with Czech. Like Object Shifted arguments, they must keep the dative > accusative order (cf. ex. (39) above); but unlike them, they cannot be separated from T by adverbs (51a). Thus cliticization is involved. Nevertheless, T-to-C movement in (51b) separates the verb in T from the clitic by moving it over the subject, showing that there is no incorporation of the Romance kind: (51) a.

Jón las {ðað/bókina} líklega {*ðað/?bókina} aldrei John-n read it-a/book-a probably it-a/book-a never ‘John probably never read it.’ (Jónsson 1996: 68) b. Samt las {*ðað} Jón {ðað} ekki yet read it-a John-n it-a not ‘Yet John has not read it.’ (Jónsson 1996: 55)

We thus have here XP A-movement feeding a cliticization step that brings the clitic into adjacency to T, but that does not actually incorporate it into T and lets T-to-C movement separate it from the verb in T. Again, the step of cliticization need not be



 Milan Rezac

an actual movement of the clitic, but rather a requirement on the part of the clitic that filters derivations where an adverb ends up intervening between it and T. The fact that the phonological content of the functional category targeted by cliticization can displace without the clitic is promising. It offers a parallel the fact that the Czech second position cluster is not tied to any overt head or designated specifier. It is simply after the first XP, whatever may fill it regardless of interpretation and movement, and wherever the verb may be. Importantly, the cliticization step is limited: essentially, it can pull clitics out of the last step of A-movement, keep the ordering given by the A-system, and move them a short distance to a designated functional category within the same clause. The syntax otherwise manipulates clitics not as clitics, but on a clitic-independent basis as full XPs, by the same A-system that produces XP A-movement. The extensions to se clitics and genitive clitics suggested above offer the possibility that all properties of the cluster except for clustering reflect clitic-independent syntactic properties.

Notes * I would like to thank Elizabeth Cowper and Diane Massam for comments on earlier versions of this paper, and to the audiences of CLA 1999 and FASL 9 where they were presented. For the present version, I am indebted to Lorie Heggie for detailed comments and for encouragement, and to anonymous reviewers who helped improve the presentation. This work was partly funded by SSHRC grant #752-2000-1545. . What counts as a clitic can be determined by combinations of standard diagnostics (see Cardinaletti & Starke 1999 for a recent synthesis): for example, clitics cannot be modified, conjoined, focused, and independently positioned, while non-clitics cannot appear inside a clitic cluster. These tests reveal that elements like t˘e are necessarily clitics (with non-clitic counterparts like tebe), while others like nám are only optionally so (cf. Toman 1999: 224– 225). Although the cluster is largely transparent, there are certain morphophonological variants: for example, by-jsi-se consisting of the conditional auxiliary, the 2.sg. perfect auxiliary, and the se clitic, can also take the form by-se-s. The description here is close to common spoken Czech of the central (Prague) variety. . Other variation, discussed in Franks and King (2000: 110–117), is along two parameters: (a) the nature of the second position; (b) the integrity of the cluster with respect to parentheticals. The following examples from Jaroslav Ha˘sek’s Osudy dobrého vojáka ˘svejka (c. ˘ 1920; citation from the edition by Ceskoslovenský spisovatel, Praha, 1966; Vol. III–IV, p. 33) illustrate both; the examples are Hašek’s rendering of colloquial Prague speech of his time. They are marked in the dialect described here. (i)

. . . ˘ze musejí taky ty vostatní páni se tak na to dívat . . . that must-3.pl also those other sirs-n se so at it look-inf ‘. . . that the other sirs must also look at it in this way.’


(ii) V˘zdyt’ já jsem, pane obrlajtnant, se vás taky hned indeed I-n am sir lieutenant.commander se you-pl.a also immediately ptal po telefonu. . . asked-sg.m by telephone ‘And indeed I did immediately ask you by telephone, sir lieutenant commander. . . ’ . The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: N for nominative, A for accusative, D for dative, G for genitive, sg/pl number, 1/2/3 person, M/F/NEUT for masculine, feminine and neuter gender, inf infinitive, cond conditional, se a clitic with a reflexive, impersonal (passive or middle), ergative, and inherent functions. Czech is a pro-drop language; pro is indicated by agreement on the verb, which is always glossed, while agreement with an overt nominative is only for clarity. Clitics in examples are in bold type throughout. . See Aissen and Perlmutter (1983: 401 Note 31) for the history of the proposals by Aissen and Perlmutter, Rizzi, and Rivas in 1974-6. The other principal approach to restructuring phenomena basically takes the structure of RIs and NRIs to be the same in terms of base-generation, and then exploits V or VP-movement of the infinitive to eliminate various barriers to movement: see Rizzi (1978), Rivas (1977: 132), Burzio (1986: 322f.), Kayne (1989, 1991), Roberts (1997). . This article was originally written referring to Wurmbrand’s dissertation, Wurmbrand (1998), from which the published Wurmbrand (2001) significantly differs in certain respects: particularly in observing that alongside bare VP infinitives, there are others with a fuller clause structure which are nevertheless transparent to a subset of restructuring diagnostics such as focus fronting. In the latter work therefore, the point is made more strongly made that the various restructuring diagnostics should be directly correlated to their explanatory causes such as the absence of a particular functional projection, and that they pattern together to the extent they share a single cause: the absence of v for example is responsible for both the absence of a base-generated subject and transparency to accusative Case assignment. Since this had been the approach pursued in this paper, the relevant results of Wurmbrand (1998) do not change. The class of RIs at hand in Czech are the lexical restructuring infinitives of Wurmbrand (2001: Chapter 2, 4), which are bare VPs in the sense of lacking CP, TP, and most crucially vP. Page references have been updated to Wurmbrand (2001). I am greatly indebted to Susana Béjar for providing me with a copy against considerable odds at the last minute. . This is not intended as a proposal for the English verbs try and advise; English probably lacks this kind of restructuring entirely (cf. Landau 2000). Head movement is not indicated, and the details of DP movement will vary across languages. See also Note 10. . Since this is independently of some interest and not treated elsewhere for Czech (to my knowledge), (i) gives some examples. The sole argument here is not a subject, as in the analogous Icelandic construction (Sigurðsson 1991): it cannot be controlled PRO or bind subject-oriented anaphora. Direct objects of infinitival complements of these verbs get accusative, not the agreeing nominative of Icelandic. This is thus best viewed as a species of object control and the matrix verbs have null expletive subjects, as in the English translations.



 Milan Rezac

(i)

Líbí se mui / vadí mui / ˘stve hoi [PROi please-3.sg se him-d / inconvenience-3.sg him-d / bother-3.sg him-a vstávat brzo] get.up-inf early ‘It pleases him / inconveniences him / bothers him to get up early.’

. In general, the second position requirement for clitics within infinitival clauses may be satisfied in two ways: the clitic may be placed after the first constituent of the embedded clause, or alternatively before the first constituent, in which case the matrix clause apparently counts as the first element towards satisfying the requirement. . As in other languages, there are exceptions like (i), of the same type as those for which Wurmbrand (2001: 105f.) suggests an idiomatic structure with the wh-word not in the CP layer. (i)

Nemám ti co dát neg-have-1.sg you-d what-a give-inf ‘I don’t have anything to give you.’

. A reviewer questions whether RIs are truly bare VPs, lacking even aspectual markers. The issue is addressed inconclusively in Wurmbrand (2001: 105f.) for infinitival markers like English to, German zu, and Spanish a, which can or must precede the relevant infinitives. Interesting in this respect is Rivas (1977: 163–164, 175–176) who observes that Spanish infinitives are preceded by the preposition and Case marker a if the other object of the verb is an accusative, and not so preceded if it is a dative; it is not clear to what extent this generalizes. The absence of structure in RIs in this paper is crucial only in so far as it is the absence of Case/φ-categories, or even more cautiously, their ability to assign Case and agree for φ-features with the infinitive’s arguments. The same point is made in Wurmbrand (2001: 99f.). . The construction is known in the literature on Romance as impersonal-passive se with (long) object raising/preposing/movement: cf. Burzio (1986: 46f.) for monoclausal construction and Burzio (1986: 325f.) for biclausal ones. . Agreeing nominative is preferred with monoclausal constructions, accusative with objects of infinitival complements. Cf. Sigurðsson (1996: 27, 29–30) on such variation in agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic, and Chomsky (2000: 148 Note 88 for comments). . The anaphor is strictly subject-oriented, and cannot be bound even by the indirect object of a ditransitive, as is sometimes possible elsewhere (cf. Maling 1990: 285–286 Note 6 for Icelandic). Toman (1992) shows that apparent exceptions to this generalization in Czech happen only when the anaphor is bound by a small clause subject. . I owe this observation to Diane Massam, p.c., who commented on the original version of this work (12/1998). A complementary test for PRO, the possibility of split/partial control (Wurmbrand 2001: 236f.), confirms these results: Rezac (2000: 243) shows that it is possible only if there is no climbing. . Interestingly, the matrix subject cannot bind the anaphor either. A possibility is that (beside agreement / [Spec, TP]) any specifier β creates a minimal binding domain for α except if α and β are co-arguments. A dative in [Spec, ApplP] would then define a binding


domain for any argument of an RI since it is not a co-argument of it, but presumably still not count as a subject for the quite different requirement of binding subject-oriented anaphora. . Climbing of a dative past a dative is also blocked, but for different reasons, which do not block such sequences in clitic systems universally; I return to it in Section 3.5. . Rivas (1977) came to my attention after this paper was in substantially its present form; the cross-linguistic corroboration lends strong support to deriving the constraint at hand from universal mechanics of the A-system. . Chomsky (2000) argues that φ-agreement and Case assignment cannot be separated, and both are implemented by checking (valuing) of φ-features; A-movement piggy-backs on this system if the φ/Case head also has an EPP feature. In the Chomsky (1995) system, EPP (as [D-] and/or [N-]), Case, and φ-features can enter into checking separately (cf. Schütze 1993); but a DP without inherent Case will always check all these features through the free rider principle (Chomsky 1995: 265), deriving Case Licensing Generalization as well. . These works actually argue for a stronger conclusion: displacement of DPα must take place in order for the F-DPF relation to occur at all. It might seem that this conclusion runs afoul of examples like (26); however, I suspect that in Czech short A’-movement of the dative obviates this requirement, as argued for apparent Icelandic nominatives below shifted objects in Rezac (2002). Note that the analogue of (26) in Spanish, which has more limited word order options, does require overt dislocation of the intervening DP (Rivas 1977: 186–188; the clitic le doubles a José): (i)

hizó {*a José1 } tocar la flauta {a José1 } María le1 I play-inf the flute to José María him-d made to José ‘María made José play the flute.’

. The examples are construed only with t˘e, since the other accusative 1st/2nd person clitics are homophonous with the independent pronouns. The strength of the PCC varies cross-linguistically in various ways (see Anagnostopoulou, this volume, on one). The degradation it causes in Czech seems milder than for example in French and Basque, where the ungrammaticality is quite severe (thanks respectively to Mélanie Jouitteau and Aritz Irurtzun for discussion); the same contrast obtains between these languages and the milder deviance many English speakers find in John showed me ’m vs. John showed ’m *me/ME (Bonet 1991: 185). I would conjecture that this has to do with the position of the accusative on the clitic-weak-full pronoun scale of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), which reflects the richness of the functional layer and thus its ability to license [π] internally. The prevailing homophony of Czech clitics and full pronouns commented on in Toman (1999: 224–225) supports this picture. . The PCC might explain Rivas’ (1977: 172) observation that in Spanish, accusative clitic climbing from a potential RI into a matrix clause that already contains a dative clitic argument is the unmarked option if the accusative is inanimate, and the marked one if it is animate; cf. Ormazabal and Romero (forthcoming) on PCC with animate 3rd person arguments in Spanish. . The sketchy attempt to proceed along those lines in Rezac (2000: 241–242) did not take into account the range of variation here.



 Milan Rezac . Toman (1999: 218) has (i) as illustration of the possibilities of multiple datives, with the corresponding translation. I find it strained; but there is a definite contrast between (i) and the examples in the text. I suspect that mi here is not really an argumental dative, and would compare the whole ti mi with the use of the sequence te me in colloquial French (ii), to indicate that the matter under discussion concerns the speaker and the addressee (pointed out to me by Mélanie Jouitteau & Nicolas Berthomeau, 08/2002). (i)

U˘z ti mi jí nikdo nepomáhal already you-d me-d her-d no.one-n neg-helped ‘I’ll tell you, nobody helped her any longer.’

(ii) Je vais te me les (lui) mater, par Jupiter I-n go you-d me-d them-a him-d kill by Jupiter ‘I’m going to kill them (for him), by Jupiter.’ (Le domaine des dieux, une aventure d’Astérix le Gaulois, 1971, A. Uderzo and R. Goscinny, Dargaud Éditeur: Paris, p. 21; Mélanie Jouitteau, p.c.) . In the case of arguments originating with distinct heads in French, some speakers but not others do allow such sequences; cf. Kayne (1975: 175 Note 128), Nicol (this volume). This adds further to the problem. The behavior of à-DP sequences in French shows they correspond to both a double object (high) datives and a prepositional (low) datives, with various restrictions on which can be used when (see for example Kayne 1975: 170f.). When cliticization of the latter is attested cross-linguistically, the PCC disappears (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003: 295–300). Some variation in the double dative ban could perhaps be reduced to this. . Thanks to Mélanie Jouitteau for sitting through my examples. . For a range of data that seems related, particularly the cross-linguistic variation in the combinability of various applicative constructions, see McGinnis (2000). . Although the account here shares the movement-type dependency approach of Kayne (1989) and Sportiche (1996), it is not particularly close to them. For Kayne (1989, 1991), Romance clitic movement, including climbing, is always head movement. For Czech at any rate, this would require massive excorporation, or the positing of abstract heads dissociated from the overt verbal material; I have not considered how the results gained here could be restated in it. See further Sportiche (1996: 247–248). In Sportiche’s (1996) system, the movement relation is between pro (in non-doubling languages such as Czech) in the theta-related position, and the specifier of a clitic voice head, which is a part of the extended functional projection of the clause. The movement is driven by the Spec-Head criterion; dative clitics in particular assign dative Case to their A-specifier, while accusative clitics license specificity ¯ in their A-specifier. The approach in this paper relies at many points on the treatment of datives as Chomsky’s (2000: 123) defective interveners that undergo cyclic displacement in the relation between a φ-Probe and a corresponding nominative or accusative DP, as argued in Chomsky (2000: 130–131), Anagnostopoulou (2003), Rezac (2001, 2002), Béjar and Rezac (2003). This is an instance where the change from Spec-Head agreement to the Agree relation under c-command is not a trivial one, nor is the general perspective on the distribution of functional categories and the role of licensing; I have not attempted to restate the results here in the Spec-Head system.

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech . Sportiche (1996) claims that en-cliticization in French displays the A’-properties of not binding anaphora (p. 253) and licensing parasitic gaps (p. 255), although it counts for Condition C (p. 252–254). If correct, this sets it apart from Czech argumental clitics, and from French accusative and dative clitics as well, since they do not have the same properties (ibid. p. 256 for the failure of accusatives to license parasitic gaps). This is not unexpected given that it seems to extract the PP complement of a DP via [Spec, DP] (ibid. p. 225–226). See below on genitive clitics in Czech, supporting the idea that an A’-position is involved.

References Aissen, J. and D. M. Perlmutter. 1983. “Clause reduction in Spanish.” In Studies in Relational Grammar, D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), 360–403. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2001. “Two classes of double object verbs: The role of zero morphology.” In Progress in Grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, M. van Oostendorp and E. Anagnostopoulou (eds). Dutch Royal Academy Publications: electronic book in progress. [http://www.meertens.nl/books/progressingrammar] Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Béjar, S. and M. Rezac. 2003. “Cyclic agree and the derivation of PCC effects.” In Romance Linguistics: Theory and acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], A. T. Pérez-Leroux and Y. Roberge (eds), 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs and the theta theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in romance. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Borer, H. 1983. Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, H. (ed.). 1986. The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics [Syntax and Semantics 19]. New York NY: Academic Press. Borer, H. 1989. “Anaphoric AGR.” In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. J. Safir (eds), 69–110. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Cardinaletti, A. and M. Starke. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chierchia, G. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–156. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.



 Milan Rezac

Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1995. “The theory of principles and parameters.” In The Minimalist Program, N. Chomsky, 13–128. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cinque, G. 1988. “On si constructions and the theory of arb.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–581. Collins, C. and H. Thráinsson. 1996. “VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic.” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 391–444. Davies, W. D. 1986. Choctaw Verb Agreement and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Franks, S. and T. H. King. 2000. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fried, M. 1994. “Second-position clitics in Czech: Syntactic or phonological?” Lingua 94: 155–175. Holmberg, A. and C. Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huang, C.-T. J. 1993. “Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–138. Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. “IP-internal topic and focus phrases.” Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75. Jónsson, J. G. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1989. “Null subjects and clitic climbing.” In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. J. Safir (eds), 239–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, R. 1991. “Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686. Landau, I. 1999. “Possessor raising and the structure of VP.” Lingua 107: 1–37. Landau, I. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Maling, J. 1990. “Clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic.” In Modern Icelandic Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 24], J. Maling and A. Zaenen (eds), 277–288. New York NY: Academic Press. Martin, R. 2001. “Null Case and the distribution of PRO.” In Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166. McGinnis, M. 2000. “Phases and the syntax of applicatives.” In Proceedings of NELS 31, M.J. Kim and U. Strauss (eds), 333–349. Amherst MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Miyagawa, S. 1987. “Restructuring in Japanese.” In Issues in Japanese Linguistics, T. Imai and M. Saito (eds), 273–300. Dordrecht: Foris. Ormazabal, J., and J. Romero. 2002. “Agreement restrictions.” Ms., University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz. Rezac, M. 2000. “The syntactic implementation of clitic movement.” In Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, J. T. Jensen and G. van Herk (eds), 225–236. Ottawa: Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa. Rezac, M. 2001. “Case checking in ditransitive constructions.” In Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, J. T. Jensen and G. van Herk (eds), 289–291. Ottawa: Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.

The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech 

Rezac, M. 2002. “NP-movement in Icelandic, cyclicity, and multiple specifier constructions.” Ms., University of Toronto. Presented at Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 16, May 2001, McGill University, Montréal. Rezac, M. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto. Richards, N. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Rivas, A. 1977. A Theory of Clitics. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Rivero, M.-L. 1991. “Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech.” The Linguistic Review 7: 183–231. Rizzi, L. 1978. “A restructuring rule in Italian syntax.” In Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, S. J. Keyser (ed.), 113–158. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. 1982. “Comments on Chomsky’s paper: On the representation of form and function.” In Perspectives on Mental Representation, J. Mehler, E. T. C. Walker and M. Garrett (eds), 441–453. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Roberts, I. 1997. “Restructuring, head movement, and locality.” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423– 460. Schütze, C. 1993. “Towards a minimalist account of quirky case and licensing in Icelandic.” In Papers on Case and Agreement II [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19], C. Phillips (ed.), 321–376. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1991. “Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–364. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1996. “Icelandic finite verb agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46. Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449. Sportiche, D. 1996. “Clitic constructions.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds), 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Starke, M. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva. Strotzer, J. R. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Svenonius, P. 2000. “Quantifier movement in Icelandic.” In The Derivation of VO and OV, P. Svenonius (ed.), 255–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Toman, J. 1986. “Cliticization from NPs in Czech and comparable phenomena in French and Italian.” In The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics [Syntax and Semantics 19], H. Borer (ed.), 123–145. New York NY: Academic Press. Toman, J. 1992. “Anaphors in binary trees: A description of Czech reflexives.” In Long Distance Anaphora, J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds), 151–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toman, J. 1996. “A note on clitics and prosody.” In Approaching Second, A. L. Halpern and A. M. Zwicky (eds), 505–510. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Toman, J. 1999. “Clitic dislocation.” In Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics, M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova and L. Hellan (eds), 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van˘ek, A. L. 1977. Aspects of Subject-Verb Agreement. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.

 Milan Rezac Veselovská, L. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X0 -Morphology: Word order parallels in Czech and English nominal and verbal projections. PhD Dissertation, University of Palacký at Olomouc. Wurmbrand, S. 1998. Infinitives. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zaenen, A. J. Mailing and H Thráinsson (1985) Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.

Romance clitic clusters On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts Fabrice Nicol Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle (Paris-III)

Diachronic studies of the Romance languages have shown that the accusative-dative linear ordering (illum mihi) for pronominal clitic clusters was standard in Old Romance. Most Modern Romance varieties have shifted to the dative-accusative (mihi illum) surface sequence (Pearce 1991). Yet, non-derivational theories, like template approaches, miss an intriguing parametric generalization as to diachronic changes: a Romance language has mihi illum ordering of the pronominal clitics if at least one dative pronoun is case-syncretic in the whole paradigm of weak clitic pronouns. Cluster switch, which yields the illum mihi order, is shown to result from V-to-v raising, followed by successive attraction of the clitics to [V-v], in reverse order, in accordance with Minimalist assumptions.*

A considerable literature on Romance pronominal clitic clusters has accumulated since the early seventies. Perlmutter (1970) proposed that ordering constraints should be analyzed as surface filters, paving the way to the template analysis of cluster formation. Related morphological approaches (Halpern 1995; Miller & Sag 1997; Watson 1997, among others) have taken issue with a strictly syntactic analysis, pointing out the many lexical idiosyncrasies and dialectal variations in the linear ordering of sequences. Diverging proposals have been made as to the role of syntactic operations in the ordering of complement pronouns within the clusters (see Seuren 1976; Wanner 1974, 1987 for early critical reviews of template analyses). This paper aims at giving evidence in support of a more traditional view, whose origins can be retraced back to the EST analyses of Kayne (1975) and Fiengo and Gitterman (1978). The theoretical framework of the following proposals is compatible, for the most part, with Chomsky’s (1995: §4, 1998) Minimalist model, with occasional departures. The main ideas should also fall in line with earlier ap-

 Fabrice Nicol

proaches (like those of Chomsky 2001 or Lasnik 1999), with minor formal amendments. The generative approach to Romance clitic clusters outlined here will focus on diachronic changes in French. Other Romance languages will then be discussed; it will appear that cross-linguistic generalizations have been missed by advocates of template analyses and therefore that movement theory plays a crucial role in clitic cluster formation.

The facts Let us first have a quick look at the facts for French. Standard French complement clitic clusters satisfy three distributional constraints in inflected contexts (see Kayne 1975: 173–176). The first is stated in (1) (Anagnostopoulou’s Weak Person-Case constraint, this volume): (1) Person Unicity There is no more than one first or second person in a cluster. According to (1), (2a, b) are out, though semantically valid, as the English translation shows:1 (2) a. *Il me t’ he wc-1sg.do wc-2sg.io ‘He sent me to you.’ b. *Il te m’ he wc-2sg.io wc-1sg.do ‘He sent you to me.’

envoya. sent envoya. sent

The second constraint is stated by (3): (3) Person first First or second person comes first. (3) is illustrated by (4): (4) a.

Il me l’ He wc-1sg.io wc-3sg.do b. Il te l’ He wc-2sg.io wc-3sg.do ‘He sent him to me/you.’ c. *Il le m’ He wc-3sg.do wc-1sg.io

envoya. sent. envoya. sent. envoya. sent

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

d. *Il le t’ He wc-3sg.do wc-2sg.io ‘He sent him to me/you.’ e. *Il le t’ He wc-3sg.do wc-2sg.io ‘He sent me/you to him.’

envoya. sent envoya. sent

The pairs of (4) clearly show that the third person clitic can only follow the first or second person clitic. The third constraint at hand may be formulated as in (5) (see Seuren 1976: 11 and Anagnostopoulou’s Strong Person-Case constraint, this volume): (5) No Direct Object person There is no first or second person as a Direct Object in a clitic cluster. (5) is evidenced by (6a, b): (6) a. *Il me lui he wc-1sg.do wc-3sg.io ‘He sent me to him.’ b. *Il te leur he wc-2sg.do wc-3pl.io ‘He sent you to them.’

envoya. sent. envoya. sent.

Constraints (1), (3), and (5) stand out as absolute in simple French constructions (see, however, 6.2 for causative constructions).

.

Theoretical assumptions

Every pronominal clitic consists of a bundle of features [φ] = [person; gender; number], to which are added the morphological case feature [µ], and an affixal feature [aff]. Thus, a clitic cl may be represented by a bundle of features as in (7): (7) cl = [µ; aff; φ] Gender and number features will henceforth be neglected.2

. Affixation and case checking The features [aff] and [µ] are correlated as follows, adapting the terminology of the Minimalist theory of formal features (Chomsky 1995, 2000):

 Fabrice Nicol

(8) Condition on affixation Affixation (checking of [aff]) occurs prior to case marking (checking of [µ]). The condition on affixation can be viewed as a version of Borer’s (1984) Case absorption theory by affix-like clitics. However, the posited morphological case feature [µ] is not identical to Borer’s abstract Case assignment. Here, [µ] formally represents the morphological case of the clitic, not abstract Case or syntactic function. Condition (8) actually states two constraints: (9) a. An unchecked affix feature blocks morphological case checking, and: b. Checking of morphological case is always necessary and does not depend on abstract Case assignment or argumenthood. As soon as a clitic is selected, a checking feature [µ] is selected with V. Cliticization now must involve the following operations (in the given order): (i) affixation/checking of [aff], and (ii) case assignment/checking of [µ]. Cluster formation corresponds to the case in which two (and sometimes three) clitics undergo affixation followed by case-marking. Inasmuch as a cluster is a morphological complex,3 it seems necessary to require that it not contain conflicting formal features. For example, a cluster’s morphological case specification should be unique. We thereby consider that two identical case features brought along by each clitic merge into a single one cluster case feature in the course of affixation (Desouvrey’s Obligatory Contour Principle, this volume, is based on a parallel intuition). This condition is in fact not a new one, but simply derives from the fact that it is necessary to check the cluster’s case subsequent to affixation as a result of (8), and it is formally impossible to check two different features by using the same featurechecker, unless the two features to be checked are identical and merge into just one along the way. The theory of affixation outlined here is intended to formalize purely syntactic requirements in a Minimalist framework and should not be viewed as applying to the morphological or phonological components. Other theoretical approaches, which focus on non-derivational phenomena and the morphological component, may be compatible with the posited assumptions to some extent. Although this paper takes issue with template approaches to clitic ordering constraints (see Sections 1.3, 2.3 and 7), lexical idiosyncrasies may be better described by theories of ‘phrasal’ affixation, along the line of Zwicky and Pullum (1983) and Miller and Sag (1997) (see Notes 19 and 43 for possible applications). The affixation process may be seen as a Full Interpretation requirement on syntactic chains. As already mentioned by Chomsky (1995: 249), clitics have this peculiar property that their phrasal status is ambiguous (either heads or phrases); yet, subsequent to affixation, the ambiguity disappears. This point may help justify the affixation process itself. [aff] features and feature checkers are not just

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

theoretical devices that trigger movement; they also form part of a process that disambiguates the phrasal status of clitics. Prior to Affixation, the clitic’s projection level is supposed to be maximal. This is indeed the null hypothesis: nominals are phrases. Affixation is the syntactic process that makes it possible to alter the projection level index of the clitic. Subsequently, clitic movement is no longer XP-movement to Specifier positions (yielding [YP cl Y’]) but X◦ -movement to functional heads (yielding [F◦ max cl -. . . -F◦ ]). If there were no process like Affixation, the projection level index of clitics would remain ambiguous. Full Interpretation would filter out ambiguous clitics at the interface with the morphological component. Morphology only takes as input morphemes and combinations of morphemes, not whole phrases (see Chomsky 1995: 319), and therefore requires clear identification of the projection level of clitics. Granted this point, (9a) derives from Full Interpretation, as it is necessary to identify the projection level of the clitic before checking its case morphology, and (9b) just hypothesizes a Minimalist treatment of case morphology formally parallel to abstract Case checking. An important difference with purely morphological approaches that follows from the above assumptions is that Affixation does not mean cliticization. Subsequent to checking of the [aff] feature in [XP cl X’], cl remains in its Specifier position and does not ‘cliticize’ to the phrase head X◦ . Rather, the syntactic structure remains unaltered, yet cl and X◦ will both be linked in the same headmovement chain. Thus, checking of [aff] just forces Move to apply to both cl and X◦ . If Move applies, in the course of the derivation, the complex head cl -X◦ (or X◦ -cl, in some languages), will be the head of the head-movement chain. This in turn results from current assumptions on ‘Move as Copy’ (see Lasnik 1999 and references therein). Under the functional head host, both cl and X◦ are ‘copied’ by Move. Hence, cliticization is forced by the fact that the host is itself a head. Note, however, that cliticization only obtains as the result of raising, not as the output of Affixation. Another interesting consequence follows from Full Interpretation and the definition of Affixation. All formal features pertaining to the phrasal status of nominals should be checked while clitics still are viewed as phrases by the syntax, hence before Affixation. As a result, formal features added to lexical items in some languages may postpone Affixation until they are properly checked higher up in the derivation. The prediction to be made here is that some languages will differ from others as to the syntactic locus of cliticization. Another prediction is that cliticization and Affixation do not obtain at the same step of the derivation if (and only if) phrasal properties of the clitics should be checked in a Specifier-head configuration, the head being an affix checker. Otherwise, Merge need not create a Specifier,

 Fabrice Nicol

hence does not. Merge thus left-adjoins the clitic to the affix checker; Affixation and cliticization obtain simultaneously. Further, it seems plausible to posit that the referential status of clitics (first/second versus third person) will only be accessible to the interpretative component prior to Affixation. It is indeed commonly accepted that sub-lexical levels have no indexical properties unless they are governed or dominated by a determiner head (DET). Crucial consequences of this point will be analyzed in Sections 2.1 to 2.5.

. On the derivation of clusters Let us see how we can formally implement these principles.4 We start with a verb plus a direct object clitic cl1 as in (10). We assume without further discussion that the direct object clitic is merged as a phrase in the same (Spec, VP) position as all ordinary direct object nominals (see Lasnik 1999 for examples and refinements to this effect; an alternative account could easily be fleshed out with a classic complement position.) (10) Derivation of mihi illum: step 1 VP 1 [1; ] V° [1; ; 2]...

The accusative case of cl1 cannot be checked at this point: the first specifier of V is indeed considered to be a thematic, lexically-related, universally available position, in itself unrelated to morphological case checking.5 If checking of morphological case were necessary to create a thematic position, then morphological case would have no effect on the derivation, being erased as soon as the clitic is merged. The feature would not be a legitimate syntactic objet, since it would violate a basic Minimalist constraint (see, for example, Chomsky 1995: 294, ‘α enters the numeration only if it has an effect on output’). In a derivational approach based on case morphology, it is therefore necessary to preserve the case checkers [µ] from early erasure. This result can be formalized by either formulation (a or b) of the thematic priority condition (11): (11) Thematic priority a. In the lexical VP, thematic positions are selected prior to insertion of case morphology.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

b. Let [θ] be the thematic feature of a nominal α.6 Then [µ] is added to V after checking of [θ] by V, forming [α V]. The next step of the derivation merges the indirect object clitic cl2 , which now c-commands the direct object clitic cl1 as in (12a).7 (12) Derivation of mihi illum: step 2 VP a. 2 [2; ] 1 [1; ] V° [1; ; 2] ... íP

b.

í°max V°max

í

2 1

V°

Affixation ensues, erasing both the two [aff] features carried by the clitics and the [aff] feature checker. A crucial observation should be made here: in French, first and second person clitics in cluster combinations (henceforth cluster clitics) always have the same morphological form, that of the accusative, even when they are indirect complements. First and second person pronouns are case-syncretic, since they have the same morphological form for dative Case and accusative Case.8 As a consequence, if a clitic cluster contains a first or second person clitic, both clitics in the cluster have the accusative morphology. As the morphological feature [µ] checks morphological case, irrespective of syntactic function, it seems plausible to assume that the accusative forms in the given clitic cluster will be checked simultaneously by the same accusative checking feature of the verb. Consequently, subsequent to Affixation, and in accordance with condition (8), the accusative feature checker of V checks all the accusative morphology in the cluster, yielding the appropriate mihi illum surface order. In the case at hand, the mihi illum order thus results from the fact that both the direct object clitic and the indirect object clitic have accusative [µ] features; these two similar features reduce

 Fabrice Nicol

to just one, thereby allowing case checking and Affixation. As seen in 1.1, the mihi illum complex head only surfaces at the next step in the derivation, under the v head, after Move has copied both the clitics and the verb under the same head. As Move cannot apply to sub-lexical entities, and H = {cl2 , cl1 , V◦ } forms a complex chain-head subsequent to Affixation, the null hypothesis is that copying of H under v does not alter precedence or dominance relations within H, hence the detailed structure represented in (12b). Let us now consider the case in which both clitics are third person. The French third person dative clitics are all morphologically distinct from the accusative clitics, and they have affixal status in the cluster. This state of affairs can be formalized as in (13): the indirect object cl2 has a formal feature [aff], but no accusative case that can be checked by the accusative checking feature of the verb. Accordingly, let us posit in (13) that cl2 has non-accusative ([acc’]) specification for morphological case checking, whereas direct object cl1 has accusative case specification ([acc]):9 (13) cl2 [acc’; aff] cl1 [acc; aff] Since the indirect object clitic cl2 is defective with respect to accusative case checking, the relevant configuration is (14): (14)

VP 2 [’; 2] 1 [1; ] V° [1; ; ’; 2]...

The accusative checking feature [acc] of the verb cannot be erased by cl2 in (14), for lack of an appropriate morphological case feature in cl2 . The only other option would consist in checking the accusative feature of the direct object cl1 , which is the sole morphological case feature available. Yet, this checking operation cannot be realized in (14), as required by Thematic priority. There remains to erase an accusative feature checker under the V◦ node, and there is an unchecked accusative feature carried by the direct object clitic. There are only two options to erase a feature checker: by operation Move or by operation Merge. We have already seen that Merge is ruled out by Thematic Priority for mihi illum clusters, and the argument clearly carries over to illum mihi clusters. Consequently, only operation Move can check the accusative feature of the direct object and erase the corresponding feature checker. The derivation then involves checking of [acc] in the first checking position available. As there is no way of checking the feature in the VP specifier, the derivation proceeds and checking

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

obtains at the next step, here in the specifier of v. (We shall see in 2.2 that other functional categories should be considered too, but we will stick to v for simplicity up to this point.) Thus, subsequent to verb raising to v, the first affix-checking feature carried by V-v attracts cl2 , the closest affixable element, as in (15): (15) Cluster switch (input) íP

2 [’; 2] V°-í [1; ; ’; 2] t2

VP

1 [1; ]

tV

The second affix-checking feature now attracts cl1 as in (16): (16) Cluster switch (output) íP 1 [] 2 [’] V°-í [; ’]...

VP t2 t1 tV

At this point, [acc] and [acc’] can be erased by Move, yielding (17) after Affixation:

 Fabrice Nicol

(17) Illum mihi cluster after affixation íP í°max 1 la

-2-V°-í lui-dome

‘it-to her-gives’

VP t2 t1

tV

The output thus corresponds to the linear ordering of (18): (18) Il le lui a donné. He wc-3sg.do wc-3sg.io gave ‘He gave it to him.’

. On direct object first and second persons Now let us turn to constraints (1), (3), and (5). As we said earlier, these constraints stand out as absolute, and are satisfied by all variants of French, unlike other ordering constraints. According to Jensen (1986), they were also valid in Old French. How can this distinctive property be accounted for? Constraints (1) and (3) can first be subsumed by the Morphological Opacity constraint posited in (19): (19) Morphological Opacity (mo) Let F be an Interpretable Feature that cannot be erased in the syntax. If the maximal word-level projection X◦max contains such a feature F, then X◦max = [F [. . . X◦ . . . ]].10 We will accept that first or second person features, being discursively linked, cannot be erased in the syntax, much in the way the [+Interpretable] features cannot be erased in the framework of Chomsky (1995). mo therefore ensures that there will not be any first or second person clitic in second linear position, thereby deriving (1) and (3) as joint consequences. We summarize this result in (20): (20) Subsequent to affixation: *[X ◦max cl2 [cl1 .1/2 X◦ ]] The proposed analysis for third person clitic clusters crucially posits two stages for the syntactic derivation: the VP-internal stage of (14) and the V-raising operation of (15). We have seen that mo rules out a first or second person in an embedded position within the cluster. mo, however, cannot rule out the unacceptable sentences

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts

if it is considered as a template-style surface filter. Unacceptable sentences like (6) (repeated in (21)) would be left out: (21) *Il me lui envoya. he wc-1sg.do wc-3sg.io sent. ‘He sent me to him.’ Yet, if we now consider the option of applying mo at the initial VP-internal stage (14), then we obtain an appropriate filter, since the first or second person pronoun is still in second linear position at this early stage of the derivation. This result leads us to reformulate mo as a possible interpretative constraint on derivation by Phase (Chomsky 2001): first and second person clitics should be accessible to the Conceptual-Intensional component at the earliest possible Phase. More specifically, we suppose that the derivation of clusters satisfies (22): (22) a. The earliest phase for French clitic clusters is VP.11 b. Interpretation of clusters is constrained by mo. Conditions (1), (3), and (5) ensue immediately, granting cl2 -raising to the outer VP specifier and cluster switch.12 Condition (22) can be extended to reflexives in French, as shown by (23): (23) *Il me se présenta. he wc-1sg.io wc-3sg.refl.do presented ‘He presented himself to me.’ The revised version of mo in Modern French is consequently: (19) mo (revised) *[cl F. . . V’. . . ], with F discourse-linked or reflexive, is not interpretable. We shall come back to this constraint in Section 2.4, where it is reduced to common assumptions in a Minimalist framework.

. Generalization to Romance Let us now turn to the other Romance languages. Old Romance languages had accusative-dative linear ordering (see Dieter Wanner 1974, 1987 and references to the philological tradition therein). Over time, most Romance languages have lost the medieval ordering of weak pronouns in clusters. The ordering has been shifted to mihi illum in most languages.13 The loss of cluster switch is an overall pattern, French retaining “a vestige of the old clitic ordering” (Wanner 1974).





Fabrice Nicol

. Parametrization of Morphological Opacity No such generalization can be formulated for Morphological Opacity. A fine-tuned parametric specification seems necessary to account for possible violations. Spanish and Italian tolerate some clitic combinations that violate mo when one of the two clitics is a reflexive. For Spanish, Seuren (1976: 16) thus reports cases of relative acceptability of mo violations, as in example (24): (24) Te me presento. wc-2sg.io wc-1sg.do present ‘I present myself to you.’ Seuren (1976: 32) also notes that, although acceptability is somewhat degraded,14 some Italian speakers accept: (25) Mi ti raccomando. wc-1sg.do wc-2sg.io recommend ‘I recommend myself to you.’ This combination seems to be widely accepted in the dialect of Rome and Southern dialects (Cecilia Poletto, personal communication). Spanish and Italian differ as to the relative ordering of acceptable first and second person clusters (henceforth I/II clusters). Whereas many Spanish speakers accept (26a),15 most Italian speakers reject (26b) (Evans et al. 1978: 156): (26) a. Te me presentas. b. *Ti mi presenti. wc-2sg.do wc-1sg.io present ‘You present yourself to me.’ In (25) and (26), the linear ordering is surprisingly unconventional, since the direct object precedes the indirect object, violating both mo and the mihi illum linear ordering pattern. In view of the evidence, mo appears to apply parametrically, and should not be taken as a constraint of Universal Grammar. Let us therefore propose a proper parametric account of differences between Italian and Spanish. Non-reflexive I/II clusters are accepted by some speakers of Spanish, but are judged to be less acceptable than clusters with a reflexive direct object: (27) ?Te me presentó. wc-2sg.io wc-1sg.do present-3sg.past ‘He presented me to you.’ (Seuren 1976: 16)


Evans et al. (1978: 160) claim that the two types of clusters are to be considered equally acceptable16 in Italian, as in (28), in which the usual mihi illum ordering is violated: (28) a.

Mi ti presentano. ‘They introduce me to you.’ b. Mi ti presento. ‘I introduce myself to you.’

Wanner (1987: 421) also reports mi ti combinations similar to (28a). Summarizing the distributional properties given by Evans and Wanner, and accepting nonreflexive clusters, we first derive the empirical generalization (29), which we shall later try to derive from prior assumptions and principles of syntax: (29) I/II clusters have free linear ordering, under the conjoined constraints 1 to 3: (30) Condition 1 If γ is a clitic cluster, then *[γ F-F], where F is a first or second person feature. Condition 2 (Italian) mo applies to Italian mi (wc-1sg) Condition 3 If wc.1 is a 1st person clitic and wc.2 is a second person clitic, and wc.1wc.2 the surface order, then: *wc.1.pl-wc.2 in Italian, and *wc.1-wc.2 in Spanish. Condition 2 on mo is relaxed in Spanish, as we have seen in (26). It accounts for the acceptability of ti ci, vi ci clusters and the exclusion of ti mi/vi mi clusters in Italian. Condition 3 accounts for the exclusion of ci ti, ci vi clusters. A further empirical generalization should be formulated to accommodate distributional restrictions on reflexives in both languages: (31) Condition 4 If the linear order is direct object-indirect object in the cluster, then the indirect object is [–Reflexive]

. Syntactic reduction of morphological opacity Let us now try to reduce the above empirical generalizations to a simpler condition. Ci happens to be the locative adverbial/argument in Italian, as well as the first person plural (weak) pronoun. In Standard (central) Italian, transition from illum mihi to mihi illum came into play at the turn of the 16th century (see Rohlfs 1968),



 Fabrice Nicol

affecting non-partitive/non-locative arguments but leaving partitive-locative argument/adverb sequences invariant. Surface order has not been reversed for ci-(si)-ne sequences, as shown by the surface ordering constraint given in (32) : (32) a.

Old Florentine (13th century) {lo, la, li, le}– {li, le} – mi – vi – ti – ci – si – ne b. Modern Italian (Standard) mi – vi – ti – ci – {gli, le} – si – ne – {lo, la, li, le} (from Wanner 1974: 161)

The null hypothesis, granting the raising analysis outlined in the previous section, would be that ci-ne sequences did not switch because the morphological case properties of ci did not evolve over time. Note that this assumption could not apply to all Romance varieties. The corresponding Occitan locative and partitive weak pronouns (respectively ie/i and en) switched over time, and so did the corresponding locatives and partitives in Catalan and French.17 Invariance of cine sequences therefore seems specific to Italian, and should be correlated with the singular person-syncretic property of ci in (Standard) Italian, since ci is either the third person locative or the first person plural pronoun.18 We shall see that the consequence that directly follows from this morphological property is that ci, irrespective of its feature content and argument properties, cannot move from an intermediate position between v and V. Let us assume the existence of a functional node F◦ , in whose specifier ci appears at some point of the derivation, in order to be properly interpreted. This assumption is illustrated in (33): (33) [F◦ P ci F◦ . . . VP] The derivations for wc-ci sequences, on this assumption, are given in (34) for Modern Standard Italian. Consider first combinations involving a direct object ci with cl2 , a first or second person indirect object or partitive (weak) clitic. We start from the base position and raise direct object ci to F◦ (34a), then the verb raises to F◦ (34b); raising of the indirect object clitic ensues, followed by case checking and Affixation (34c). Consider now combinations with indirect object ci plus first or second person direct object (weak) clitic. Ci, as an indirect object, lands in the position of the outer specifier of V (for dative Case checking); then ci raises to (Spec, F◦ ) as in (34d). VRaising now takes place (34e), followed by clitic attraction by V, case checking of cl1 , and Affixation (34f). Let us finally examine the case in which the ci locative is combined with a third person direct object or indirect object (weak) clitic, or with a third person clitic cluster (34g). In this case, ci is directly inserted in the specifier position of F◦ , as


a phrasal constituent, and the third person clitic or the third person cluster, being heads, raises to the head position F◦ , which yields, comparing with prior cases, the reverse linear order ci–clitic(s), as in (34h). (34) a. [VP cl2 ci V] b. c. d. [VP ci cl1 V] e. f. g. [VP (cl2 ) (cl1 ) V] h.

→ → → → → → → →

[ci F◦ cl2 V] [ci V-F◦ cl2 tV ] [cl2 -ci V-F◦ t2 tV ] [ci F◦ cl1 V] [ci V-F◦ cl1 tV ] [cl1 -ci V-F◦ t1 tV ] [F◦ P ci F◦ (cl2 ) (cl1 ) V] [ci (cl2 -)(cl1 -)-V-F◦ (t2 ) (t1 ) tV ]19

The underlying assumption for (34a–f) is that first and second person pronouns are maximal projections prior to affixation (see Uriagereka 1995), hence move to the outer specifier of the F◦ node, whereas third person (weak) pronouns are heads, and adjoin to the landing site [F◦ max V-F◦ ]. All contrasts investigated in (34) therefore result from Uriagereka’s insightful assumption, combined with the assumptions under examination (for lack of space, we shall not review all the definite proposals made by Uriagereka, some of which are not compatible with ours). Note, too, that the assumed phrasal status for first and second person pronouns only holds prior to Affixation; as already mentioned in Section 1.1, one may see the affixation process as a formal prerequisite that serves to convert phrasal projection idexes into head-projection indices. The expected consequence of the analysis given for (34) is that ci-wc.3.do/io/ne should be grammatical sequences, whereas ci-wc.1/2.do/io should not. This prediction is borne out by the template given in (32b).20 We have posited that the functional node F◦ is licensed by the first person singular pronoun of Italian. Let us now generalize the assumption, applying it to all first person pronouns in both Italian and Spanish, as in (35), and let us examine what predictions this move makes possible: (35) If F◦ is inserted, then a first person wc must raise to (Spec, F◦ ) at some point of the derivation. In Spanish, there is no locative adverbial/argument; the first person pronouns are either ethical datives or arguments. Let us limit the analysis to arguments and examine what this parametric, lexically determined difference between Spanish and Italian brings about. Clitics me or nos, initially in a VP specifier, raise to the specifier of F◦ for the first person feature to be checked, satisfying Full Interpretation thereby.



 Fabrice Nicol

(36) a.

me indirect object [VP me te presentas] → [F◦ P me2 F◦ [VP t2 te presentas] b. me direct object [VP te me presento] → [F◦ P me1 F◦ [VP te t1 presento]]

In the next step of the derivation, the second person pronoun raises, thus deriving the fixed II-I cluster as a consequence of the phrasal status of the second person pronouns prior to Affixation (assuming here double specifiers): [F◦ P te1 me2 F◦ [VP t1 t2 presentas] ‘You present yourself to me.’ b. [F◦ P te2 me1 F◦ [VP t2 t1 presento] ‘I present myself to you.’

(37) a.

If a third person clitic is in the cluster, we are again led to use the same argument as in (34g–h). After raising of the first person pronoun to (Spec, F◦ ), a third person clitic, being a head, can only adjoin to F◦ , not to F◦ P, on Uriagereka’s 1995 assumptions. We thereby derive the adequate sequences wc1/2-wc.3 as in (38): (38) [F◦ P wc.1/2 F◦ [VP t wc.3 V]] → [F◦ P wc.1/2 wc.3-F◦ [VP t t’ V]] In derivation (37), the implicit assumption is that second person clitics raise for some reason. On the analysis developed in Section 1, though, this is not the expected result, since all formal features of the inner clitic are checked after raising of the indirect object clitic to the outer Specifier. Consequently, to account for (37), the formal properties of F◦ should be restated as in (39): If F◦ is inserted, then a first person wc must raise to (Spec, F◦ ) at some point of the derivation. b. An unchecked First person feature blocks the affixation process. c. The feature checker carried by F◦ erases first.21

(39) a.

As a consequence of (39b), the Spanish mihi illum cluster cannot form in the VP, since the first person feature is still unchecked. Affixation is accordingly postponed until F◦ has been merged and the raising operations of (37)–(38) have been effected, a prediction that was made in 1.1 and just expresses the fact that Affixation alters projection level indices, thereby blocking first person interpretation. (39c) also accounts for why the first person is closer to the verb than the second person; it may be viewed as a Full Interpretation constraint (see Note 21) that licenses F◦ -insertion in the derivation. (39), which may thus be reduced to common assumptions and the definition of Affixation, jointly conspire to yield both (37) and (38).


The one remaining combination that is now to be accounted for is the wc.1sgwc.2 combination in Italian (mi ti, mi vi), which is unexpected on the present assumptions. Let us posit the following condition on morphological case assignment: (40) a.

Assumption on locative case morphology Locative case is checked by the first person node F◦ in Romance. b. Italian morphological case specification Standard Italian ci has feature specification [loc; ± 1.sg] Standard Italian mi has feature specification [acc; 1sg] c. Spanish morphological case specification Spanish pronominals are locative-accusative syncretic: [loc] = [acc]

Condition (40a) is reminiscent of a class of conditions that correlate Case assignment and agreement (see Chomsky 2001, among others). Condition (40b) expresses the singular case properties of ci in Italian. Applying (40) now yields the desired results in both Italian and Spanish. In Spanish, locative case is not distinguished from accusative case, and is checked by F◦ , which is always inserted in the presence of a first person feature in the numeration; condition (40) is therefore always satisfied.22 In Italian, locative case is distinct from accusative case and assigned to ci, whatever its semantic content. F◦ is not inserted if locative case is not assigned. If ci is in the numeration, be it semantically locative or not, then a locative case feature is introduced in the numeration by (40b). The numeration thus includes F◦ and a locative case checker; the derivations outlined in (34) ensue. Unlike ci, the singular mi cannot check locative case, hence raises to (Spec, F◦ ) only if ci is in (Spec, F◦ ), as in (34). If the other clitic in the cluster is not a morphological locative, then no locative case can be checked; condition (40a) is not satisfied, and no F◦ node is inserted. As a result, mi either remains in the VP domain, as in (41), or further raises to the vP domain, as in (42), yielding cluster switch and the appropriate linear order: (41) a.

[VP mi ti presentano] ‘they present you to me’ b. [VP mi ti presenti] ‘you present yourself to me’

(42) [mi raccomando ti] → [VP ti mi raccomando t2 ] → [vP mi ti raccomando -v [VP t2 ’ t1 tV t2 ] ‘I recommend myself to you’ Note however that the cluster switch proposed in (42) requires further justification. All previously considered features are checked in the VP domain in (42), so that there is no trigger left for the double raising operation. However (42) only



 Fabrice Nicol

obtains with reflexive mi, as the following derivation seems to be markedly dominated by (41a); in other words, the fact that (43) is less acceptable than (42) points to the existence of a special property of mi in (42): (43) [VP mi presentano ti] → [VP ti mi presentano] → [vP mi ti v [VP t2 ’ t1 raccomando t2 ] ‘They presented me to you.’ (see Wanner 1974; Evans et al. 1978) Thus, there seems to be empirical support for motivating mi-raising to v by the checking of the [+Reflexive] feature of mi. A further argument can be adduced. The empirical generalization (31) from Evans et al. (1978), repeated below, stipulates a surprising restriction on indirect object reflexives: (31) If the linear order is direct object-indirect object in the cluster, then the indirect object is [–Reflexive]. The prior assumptions under examination make it now possible to subsume for free the empirical generalization (31), which is thereby eliminated. Indeed, since [+Reflexive] is a formal feature, it is eliminated in the course of the derivation. When the indirect object cl2 is [+Reflexive], the feature is eliminated in the VP domain, just as the [acc] feature is eliminated in the VP domain with case-syncretic mihi illum clusters. Conversely, when the direct object cl1 is [+Reflexive], the feature cannot be erased in the base position by operation Move (on an immediate generalization of the Thematic Priority Condition (11) as in (44)); indeed, the second clitic cannot logically bear the [+Reflexive] feature too, and we thus fall back on the same argument as the one that applies to illum mihi derivations (with [+Reflexive] substituted for [acc] mutatis mutandis in (14)–(15)): (44) Thematic Priority Condition (generalized) a. In the lexical VP, thematic positions are selected prior to insertion of all other formal features. b. Let [θ] be the thematic feature of a nominal α. Then any formal feature is added to V subsequent to checking of [θ] by V. The only way to check the [+Reflexive] feature of a direct object is to raise it to a higher node (here, to vP), triggering cluster switch in the process, as in (42). The descriptive generalizations stated in Conditions 1–4 of (30)–(31) are thereby reduced to prior assumptions and the morphological specification of the first person node given in (40). Comparing with French, it appears that F◦ -insertion and [+Reflexive]-insertion extend the Phase in Spanish/Italian, in which referentially-dependent entities must

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

be subject to the interpretative processes of the Conceptual-Intensional component. Unlike French, Italian may have a wider Phase than VP. As a consequence, first and second person clitics may not undergo Affixation in the VP domain, and their copies higher up in the Phase may be D-linked or bound.

. Generalization to oblique clusters Complement clitic clusters do not always correspond to combinations of arguments of the same verb, and may consist of oblique arguments of two distinct heads. As an exhaustive survey of such combinations would be beyond the scope of this paper, we shall limit the analysis to raising and causative constructions of Standard French; cluster formation in these structures gives independent evidence in support of the above proposals. As noted by Kayne (1975, Sec. 2.16), Postal (1990), many speakers readily accept (45): (45) Elle me lui semble infidèle. she wc.io.1sg wc.io.3sg seems untruthful ‘She seems to me to be untruthful to him.’ (45) is the preferred combination; yet the reverse order is at worst only mildly deviant: (46) ?Elle lui me semble infidèle. ‘She seems to me to be untruthful to him.’ and in any case markedly better than the same cluster in ditransitive constructions: (47) *Elle lui me présenta. ‘She introduced me to him.’ Other pairs may be obtained with causative constructions, as in (48); although judgments are subject to individual variation, reversal of the clitic ordering in causatives as in (48b) seems harder than in raising constructions like (46): (48) a.

Elle me she wc.subj.1sg lui fit dire que c’était fini entre eux. wc.io.3g made say that it was all over between them23 b. ??/*Elle lui me fit dire que c’était fini entre eux. ‘She made me tell him that it was all over between them.’

The universal character of Anagnostopoulou’s Weak Person-Case constraint (this volume) is therefore not valid as a surface filter on cluster ordering.

 Fabrice Nicol

Violations of the template filter of Modern French are observed with I/II clusters, at least in raising structures like (49), and to a much lesser degree in causative structures like (50): (49) a.

Elle she b. ?Elle ‘She

me te semble infidèle. wc.io.1sg wc.io.2sg seems untruthful. te me semble infidèle. seems to me to be untruthful to you.’

(50) a. Elle me te fit dire ça. b. ??/*Elle te me fit dire ça. In contrast, as we have seen, I/II clusters are strictly unacceptable in French ditransitive constructions: (51) a. *Elle me te présenta. b. *Elle te me présenta. ‘She introduced me to you/you to me.’ The somewhat puzzling contrasts observed in (45)–(51) may be derived from the previous assumptions. We posit representation (52a) for raising predicates and (52b) for causatives, in which Y is the subordinate predicate, prior to V1 -raising and omitting details: (52) a. [VP [AP cla A ] V1 clb ], b. [VP [IP clb [ cla V2 ] ] V1 ], We see that cluster formation cannot obtain at the VP stage, since clb cannot adjoin to cla within the complement predication AP/IP. For raising constructions, the next step of the derivation after V1 -to-v raising is (52c). cla is not closer to V1 -v than clb (in the terms of the Minimal Link Condition), since cla does not c-command clb , or vice-versa: (52) c. [vP V1 -v [VP [AP cla A ] tV1 clb ] ] d. [vP V1 -v [VP [IP clb [cla V2 ] ] tV1 ] ] This interesting point is a clear consequence of Chomsky’s (1995: 358–359) reformulation of the notion of equidistance. α is closer to K than β if and only if K c-commands α and α c-commands β; if, however, K c-commands α and β but neither α nor β c-commands the other, then α and β may be considered equidistant from the target K. Consequently, after erasure of the features [acc] and/or [acc’] (depending on the clitic morphology in V1 -v), we obtain either cla -clb -V1 -v or clb -cla -V1 -v, the slight preference for the former resulting arguably from the fewer number of nodes between V1 and clb .


In the causative structure (52d), however, the subject clb is closer to V1 -v than cla ; the other clitic clb raises to the Specifier of the matrix verb, while cla raises to the matrix verb after Affixation to a subordinate functional head position. The resulting order is the required clb -cla cluster, the reverse order being deviant. Note that this line of reasoning neutralizes the morphological differences of the two clitics if and only if they are not complements of the same verb, a striking result that could not be derived by template-based theories. Furthermore, applying the reformulation of mo in (22), we can straightforwardly derive the contrast between (50a) and (51a), considering that first and second person clusters in (50a) are created outside the Phase to which mo applies, namely the V1 P domain. Affixation does not obtain within V1 P in (52), but higher up under v. Therefore, indexical indices are checked in the V1 P Phase and Affixation only targets non-D-linked copies oustide the Phase, as is always possible.

. On the autonomy of morphological opacity effects Diachronic changes show that the parametric specification of mo is unrelated to whether a language allows illum mihi by cluster switch or no. Many varieties of Modern Occitan allow clusters barred by mo (see Alibert 1976: 50). Violations of mo in Old Occitan are well-attested, as shown by the Old Occitan example (53): (53) qu’ie us mi don ses bauzia. that I wc-2pl.io 1sg-do give without deceit ‘I surrender myself to you without deceit.’ (see Jensen 1986: 105–106) Most varieties of Occitan shifted from illum mihi to mihi illum, yet clusters violating mo remained. In the Occitan area, mo violations are tolerated, yet the preferred linear ordering is subject to geographical variations: the varieties spoken in Northern Languedoc, Limousin, and the Nice region have illum mihi ordering,24 while the varieties spoken in Auvergne, Gascogne, Coastal Languedoc, and Provence, have mihi illum ordering.25 Conversely, violations of mo were agrammatical in Old French, and diachronic change from illum mihi to mihi illum left the mo constraint unaltered, according to Jensen (op. cit.). Finally, in European Portuguese, violations of mo are no longer accepted according to da Silva Dias (1959: 72), although occurrences can be found in classic Portuguese texts. The approach outlined here differs somewhat from Desouvrey’s (this volume) and Anagnostopoulou’s (this volume). Under different sets of assumptions, the authors try to derive mo effects from either Case assignment properties (Desouvrey) or checking constraints on person features (Anagnostopoulou). Sections 2.1 to 2.3 show that mo violations in Spanish and Italian may indeed be predicted by careful examination of both (morphological) case and person feature content of clitic



 Fabrice Nicol

sequences. Yet, although the authors convincingly argue that ordering constraints may thereby be derived for some languages, there remains the problem of accounting for the puzzling cross-linguistic and diachronic variations mentioned in this section. More specifically, changes in the acceptability of mo violations do not seem to be correlated with changes in Case or person feature properties of the clitic system, which should be expected under the authors’ proposals. We conclude that mo yields different predictions with differents sets of morphological specifications (see (39) and (40) above), yet that mo is not just a syntactic reflex of morphological properties. Rather, mo derives from the interaction of syntax and interpretation, along the guidelines proposed in the Derivation by Phase framework (Chomsky 2001), and independent constraints on case and person feature checking conspire to yield surface ordering phenomena (see, however, Anagnostopoulou, this volume, for a syntactic approach to the variations mentioned in this section). As a conclusion on mo, we shall briefly recapitulate the interaction of the (morpho-)syntactic and interpretative components by revising mo as below: (54) mo (Morphological Opacity final version) (i) Discourse-linking (D-linking) indexical properties are associated with different projection levels in the syntax; more specifically, first and second persons project phrases, whereas third persons project heads. (ii) Indexical properties are unaltered by syntactic derivations. (iii) Copies created by Move have no D-linking indices ouside the Phase. (54i) is a reformulation of Uriagereka 1995’s original proposal, while (54ii) is uncontroversial in any generative framework and (54iii) may be viewed as a simple consequence of Condition B of the Binding Theory and the theory of Phases: if the copy and the trace had the same indexical properties, they would be bound in the same local domain in two distinct Phases. Copies within a Phase a permitted, though (see for example derivations (34), (42) and (43) above). This may well be because traces are redundant within a Phase, a tentative assumption that we will not examine in detail here. Prior formulations of mo ensue as a result of the definition of Affixation in Section 1.1. As checking of [aff] modifies projection level indices, it cannot apply to D-linked entities, following (54i–ii). Hence it can only apply to raised items oustide the Phase (the inner VP in French), following (54iii). As a result, oblique clitics in mihi illum clusters may undergo Affixation in the outer Specifier of VP, whatever their Person feature, whereas first and second Person direct objects cannot. If there is just one direct object, there remains the option of raising V to v and attracting the direct object clitic to [v-V], where Affixation can apply to the (non-

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

D-linked) copy and cliticization obtains. Yet, when an indirect object has raised to the outer VP Specifier, we have seen in (12) that Affixation must take place within the VP for mihi illum clusters. Therefore, first and second Person direct objects cannot undergo Affixation at all and condition (1) ensues. However, there remains the option of applying cluster switch to circumvent early Affixation when a phrase-level formal feature of (at least) the direct object clitic must be checked higher up in the derivation, as in Italian/Spanish (see Section 2.2). In French, there is no such option, as there is no extension of the VP-Phase. This accounts for the absolute ban stated in condition (5). In Occitan and Italian, Phases are extended, however, which accounts for limited violations of mo with I/II clusters (violations of the Strong Person-Case constraint violations in Anagnostopoulou’s terms).

. On case syncretism This section aims to put forward a morphological argument to account for the permanence of cluster switch and illum mihi ordering in some Romance varieties, to which we shall henceforth refer as the conservative group. As far as the morphology of pronominal paradigms is concerned, two classes of Romance varieties should be clearly distinguished. The first class groups together most modern varieties. It can be characterized by the case syncretism property (55): (55) case syncretism property (csp) In languages with mihi illum clusters, at least one feature of a third person cluster pronoun is case-syncretic. In other words, it is not necessary that, in the paradigm of third person pronouns, an entire bundle [person, gender, number] be case-syncretic; it suffices that just number, for example, be ambiguous between dative and accusative in at least one third person (weak) object clitic. Some Romance varieties satisfying the csp are listed in Table 1; we shall call this group of varieties the case-syncretic group.

. Discussion of the case-syncretic group . Valencia Catalan, Spanish Unlike Majorca Catalan or Barcelona Catalan, Valencia Catalan has systematic mihi illum order for all clitics, irrespective of number or person features. Unlike Majorca Catalan, Valencian has productive syncretic allomorphs in the plural. The csp therefore expresses a correlation between morphology and linear ordering which

 Fabrice Nicol

Table 1.26

case-syncretic group

Language Aragonese Bielsa

loc gender bi; i masc fem clusters

singular acc

dat

lo; (le, low frequency) le la le

hi

masc

lo

li

fem

la

li

neut clusters

ho -lo -la -els -les -ho

Spanish Spain, leismo

Ø

Latin America, loismo Ø

◦ Brazilian Portuguese

masc lo [–animate] masc le [+animate] fem la 3. masc 3.fem 2.masc 2.fem

Ø

los las

le le lo le la le los le las

lo la los las Catalan Valencia

plural acc dat

lili’l li la li ls li les li ho le

les les les les lo les la les los les las

los/–C; els/–V; les los; els; les

los/–C; els/–V; lis los; els; lis

elsels el els la els els els les els ho los

lis lis lo lis la lis los lis les lis ho les

(les) le

las

les

lo la te te

le le te te

los las los las

les les los las

(lhe); Ø

lhe

(lhes); Ø lhes

o; lo a; la

lhe

os; los as; las lheslho lha lhos lhas

(spoken varieties) European Portuguese

Ø

masc fem clusters

-o -a -os -as

lhelho lha lhos lhas

lhes

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Table 1. (continued) Language Galician

loc Ø

gender masc fem clusters

singular acc o a -o -a -os -as

Italian Modern Standard

ci

Basilicatese Piedmontese

i

lle lle lle llo lla llos llas

os as lles llelo llela llelos llelas

lles lles

li le; (li)

Ø; gli; {glie} Ø; gli; {glie}

li; i; -llë lë

lo

fem

la

gli; {glie} le

masc fem

lu; u la; a

yi; i nnë; ,

masc

lo

fem

la

j(e), jë, j(e), jë, ëj ëj j(e), jë, j(e), jë, ëj ëj jeijlo, aj lo ij la, aj la ij je, aj je

-lo -la -je

(Logudorese, archaic27 )

plural acc

masc

clusters

Sardinian (Logudorese/Campidanese)

dat

masc

lu/ddu

fem

la/dda

neut clusters

lu/ddu

li/ddi, (ddu) li/ddi, dda

los/ddus las/ddas

-u -a -os -as

liliu lia lios lias bi

lisliu lia lios lias bi

-lu -la -los -las

bilu bila bilos bilas

bilu bila bilos bilas

(Logudorese, modern28 )

dat

llë llë j(e), jë, ëj j(e), jë, ëj

lis/ddis, ddus lis/ddis, ddas

 Fabrice Nicol

Table 1. (continued) Language Veneto (Venice)

loc

singular acc dat

plural acc

masc fem partitive

lo la ghe/ne

ghe

i le

ghe

masc

lo (le) [lu] ([le])

li; i

los (les) [lus]

lor; (li) [lur]

fem neut

la ò; òc [o, ok]

li; i

las

lor; (li)

lai; ï

mas fem masc fem masc fem neut

le; la lou [lu] la lou [lu] la zeu/eu

lï; lï lï lï lï lï

leu la loù; loui la; lai lei; li lei; li

lhu; ï; lï lhu; ï; lï lhu; lhour lhu; lhour lhour; lour lhour; lour

i; li

masc fem neut clusters

lo; u [lu] la ac (at; i)

lo; u la

los; us los; us las; us; les las; us

io lo/la l’ac li; i li; i

los/las los ac li li lei(s); (li) lei(s); (li)

ghe

Modern Occitan i; (li) Languedoc (Béziers-Toulouse-Narbonne)

Auvergnat: Clermontois Sanflorain Paulinois

Gascon

gender

dat

Occitan (Provençal) Gavot

i (li)

masc fem neut

do -ac lou la (h)ou

Maritime

i (li)

masc

lou

li; i

fem neut

la va; vo

li; i

masc fem

lou [lu] la

ié; (i) ié; (i)

li; (i) li; (i)

ié; (i) ié; (i)

masc fem

lo-

ile

ii-

li li

Rhodanian

i (li)

Modern Rumanian Ø (epenthesis is omitted)

li; i; (lour) li; i; (lour) [lur] li; i li; i

seems to be particularly relevant in Catalan, and may have been missed by prior studies (see Bonet 1995a, b). Spanish third person clusters vary considerably across social and dialectal boundaries. The main two processes at work are mentioned in Table 1. In Spain, conservative speakers in Northern regions would tend to avoid leismo, which con-

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

sists in using the animate third person dative le/les, instead of the corresponding accusative lo/los, la/las; yet according to Delbecque and Lamiroy (1992) and Garcia (1992), absolute non-observance of leismo does not exist, even if the frequency of use follows a North-South gradient.29 The loismo process in Latin America is somewhat different: the third person plural accusative pronoun los may be used as a second person indirect object, instead of the expected os (Harris 1997: 39). Although leismo has not developed in Latin America as it has in Continental Spain, there is reason to believe that the different varieties of Spanish are acquiring case-syncretic pronominal paradigms to some degree.

. Portuguese and Galician European Portuguese has clusters phonologically similar to those of conservative Logudorese Sardinian. Compare (56) with (58) below: (56) lhos 3pl.io-3masc.pl.do//3pl.io-3masc.sg.do //3sg.io-3masc.pl.do ‘them to them’//‘him to them’//‘them to him/her/it’ Note, however, that these clusters are rapidly disappearing in Brazilian Portuguese, except in careful written usage. The indirect weak pronouns are losing their affixal properties in combinations, and are being replaced by the corresponding strong pronouns. In Galician, the paradigm of clusters as indicated by descriptive grammars seems to invalidate the csp. Note however that, just as in Brazilian Portuguese, the third person clusters seem to be disappearing rapidly, being replaced by combinations using a strong dative pronoun governed by a preposition. Another analogy between the two languages is the gradual loss of the weak dative clitic, in advanced usage or familiar registers (see Pérez Bouza 1996: 30–31 for Galician & Galves 1997: 13 for Brazilian Portuguese). Further, in some contexts, the dative clitic may, at least in spoken usage, be used as a direct object (see Blasco Ferrer 1986 for Sardinian and Galves 1997: 33, N. 2 for Brazilian Portuguese). The conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that the csp does not apply to unstable morphological systems, affected by contact phenomena or undergoing catastrophic grammar change, nor to systems of competing grammars (see Lightfoot 1999: §4.4, §4.5). As shown by Lightfoot, after Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981), and Kroch (1994: 180) among others, “change proceeds via competition between grammatically incompatible options which substitute for one another in usage.” In the cases at hand, grammatical change is arguably associated with the loss of the systematic correlation between morphological case feature selection and the

 Fabrice Nicol

affixation process, in other words condition (8), at least for one of the competing grammars. As the lexicon does not provide for the necessary [aff] features, checking of [µ] is no longer possible and cluster formation is blocked. Over a transition period, marked violations of the csp may be tolerated and clusters can thereby surface; yet the simpler, less marked competing grammars will soon be preferred, as they make it possible to generate sentences with the same reference value without resorting to undesirably marked processes. Ultimately, clitic clusters evolve towards heightened case syncretism (like Logudorese) or elimination of third person clusters altogether, as in Brazilian Portuguese, Galician, arguably some Franco-Provençal varieties (Duc 1988; Martin 1974) and most Rhaeto-Romance languages (Benincà & Haiman 1992).

. Italian, Basilicatese, Piedmontese, Sardinian, Veneto Modern Standard Italian has the syncretic weak pronoun le, which is at once the feminine singular dative and the feminine plural accusative.30 Piedmontese is clearly case-syncretic in the plural. Basilicatese31 is less clearly so, yet, at least in imperative contexts, the third person dative llë is substituted for the accusative, as in (57): (57) décannéllë tell-wc.3sg.dat-wc.3sg.dat ‘tell it to him.’ (Bigalke 1994: 31) The plural morpheme -s in a conservative variety of Sardinian (“archaic” Logudorese) ambiguously marks both the dative argument and the accusative argument of the contracted pronoun lios or just marks the accusative argument: (58) lios 3pl.io-3masc.pl.do//3sg.io-3masc.pl.do ‘them to them’// ‘them to him/her/it’ If, as proposed earlier, the cluster is derived by successive left-adjunction, then the above ambiguity can be dealt with in terms of agreement. Let us here adapt a version of Chomsky’s 2000 proposal, to the effect that Case assignment involves agreement as a defining factor. Applied to clitics, the constraint can be stated as in (59): (59) If a clitic Cl1 transfers a feature α to a clitic Cl2 then:32 (i) Cl1 and Cl2 have the same morphological case, and (ii) α is in the list of formal features of both Cl1 and Cl2 .

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

As a consequence, feature transfer between the indirect object and the direct object in Sardinian entails a form of (generalized) case syncretism, since the suffix -s may be considered as an agreement marker. When it is, we have assumed in (59) that the two clitics have the same case. When it is not, and appears as an inherent suffix, we still assume that the clitics have the same case for generality. This assumption is supported by the fact that the conservative variety in question has gradually evolved towards a more modern paradigm which is clearly case-syncretic, the third person singular accusative pronoun being increasingly used instead of the corresponding dative pronoun (see Blasco Ferrer 1986: 110, §65, and the comparison with the leismo phenomenon in Spanish). It is noteworthy that the corresponding clitic clusters display a marked tendency to feature transfer (in colloquial modern usage) from the indirect object to the direct object. The prediction carries over to other varieties. One would expect that no variety allowing feature transfer/agreement could possibly belong to the conservative group, hence that feature transfer is not to be found in Old Romance and in Modern illum mihi varieties. The prediction seems to be borne out by the fact that only European Portuguese, which has clitic clusters closely similar to Sardinian, allows number feature transfer (see Table 1). As in Logudorese, the two pronouns form a single prosidic unit, yet the plural suffix ambiguously marks the direct object, the indirect object, or both in European Portuguese, while in conservative Logudorese -s cannot solely mark the indirect object (compare (58) and (56)). With the two above-mentioned exceptions, which can be regularized by resorting to (59), many other Romance varieties in Table 1 satisfy the csp. Veneto might well be a counterexample violating the csp, since Veneto third person clitics are apparently not case-syncretic. However, this exception might be accounted for by a pecular use of the locative ghe as either an indirect object or (sometimes) as a partitive (Benincà & Vanelli 1984: 168). If indeed the partitive is assigned (morphological) accusative case, which seems likely on account of the wcpartitive combinations of Italian (see (32)), then we obtain the double equation [locative] = [dative] and [locative] = [accusative]. Case syncretism between the accusative and the dative ensues.33

. Modern Occitan The situation is more contrasted in the Western Occitan area; some varieties have mihi illum clusters, while others belong to the conservative group, mainly in remote or isolated areas. The varieties spoken in economically dynamic regions and big cities (Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Montpellier, Nimes), except for the surprising exception of a small area around Nice, all have mihi illum clustering. In Languedocian (spoken in the Languedoc region), case syncretism is most of-

 Fabrice Nicol

ten reported in spoken usage confusing the strict form of the locative i and the third person accusative singular li (Alibert 1976: 64); as this form of case syncretism seems to be independent of the accusative-dative type, it appears that this variety of Occitan violates the csp. A further difficulty is that there seems to be a certain degree of freedom as to clitic placement, with possible geographical variations (see Alibert 1976: 66–69), mihi illum prevailing within a triangle formed by the cities of Beziers, Toulouse and Narbonne, and illum mihi to the North of the region. This is independently confirmed by the careful study of Camproux (1958: 351) in the Gévaudan area. Now, it does not seem that the sub-varieties in question strongly differ as to the morphology of third person clitics, contrary to expectations. We shall come back to this problem in Sections 4.3 and 6.1. Unlike Languedocian, or Limousin, Auvergnat (Modern North-Eastern Occitan: Clermont-Ferrand region) displays a high degree of morphological variation in pronominal paradigms. The main three sub-varieties of Auvergnat may be classified as non-conservative, since the pronominal forms have markedly evolved from the Old Occitan source (compare with Table 2). Clermontois and Sanflorain both have identical allomorphs for the locative and the dative, and Paulinois has identical allomorphs for the accusative plural and the dative singular. We note again the same problem as in Languedocian: there is no obvious sign of case syncretism between the dative and the accusative in Clermontois and Sanflorain. The csp clearly holds for Provençal, the variety spoken in the South-East of France from Nimes to a few valleys beyond the Italian border. Note that we are assuming here that li, ié and i are allomorphs, even when one of the two seems to be preferred in a given context (see Bayle 1989: 78; de Fourvières 1986: 39; Ronjat [1980]: §§497–498), and that the csp extends to all possible allomorphs, whatever their frequency of use. Rhodanian Provençal (Marseilles, Aix), Gavot Provençal (Haute-Provence) and Maritime Provençal (Coastal Provence) are case-syncretic for different choices of the allomorphs of li, sometimes relatively infrequent ones (given between brackets in Table 1).

. Modern Rumanian Omitting î-epenthesis, Rumanian has identical weak clitic complements in the third person, respectively the accusative masculine plural and the dative singular of both genders. The csp is consequently satisfied, just as in Western Romance.


. Discussion of the conservative group . Aragonese, Majorca Catalan Benasque and Ribagorza Aragonese have regular illum mihi clustering, with asyncretic clitics satisfying the csp. Majorca Catalan is considered to be the most conservative of all Catalan subvarieties as to clitic clustering. Although younger speakers would tend to adapt to the changes observed in the Barcelona area (Moll 1980: 51, 64), conservative illum mihi clustering is still well-attested. It can be seen that the pronominal paradigm is asyncretic in the third person, except for the form els (accusative plural); yet in combinations, the allomorph los or even the feminine les (used instead of the masculine) are often used (see Moll 1980: 50, 51, 64). Comparing with Provençal, we are now led to posit the following parameter: (60) a-parameter A variety has the weak allomorphic parameter (a-parameter) for case syncretism if and only if it suffices that an allomorph of an [acc] weak clitic be identical with an allomorph of an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. A variety has the strong a-parameter for case syncretism if and only if it is necessary that all allomorphs of an [acc] weak clitic be identical with allomorphs of an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. The a-parameter would thus be strong in Majorca Catalan and Corsican (see below 4.4) and weak in Auvergnat, Standard Italian and Provençal.

. Modern Provençal: Niçois An apparent exception to the csp is the variety of Provençal spoken in Nice. Niçois (also called Nissart) has illum mihi ordering, yet the morpheme li has spread from the accusative feminine plural to the dative plural (both genders) and the locative (Sardou 1978: 122). An interesting hypothesis would be that gender may not be visible to the csp, a property that is perhaps a language-specific parameter; as a consequence, two clitics could be considered to be case-syncretic if (and only if) both genders are. In the case at hand, this would amount to saying that Niçois follows the csp since the maculine accusative plural lu [ly] is not case-syncretic, unlike the feminine accusative plural li. This assumption can be formalized as in (61): (61) g-parameter A variety has the weak gender parameter (g-parameter) if and only if it



 Fabrice Nicol

suffices that an [acc] weak clitic of a given gender be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. A variety has the strong gender parameter if and only if it is necessary that [acc] weak clitics of both genders be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. Granting this definition, we can say that Niçois has the strong gender parameter, whereas Standard Italian has the weak gender parameter.34

. Old French/Occitan/Provençal; Modern Occitan: Limousin, Gévaudan, Béarnais The csp also holds, yielding illum mihi clustering, in Old French/Occitan/Provençal and conservative varieties of Modern Occitan, essentially in fairly isolated areas (Limousin, Gévaudan, Béarnais). An interesting factor should be pointed out at this juncture. Productive combinations involving a neuter pronoun (oc, o; ac) seem to be absent from Limousin or Gévaudan Occitan, and most productive in Modern Gascon (see Alibert 1976 on this east-west divide). This seems to be a decisive factor, since combinations with neuter pronouns never were of the illum mihi type, even in Old Occitan/Provençal; legitimate clusters have always conformed to the template in (62) (see Jensen 1986: 103; Skårup 1986: 86): (62) Neuter template wc.io-neut.do (oc, o; ac) The fact that the neuter all but disappeared in combinations everywhere but in Gascogne and Auvergne seems to have given a respite to the most conservative sub-varieties like Gévaudan or Limousin in the overall transition to mihi illum. Béarnais Gascon is of particular interest, since two systems coexist. It is possible to form mihi illum clusters with the neuter direct object ac/at/i as a suppletive clitic, as in Modern Gascon (see below 5.3). It is also possible, in conservative usage (Lespy 1978: 286) to use illum mihi combinations just as in Limousin or Gévaudan Languedocian. We shall come back to the syntax of the neuter clitic in 6.1. Let us note for the time being that the conservative sub-variety of Béarnais Gascon satisfies the csp in non-neuter combinations provided that the hypothesis that the a-parameter is strong is retained just as in Majorca Catalan or Corsican.

. Corsican The only Modern Italian dialect that has systematically preserved the old illum mihi ordering, is an apparent exception to the csp, which nevertheless falls into line

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Table 2. conservative group35 Language Aragonese Benasque Ribagorza Catalan Majorca

loc gender

singular acc

dat

plural acc

dat

bi; i masc fem

le la

i; ie i; ie

els (los) els (las)

sue sue

bi; i masc fem

lo la

i i

los las

i i

hi

el

li

els; les; (los) els les els

masc

fem la neut ho clusters l’ la els (les) les ho

li li l(e)hi la hi els hi (les hi) les hi

els l’els la els els els les els les els els ho; els hi

Corsican

ci

masc fem

lu; u la; a

li li

(li); i (le); e

li li

Modern French

y

masc fem

le la

lui lui

les les

leur leur

Old French

i

masc fem neut

lo, le [lo, le] li la li lo, le

les les

lor lor

Old Occitan/Provençal

i

masc fem neut

lo la o, oc

li li

los las

lor lor

masc fem

lo [lu] la

los las

lo li; i

los los; lis; is; i

neut

at; ac; i los las

lor lor

Modern Occitan/Provençal Béarnais Gascon i

Languedoc (Gévaudan)

i

mas lo [lu] fem la no neut

li; i li; i

Limousin

i

masc fem neut masc fem

el; ilh; li; i los el; ilh; li; i las

lor lor; (lis)

li li

li li

Niçois

li

lo [lu] la o [u]; au lou [lu] lou

lu [ly] li

 Fabrice Nicol

upon careful examination. The pronominal paradigm is overall asyncretic except for one contextual form of the accusative plural (li), which is exclusively enclitic. In postverbal position (imperative, infinitive, gerund), the initial l- is preserved, yielding contextual syncretism. In preverbal positions, the initial l- falls by apheresis. It is remarkable that, although the order of sequences in preverbal positions is fixed, the order for the imperative seems to be more flexible; compare (63) with (64): (63) dillila say wc.io.3sg-wc.do.3sg.fem/neut ‘Say it to him.’ (Agostini 1984: 11) (64) dillami say wc.do.3sg.fem/neut-wc.io.1sg ‘Say it to me.’ (Rohlfs 1972: 180; Giacomo-Marcellesi 1997: 21) These variations might be analyzed as the simple consequences of the contextualized syncretic form of the accusative plural pronoun li. If morphological case specification ignores apheresis, then the mihi illum order shows up; if apheresis is encoded in the lexical entry, then the pronominal paradigm is asyncretic, hence the illum mihi order. Yet, in preverbal position, one can only use the clitic pronoun ifor the accusative, and the full clitic li for the dative (Mathée Giacomo-Marcellesi, personal communication): (65) ddi/li cumpraré u jurnali, a Maria. wc.io.3sg.dat will buy a paper, to Mary (66) *I cumpraré u jurnali, a Maria. wc.io.3sg.acc will buy a paper, to Mary ‘I will buy Mary a paper.’ Corsican morphology thus does not encode {i; li} as a pair of allomorphs in all syntactic configurations, strikingly differing from Provençal morphology on this point. In the absence of case syncretism, the preverbal clusters therefore undergo cluster switch and surface in illum mihi order.

. Mixed orderings A number of varieties display either mihi illum or illum mihi orders, depending on the feature specification of pronouns and local micro-variations. We shall call this group the middle group.


Table 3. middle group36 Aragonese bi; i (Altoaragonese, Standard, Zaragosa)

masc fem neut/ partitive clusters (Standard) (Zaragosa/ Altoaragonese)

Catalan Barcelona

hi

lo li (le) la li (le) ne; en

lola-ne

masc

el

fem clusters

la l’ la els las ho

Minorca

i

masc fem neut clusters

[el] [le] [u]

los las

li/le

lis/les

+ lo-li, lo-le

+ lo-lis, lo-les

+ la-li, la-le

+ la-lis, la-les

– li-ne

– lis-ne

–

–

le-ne

lis (les) lis (les)

les-ne

li; (hi in clusters) li hi + l’hi [li] + l’hi;+ la hi + els hi + las hi + l’hi; – li ho

els; los

els; los

las els – els el – els la – els els – els las – els ho

els; los

[li] [li]

[ets] [edze]

([edze]), [edzi] ([edze]), [edzi]

[li]/[i] + [li] [el] + [lei] [le] [ets] + [edzi] [edze] + [edzi] – [u] [liu]

[edzi] – [edziel] – [edzile] –

[edziets]

– [edziedz e] –

[edziu]

. Aragonese The different sub-varieties of Aragonese do not exactly have the same clustering patterns. Bielsa Aragonese has weak clitics similar to those of Spanish, except for the locative bi/i, which is absent in Spanish (Nagore 1977: 70), and the low frequency of leismo in Bielsa (Alvar 1953: 287). Bielsa Aragonese has mihi illum clustering, like Spanish, yet without the “spurious se” suppletion phenomenon, and consequently violates the csp; yet this sub-variety seems to be affected by contact phenomena with Spanish; it might be the case that leismo is still at the ealiest stages of development, a tentative assumption that will require empirical confirmation. The in-between situation between conservative Standard and Bielsa Aragonese seems to be that of Zaragoza Aragonese/Altoaragonese, which has illum mihi clusters for its asyncretic clitics, with the additional option of substituting the neuter/partitive ne for the third person direct object, whatever its gender and num-



 Fabrice Nicol

ber, specifically in cluster combinations (li(s)-ne thus replacing lo-li(s), la-li(s), etc.). In this case, the linear order is mihi illum. These combinations are analogous to those of Modern Gascon, the Occitan sub-variety on the other side of the Pyrenees (see below 5.3), with the neuter o, oc.

. Barcelona and Minorca Catalan Modern Barcelona and Minorca Catalan are actually on the borderline between the mihi illum and illum mihi types. Barcelona Catalan has the conservative illum mihi sequence when the dative pronoun in the cluster is the singular hi/li, in other words when the dative pronoun is not case-syncretic. But when the indirect object pronoun is the plural els, which is case-syncretic, since the direct object pronoun is identical, then the linear order is reversed into the more modern mihi illum ordering, yielding the els le cluster. Note that Barcelona Catalan thus appears to be in a transition state in between Majorca Catalan (with its conservative illum mihi clusters) and Valencia Catalan (which has overall mihi illum clusters), a state of affairs that points to the existence of an on-going diachronic change in the whole Catalan-speaking area.37 The case of Barcelona Catalan further shows that the formalization of gender and allomorphic parameters was an adequate move. In effect, this sub-variety of Catalan distinguishes itself from the other main two sub-varieties (Valencian and Majorcan) by a number parameter which can be formulated as follows: (67) n-parameter A variety has the weak number parameter (n-parameter) if and only if it suffices that an [acc] weak clitic of a given number be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. A variety has the strong number parameter if and only if it is necessary that an [acc] weak clitic be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic of same number [n] for the sub-paradigm of number [n] to be considered case-syncretic. Minorca Catalan has apparently the same strong n-parameter as Barcelona Catalan (Guiter 1943: 170). The csp holds again for each number, provided that we neglect the phenomenon of locative i-reinforcement of the indirect object clitic [edze], yielding [edzi].38 It now appears that all Romance varieties under consideration have weak nparameters, except for Barcelona and Minorca Catalan, which have the strong n-parameter; as a consequence, the csp applies independently for each number, yielding different linear combinations for these two varieties, while it applies irrespective of number in other varieties.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

. Modern Gascon Modern Standard Gascon, spoken south of a line linking Bordeaux to Toulouse, is clearly case-syncretic. The third person clusters consist of the third person dative clitic, identical with the accusative clitic, combined with the neuter ac/at (and sometimes i); the neuter is thus a suppletive form that is substituted for the nonneuter clitic to avoid repetition of two similar forms. The csp is therefore clearly satisfied in Modern Gascon for third person clusters; yet problems arise for other types of clusters. Rohlfs (1977: 185, N. 311) and Hourcade (1986: 102–103) report geographical variations as to clustering with a first or second person clitic. The linear order is mostly illum mihi, perhaps a diachronic vestige of Old Gascon maintained by contact with Béarnais Gascon. Yet, in some parts of the Landes (and in Medoc), where clusters have shifted to mihi illum, a change predicted by the csp, and which may have been facilitated by contact with Spanish (respectively, French). We shall leave this problematic question open.

. Modern French Unlike Modern Occitan, Standard Modern French maintains a distinction between the locative y and the third person singular pronoun lui. We have seen that the csp applies almost ideally in Modern French, accounting for the somewhat intriguing differences between third person clusters and mihi illum clusters. This is the reason why we have put Modern French in the conservative group (Table 2). Yet, we have not solved two remaining problems: (i) In most Romance varieties, clitics are combined irrespective of the Person feature. Why is it that the csp applies independently to each person in French?39 In other words, why is it that the accusative case morphology does not propagate to the entire paradigm? (ii) How can we account for the shift from mihi illum to illum mihi when the verb is used in the imperative as in (68)? Why do written registers often resist this switch? (68) a.

donne-le-moi ! (standard written or spoken register) give wc.do.acc-sc.io b. donne-moi-le ! (spoken register only) give sc.io-wc.do.acc ‘give it to me!’

The first question is amenable to parametrization. We have already posited allomorphic, gender and number parameters; let us now assume that there may also exist a person parameter, defined along the lines of the other parameters as in (69):

 Fabrice Nicol

(69) p-parameter A variety has the weak person parameter (p-parameter) if and only if it suffices that an [acc] weak clitic of the third person be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic for the whole paradigm to be considered case-syncretic. A variety has the strong person parameter if and only if it is necessary that an [acc] weak clitic of a person [p] be identical with an [acc’] weak clitic of the same person for the sub-paradigm of person [p] to be considered case-syncretic. The set of [p, n, g, a]-parameters now accounts for most cross-linguistic variations we have encountered (see Table 4). To answer question (ii), we tentatively propose to resort to lexical insertion in the course of derivation, in the spirit of Distributed Morphology. Most analyses of the well-known contrast in (68) consider it to be caused by the prosodic properties of strong pronouns moi (toi, etc.), which may be dislocated and conjoined. Let us accordingly propose a uniform treatment for the moi-class in French and l-apheresis in Corsican: the lexicon may, or may not, encode the relevant morphological features, whether it be [+stressed] or [–apheresis]. If the feature is not encoded in the lexicon, then the corresponding clitics cannot be distinguished from weak clitics by the syntactic computation and mihi illum clustering ensues as in (68b) and (63). The features in question are then added at the interface with Morphology. Another option, which is the preferred one in written registers, consists in fully specifying the [+stressed] or [–apheresis] features in the lexicon prior to the syntactic derivation. Let us now assume that a clitic specified for a morpho-phonological feature in the lexicon is, for the syntactic component, to be treated on a par with natural allomorphs; assume further that the strong aparameter is retained for Modern French and Corsican. The consequence of these plausible assumptions is that all the corresponding combinations in French and Corsican will be illum mihi, since the features in question make it possible to free the pronominal paradigms from case syncretism.

. Related theoretical issues and unsolved problems A complete review of previous studies on the controversial issue of clitic clustering would be far beyond the scope of this paper. We shall only briefly discuss a few theoretical points on which our account comes to bear, and mention a few questions which will be left open.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Table 4. [p, n, g, a]-parameter and case syncretism strength (CSS) Parameter Language

p

n

g

a

CSS

Provençal/Aragonese Majorca Catalan Corsican Béarnais Gascon Niçois Mod. French Barcelona Catalan

– –

– –

– –

– +

max 4

– –

– –

– –

+ +

4 4

– + +

– – +

+ – –

– – –

3 1 min

. On morphological case assignment We have already noted that combinations with suppletive neuter pronouns ([o, ok]) used for masculine or feminine pronouns, satisfy the template (62), which has not evolved from Old Romance, unlike non-neuter templates. This holds for Limousin, Modern Gascon and all varieties of Catalan. How come the neuter pronoun behaves so uniformly across the Romance area? Apparently, the combinations are insensitive to the changes in the case assignment properties of the Romance languages. The null hypothesis could be that morphological case assignment requires a full [p, n, g, a] set of parameters; as a neuter has no [± masc] gender or inherent number, one may assume that the parameter is not specified and so that no case is assigned. The neuter is thus merged to the verb in the base, and all corresponding combinations will surface as wc-neuter sequences. The resulting mihi illum sequences might then help trigger the onset of the shift from illum mihi to mihi illum, once the appropriate threshold of case syncretism has been attained in the pronominal paradigm. In support of this intuition, we have already noted in 4.3 that some conservative sub-varieties of Languedocian Occitan, like Gévaudan Occitan, retained the conservative illum mihi sequences; yet the maps of Alibert (1976) show that the geographical distribution of these diachronic vestiges strikingly coincides with the areas where the two conditions are simultaneously satisfied: (i) the pronominal paradigms remained asyncretic, and (ii) the neuter o/oc is quite infrequent. A parallel line of reasoning may be followed with respect to the neuter clitic zeu of Auvergnat.40

 Fabrice Nicol

. Causatives and Generalized affixation Causatives appear as an interesting test case for the above set of assumptions. Three properties of causatives are particularly relevant here. (70) Property 1 Clitic raising pied-pipes the whole clitic cluster. This property is exemplified in (71) below: (71) Il me la fait envoyer (la = la lettre). he wc.do.1sg.acc wc.io.3sg.fem. makes PROarb send. ‘He had it sent to me (the letter).’ Accordingly, neither of the two clitics may be stranded (see (72)–(73)) and Raising is obligatory (see (74)):41 (72) *Il me fait l’envoyer. he wc.do.1sg.acc makes PROarb wc.io.3sg.fem. send. (73) *Il la fait m’envoyer. he wc.io.3sg.fem. makes PROarb wc.do.1sg.acc send. (74) *Il fait me l’envoyer. he makes PROarb wc.do.1sg.acc wc.io.3sg.fem. send. If Cluster Raising involves cluster formation in the subordinate, then it is necessary to admit that the cluster is not cliticized to the infinitive at this early stage, even though case has already been checked. We propose that, for independent reasons, clitics cannot cliticize to the subordinate infinitive (see Quicoli 1980; Postal 1981 for more details on the facts). The whole cluster must raise to the matrix verb, perhaps for scope reasons.42 Let us posit a [Q] feature that forces raising of a clitic (or a clitic cluster) from the subordinate to the matrix verb. Cliticization is delayed until the [Q] feature is erased; we consequently have to modify the conditions on affixation (8) as follows: (75) Condition on affixation (revised) Checking of [aff] occurs prior to checking of [µ] (case checking), which occurs prior to checking of [Q] (perhaps scopal properties). Cliticization to the verb stem is delayed until checking of [Q]. Cluster formation proceeds as in the simple case, except that morphological cliticization of the cluster to the subordinate infinitive does not obtain. Although [aff] and [µ] features are erased at this stage, there remains the scopal-like feature [Q] to check; the cluster is therefore case-checked in the subordinate, yet cannot adjoin to the verb stem. We fall back again on the interesting difference between Affixa-


tion and cliticization (see 1.1). Affixation makes it necessary to raise the cluster as a complex head and blocks stranding of one of its parts. The [Q] feature is inserted with the head of the cluster and raising of [Q] requires pied-piping of the whole cluster, which is only possible (barring excorporation) if, subsequent to Affixation, the cluster is a complex head and has not yet been cliticized to the verb. Any clitic cluster must be formed in the subordinate, be it a mihi illum or an illum mihi cluster, as in simple clauses, yet cliticization must be delayed until raising to the matrix clause has taken place. This now involves a major change in the application of Move subsequent to Affixation. The head of the chain is not the cluster-V◦ complex, but the cluster-[Q] complex. In other words, Move does not apply to the verb but raises the cluster along with the unchecked [Q] feature. This may in turn derive from the fact that verbs do not have scopal properties per se, hence raising V◦ along with the cluster would block checking of [Q] (see Note 37). Three-clitic combinations make it possible to test this amendment. Consider for example (76) from Postal (1981: 287): (76) Je te le lui laisserai donner. I wc.2sg.acc.subj wc.3sg.masc.do wc.3sg.io will let give ‘I will let you give it to him.’ (76) derives from (77) after cluster switch: (77) Je [vP1 laisserai [ te [vP2 le-lui[Q] donner t t’]]] If le lui were to form higher up in vP1 , all features inserted along with the matrix verb laisserai would be erased in just one step by operation Move. At this stage, the Minimal Link Condition of Chomsky (1995) would yield the incorrect lui le te surface order. Therefore le lui undergoes Affixation in the subordinate, yet is not cliticized to the infinitive. [Q] is checked higher up, possibly by the matrix verb or Agr; further raising of the cluster and the subordinate subject in successive order yields the appropriate surface clusters, as te, which is still phrasal, being a subordinate subject, raises as a phrase before undergoing Affixation in the Specifier of [v lui-laisserai].

. French third person constraint on cluster switch It is now possible to explain why cluster switch is restricted to third person clitics in French, while it is more widely available in other languages (see Tables 2 and 3). Assuming the copy theory of Move (Lasnik 1999), raising results from the application of Merge to the copy of the embedded clitic. Now, Copy just adds an exact copy of the clitic to the Numeration. At this step, the projection level index of the clitic cannot have been altered. When Affixation applies, it thus checks phrase-



 Fabrice Nicol

level indices and converts them to head-level indices, for first and second persons, while it leaves the projection level index of third persons unaltered. It is reasonable to posit two different kinds of features to perform the two operations: aff[XP], which checks phrase-level indices, and aff[X◦ ], which checks head-level indices. Coming back to (14) and (15), the order of clitic raising operations is determined by the fact that the indirect object clitic c-commands the direct object clitic, applying Chomsky’s definition of closeness in terms of c-command relations (see the above discussion of (52)). This holds as the two affix checkers are of the same type, hence do not target different entities prior to raising. However, if [aff1 ] and [aff2 ] were of different types, each of the two checkers would target its own clitic prior to raising. It would not be possible to apply the c-command criterion. Either of the two affix checkers could attract the corresponding clitic freely before the other, resulting in an ambiguous clustering order. We posit that ambiguous syntactic derivations should be excluded in a principled syntactic framework, following common Minimalist assumptions, unless they are exceptional departures (see 2.3 above for a possible ambiguity involving distinct hierarchical configurations, however). As a consequence, cluster switch is filtered out if the clitics do not have the same projection level in French. Further, we have seen in 2.3 and 2.4 that cluster switch is filtered out for first and second persons in French, as there is no extension of the Phase. Consequently, do-io clusters only surface with third person clitics. The prediction to be made at this juncture is that conservative languages of Table 2, which have retained the old illum mihi order, necessarily have extended Phases and violations of Anagnostopoulou’s Strong Person-Case constraint (our condition 5) with I/II clusters. This claim seems to be borne out by the facts given for Catalan and Occitan, but should be carefully checked for other varieties in future work.

. A syntactic reduction of the Weak Person-Case constraint The Weak Person-Case constraint (Anagnostopoulou, this volume) precludes direct object first or second person clitics in the presence of an oblique third person clitic. The constraint at hand has been straightforwardly reduced to prior assumptions in Section 6.3 for French. The same line of reasoning carries over to all varieties, whether case-syncretic or not. If the language is case-syncretic, Affixation must obtain in the VP, thereby violating mo (condition 54). If the language is not case-syncretic and cluster switch takes place, then two different types of affixal features aff(X◦ ) and aff(XP) should be inserted, in violation of the economy condition posited in 6.3. The strong universal character of both constraints may explain why Weak Person-Case constraint violations are so severe in all varieties.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Now, a problem arises with the fact that the conservative languages of Table 2 display illum mihi order with third and first or second persons in the same cluster. On the prior assumptions, it is necessary to admit that the affixal feature that triggers raising of the indirect object first or second person clitic is in fact of type aff(X◦ ), a possible contradiction with 6.3. Recall, however, that we hypothesized on independent grounds in 2.4 that the outer Specifier of VP, outside the Phase, is non-D-linked, and may be subject to Affixation. Consequently, we propose to reconcile the above claims by positing that it is [Person], not the projection level itself, that is checked/targeted by the affixal feature. Just one value of [Person] is enough for the derivation to proceed: [+Person] (first or second person). The same results as in 6.3 and above in this section fall out, substituting aff( ) for aff(X◦ ) and aff([+Person]) for aff(XP), on the assumption already made in (54i). With this in mind, it just suffices to notice that (i) a clitic is D-linked if, and only if, it is [+Person], and (ii) copies are not D-linked outside the Phase, to derive the conclusion that [+ Person] features are no longer visible outside the Phase. Therefore: (78) [+Person] remains visible to the computation until it is checked by Vaff([+Person]), or by H◦ -aff([+Person]), if HP is a Phase extension. The affixal features under v that trigger cluster switch can only be of the same type aff( ) as a result of (78). Prior results are derived similarly, noting that if a direct object clitic is [+Person], it can never be checked (neither by Move, following (78), nor by V itself, following (44)), our final version of the Weak Person-Case constraint.

. Syntactic reduction of the csp A tempting generalization based on 6.3 and 6.4 could be that affixal features check all relevant pronominal features of clitic morphology. The set of features that comes to mind naturally is the [p, n, g, a]-parameter of the morphological component, which will be denoted [P, N, G, A] as a set of syntactic features. Before checking morphological case, the computational system requires identification if Person, Gender, Number and possible Allomorphic variants. This requirement may be due to the fact that case morphology is itself dependent on these variables. Now, consider again the a-parameter, viewed as a formal syntactic feature A. It checks whether, for a given syntactic function, there are other possible morphemes. Case syncretism is just the reverse: for a given morpheme, there may be other possible syntactic functions. Generality therefore suggests to view case syncretism as a formal feature [S], on a par with the [A]-feature that checks allomorphs:

 Fabrice Nicol

(79) Affixal features are checked subsequent to all pronominal features in the syntax, in other words aff([Φ]), in which [Φ] = [P, N, G, A, S]. At this juncture, the problem arises of ordering the five possible checking operations with a view to minimizing computational complexity. First, only necessary features will be checked. [A] will have no effect on the derivation in the absence of allomorphs, and [S] will be useless if there is just one direct object or indirect object clitic. In this (frequent) case, Φ reduces to the standard φ-feature bundle. [S] will only have an effect on the derivation if the clitic is an indirect object. Direct object clitics are unambiguously inserted with the [acc] case-feature, as we have assumed throughout this paper. [S] will have an effect on the derivation only for obliques, which may receive the case features [acc] (if [S] = [+syncretic]) or [acc’] (if [S] = [–syncretic]). [N] and [G] will often be unnecessary, although they will be inserted in some languages (for example, [N] in Barcelona Catalan and [G] in Niçois), but this seems to be a marked option. Typically, Φ is just [P] with any direct object clitic and [P, S] with an indirect object in a cluster. Consider the case syncretism feature [S]. Let us posit the definition of case syncretism strength as in (80): (80) Case syncretism strength (CSS) is the rank of the checking of [S] in the checking of Φ. Thus, CSS = max if [S] is checked last; CSS = 4 if [S] is checked before [A]; CSS = 3 if [S] is checked before [G]; CSS = 2 if [S] is checked before [N]; CSS = 1 if [S] is checked before [P]; CSS = min if [S] is checked before (at least) two other pronominal features. Checking of [S] consists in three operations: (81) csp (final version) Checking of the case syncretism feature [S] is achieved by (i)–(iii): (i) Checking of the morphological form of the clitic, notably its ‘weakness’; (ii) Considering a subset γ of the whole weak clitic paradigm Γ, such as γ lists ‘relevant’ clitics, characterized by the following restrictive condition: Clitics in γ must satisfy all unchecked pronominal features within [aff(. . . )]. (iii) If two elements of γ are identical, then [S] = [+syncretic] is checked; otherwise [S] is checked as [–syncretic]. (i) and (iii) are unproblematic; (ii) identifies what ‘relevant’ clitics may be.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

In other words, if CSS = max, γ is the third person paradigm, since [+Person] is no longer accessible to the computation (see 78). If CSS = 4, 3, 2, 1 or min, γ lists all clitics of Γ that are also determined by the values of [A], [G], [N], [P], or two features respectively. (81) seems natural from a logical point of view, if Φ-features are considered to be conjoined variables whose values determine subsets of clitics in Γ that can be intersected to yield γ. For example, the Modern French parameter [p, n, g, a] is [+, –, –, –] (see Table 4). The only variable that restricts γ is [P]. Hence, [N], [G], [A] are either not inserted or erased prior to [S]. In other words, CSS = 1 and variable [P] determines the subset γFrench of Γ, which contains all clitics of the same [P] value as the clitic cl to be Affixed. If cl is third person, [S] will receive the value [–syncretic], whereas if cl is first or second person, [S] = [+syncretic]. French is semi-syncretic; its case syncretism strength value is low and mihi illum has set in except for third person clusters. In Barcelona Catalan, [p, n, g, a] = [+, +, –, –] and [P] and [N] restrict γ. Formally, γBCat ⊂ γFrench since γBCat only contains clitics that have same [P] and [N] values. CSS = min, as a possible [–syncretic] feature will propagate to a very small subset of Γ. In contrast, for CSS values higher than 1, [P] has been erased, hence first and second persons are no longer visible to the computation, following (78). The sole visible subset of Γ is the third person paradigm. When a first or second person [S] feature is checked, the value of [S] is computed, somewhat unexpectedly, by scanning the third person paradigm, not the second/first person paradigms. Strange as it may seem, this result helps explain why the case syncretism (or asyncretism) properties of the third person clitics determine clitic ordering even for first and second persons in most varieties. While almost all Romance varieties have casesyncretic first and second person paradigms, there remains the option of illum mihi in the conservative languages of Table 2 with CSS values higher than 1. By ignoring first and second persons, the computation thereby eliminates a major source of case syncretism in the clitic paradigm. The other two parameters are checked somewhat differently. A strong aparameter groups together all allomorphs in a same subset for each clitic in γ. Identification in (81iii) holds between subsets of allomorphs within γ. Hence, γ has fewer elements than if the a-parameter is weak. In this case, all allomorphs are listed as independent elements of γ. The same holds with the strong g-parameter. In this case, all clitics are in fact pairs formally equivalent to Cj = {[P, N, masculine]j , [P, N, feminine]j }, in which index j marks the syntactic function. When j, P, and N vary, Cj takes all values in γ. Identification in (81iii) holds between pairs. A strong g-parameter, like a strong a-parameter, reduces the computational complexity of scanning γ, since γ is half the size of Γ for a strong g-parameter, and possibly even smaller for varieties that have numerous allomorphs.

 Fabrice Nicol

To summarize, all non-offending weak [p, n, g, a]-parameters are either redundant or erased prior to checking of case syncretism, hence have no effect on the derivations considered. All strong [p, n, g, a]-parameters determine variables in Φ that limit the scanning of possible case-syncretic pairs to a smaller subset γ of Γ. Hence they cannot be erased prior to case syncretism checking. Another consequence is that, if CSS is higher than 2, the risk of case syncretism setting in is lower as γ is smaller. The smaller γ, the lower the risk of two identical morphemes in γ. Then [–syncretic] can propagate to the entire paradigm Γ, since [P] has already been erased. The change from illum mihi to mihi illum is therefore blocked by high CSS values, unless the computational cost of higher CSS values becomes itself too high. Indeed, a smaller γ subset is obtained through postponing the checking of a formal feature, an undesirable option in a Minimalist framework (early erasure being systematically preferred). The identification procedure required by (81iii) is also more complex. The final csp now makes it possible to eliminate prior versions of the csp as a descriptive generalization. In the spirit of the Distributed Morphology Framework, we now eliminate all morphological rules associated with the csp and just retain the intersective procedure defined in (81) and late checking of morphological properties. All combinations in Table 4 (which could in principle contain up to 16 lines) now reduce to the five possible CSS values. For example, in (14), cl2 is marked [–syncretic], hence receives the morphological case [acc’], possibly by Late Insertion. In contrast, in (12), cl2 is marked [+syncretic] hence receives morphological case [acc]. The derivation proceeds as previously analyzed.

. Reducing morphological case complexity Most morphological case features may possibly be dispensed with at this stage, as a theoretical option. We have not encountered strong empirical evidence in support of clitic excorporation from a cluster in Romance. It does not seem to be possible to check case higher up in the derivation subsequent to Affixation. If this should be confirmed by future research, then the complex case-checking mechanism postulated so far could be replaced by the simpler condition: (82) (i) Checker aff( ) incorporates the Specifier into a head-movement chain provided that its affixal feature is reduced to its head aff( ), subsequent to pronominal feature checking. (ii) In order to reduce computational complexity, only [–syncretic] values for [S] are inserted and checked against indirect objects. Otherwise, relevant pronominal features reduce to [+Person] if there is one in the numeration, and are erased as early as possible, depending on case syncretism strength.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

All else being equal, aff( ) now replaces [aff1 ], [aff2 ] and the two [acc] features for direct objects or case-syncretic indirect objects. Simultaneous checking of [aff] and [acc] features is now replaced by erasure of aff( ) under V after checking of both Specifiers, as the projection level of the clitic is equated to 0 in (12) (mihi illum case). The changes are shown in (83). (83)

VP 2 () 1 ()

V° ()...

In the cluster switch derivation (14)–(18), aff([–syncretic]) replaces [aff2 ] and [acc’], and aff( ) replaces [aff1 ] and [acc]. Mihi illum ordering is blocked as follows: [–syncretic] of V checks [–syncretic] of the indirect object, yielding aff ( ) after erasure within aff([–syncretic]). There remains one aff( ) feature to check in each VP Specifier. As Move has already applied, verb raising is forced just as in previous analyses. One aff( ) under V-v therefore attracts cl2 and the other aff( ) in turn attracts cl1 , then both affixal features erase, following (82i), yielding illum mihi ordering as in (84). (84) a. Cluster switch (input) VP 2 ([–syncretic]) 1 () V° () ([–syncretic])

b. Cluster switch (output) íP

1 [()] 2 [()] V°-í [()][()]

VP t2 t1 tV

 Fabrice Nicol

. Concluding remarks: On “strongly lexicalist” theories We have presented an essentially syntactic approach to complement cluster formation in the Romance languages. The linear order of complement cluster clitics is predicted by the csp, a morpho-syntactic principle that replaces template-based filters. The [p, n, g, a]-parameter, reduced to the notion of case syncretism strength, specifies the scope of the csp. We thereby acknowledge that there are contingent idiosyncratic differences in the Romance languages.43 A case in point is that of ethical datives, discourse-linked adjuncts which display puzzling syntactic properties; Bonet (1995b) thus shows that Catalan ethical datives, unlike argument clitics, may combine with (proclitic) inherent reflexives in either possible order. Bonnaud (1992: 353) also reports free clustering order in Auvergnat with combinations of an indirect object with an ethical dative. As ethical datives have the same morphology as argument clitics, this class of clitics is unlikely to be amenable to morphological case-driven derivations. Yet we depart from template-based morphological theories (see, among others, Bonet 1995a; Miller & Sag 1997; Simpson & Withgott 1986; Watson 1997), which have questioned the validity of transformational approaches and claimed that cross-linguistic variations appear to be hopelessly intractable. In our view, the Minimal Link Condition makes it possible to derive the diachronic changes through cluster switch by correlating the weakening of morphological paradigms with the shift from illum mihi to mihi illum; many crosslinguistic contrasts may also be predicted. The intractable property of complement clitics is the language-specific parametrization of how the csp applies. The [p, n, g, a]-parameter describes the way the morphological component marks the pronominal paradigms as case-syncretic or not, and how this contingent property should be visible to the syntax. Much of the computational complexity brought about by the [p, n, g, a]parameter may be reduced by resorting to checking of pronominal features ([p, n, g, a] and case syncretism) in the syntax. Indeed, this parameter and other morphological rules, for the most part, are subsumed by the notion of case syncretism strength, which measures the resistance of a variety to increased case syncretism in the weak clitic paradigms. As shown by Table 4, conservative illum mihi languages (Aragonese, Corsican), just like uniformly mihi illum languages (Italian, Provençal), preserve cluster ordering over time. A language may resist the change to mihi illum by postponing the checking of one (and sometimes two) pronominal features after Affixation, as the subset list of possible case-syncretic morphemes is then smaller. Thereby, if some clitics become case-syncretic over time, the variery may well retain its old illum mihi ordering inherited from Latin, provided that the clitics in question do not belong to the subset list. This is what happens in some Occitan varieties and

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

(Barcelona/Majorca) Catalan. However, if case syncretism propagates to most of the paradigm, the cost of this conservative strategy becomes too high in computational terms. The standard strategy, early erasure of pronominal features, is therefore preferred, which speeds up the overall change to mihi illum. The surprising diversity of surface syntax in the Occitan/Provençal area may be analyzed in these terms. These assumptions account for how and why languages evolve, overall, to mihi illum, and not vice versa, with occasional inertia phenomena. This fact is linked with the strong tendency, in most varieties, to erase the [Person] feature early. Exceptional departures from this economy principle explain why conservative strategies are sometimes restricted to the third person paradigm, as in French and some Catalan varieties.

Notes * This paper is a revised version of presentations made at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest, San Antonio, Texas, 1999, and at New York University (Syntax and Semantics series) in April 2000. I am grateful to all participants, and particularly to Richard Kayne and Francisco Ordoñez for data and comments during my visit at NYU. I am also indebted to Edward Garrett, Mathée Giacomo-Marcellesi, Philip Miller, Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock, for critical remarks and suggestions. . acc: accusative; acc’: non-accusative; aff: affix(al); cl: clitic; cl1 : do clitic; cl2 : io clitic; dat: dative; do: direct object; fem: feminine; imp: impersonal subj wc; io: indirect object; loc: locative; masc: masculine; mo: Morphological Opacity (condition 19); Mod.: Modern; neut: neuter; pl: plural; refl: reflexive; sc: stressed cluster clitic pronoun; subj: subject; sg: singular; wc: weak (atonic) cluster clitic pronoun. . We will ignore the question of whether some pronominal clitics are determiners. See Uriagereka (1995, this volume), for arguments to this effect. See also the discussion on gender in Section 4.2 and on neuter in Section 6.1. . This is particularly evident in the case of Italian and Catalan third person clitics (see Table 1 and Table 3), in which a variety of morpho-phonological phenomena may be observed (in Italian, the io clitic undergoes elision followed by -e insertion specifically in all cases of cluster formation, with extra palatalization of the initial /l/ in the third person). Further, it is well known that a cluster may undergo Raising in causatives, thereby behaving as one and single morpheme or phrase; see 6.4 further down. . Following tradition (Wanner 1987; Pearce 1991), we will refer to the indirect object + direct object surface order as the mihi illum order, and to the direct object + indirect object surface order as the illum mihi order. . For arguments to the effect that s-selection obtains through the checking of thematic features, see Bošković and Takahashi (1998), Lasnik (1999: 124, 161, 169).

 Fabrice Nicol . See Note 5. Thematic Priority may be regarded as a particular consequence of Chomsky’s 1995 output principle to the effect that ‘α enters the numeration only if it has an effect on output’ (see Chomsky 1995: 294). If formal features other than thematic features are erased on merging an argument in the lexical phrase, they would have no effect and so would violate the output principle. . Insertion of cl2 in (12) is subsequent to raising or direct merger. The latter option is ruled out, since it would leave the case and affix features unchecked (as a result of Thematic Priority). cl2 may be attracted either by the accusative case checker, or by the (abstract) dative Case checker. . See Silverstein (1980) for developments on case syncretism. . The proper characterization of [acc’] is left as an open question. There are three plausible options: [acc’] = dative case, [acc’] = null case or lack of case. See 6.6, in which relevant case morphology is reduced to a case syncretism feature, thereby eliminating both [acc] and [acc’]. . mo appears as the morphological counterpart to Chomsky’s (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition (“for the strong phase HP, . . . the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside HP but only H and its edge.”) . (22) implies a notable departure from Chomsky (2000, 2001), since Chomsky’s (2001) tentative assumption is that the minimal (strong) phase is v*P. I have no independent evidence as to this parametrization of Phase levels for French; as suggested by an anonymous reader, participial agreement and/or scrambling of tous (‘all’) and rien (‘nothing’) might play a role here. . Note that a template approach would need two distinct and unrelated conditions to account for (3) and (5), since sentences like (21) have the offending do clitic in first linear position. . Exceptions are listed in Section 4. . See also Evans et al. (1978: 167) and Seuren (1976: 60, Fn. 7): ‘grammaticality is not guaranteed for all speakers, . . .the preferred solution being . . .the replacement of the indirect object clitic with strong pronouns.’ . Bonet (1995b) also gives the following Catalan example, acceptable “for a subset of speakers” (her example 18): (i)

Te’m vendran per divuit millions. wc.2.sg-wc.1.sg will sell.3.pl for 18 million ‘They will sell me to you for 18 million.’ ‘They will sell you to me for 18 million.’

I therefore hypothesize that the contrast between (26a) and (ii) in standard Spanish, indicated by an anonymous reviewer, is caused by independent lexical factors, perhaps a reference shift phenomenon: (ii) ?? Te me muestras en el espejo. wc.2.sg-wc.1.sg shows.2.sg in the mirror ‘You’re showing yourself to me in the mirror.’


See Anagnostopoulou (this volume, Section 5) for an alternative analysis. . Contra Seuren (1976: 13), who limits acceptability to reflexive direct objects. . See Skårup (1986) for Old Occitan, and compare with Alibert (1976) for Modern Occitan. . This does not hold for Corsican and Veneto, among others, which have locatives identical to a third person singular indirect object (respectively li and ghe). . A difficulty now arises as to the proper treatment of cl2 -cl1 third person sequences. See Section 6.3. In Old Romance, third person clitics may have behaved like phrasal affixes (see Miller 1991 in particular on y and en in French), which might explain the wc.3-ci order in Old Florentine (see 32a). . See Section 6.2 for remaining problems related to locative-partitive clusters. . (39) can be derived from the principle of Full Interpretation if F◦ is the locus of first person interpretation. The same idea is taken up again in Section 6.4, in which a scopallike [Q] feature is posited that forces raising of clitics from the subordinate of a causative structure, thereby postponing affixation until clitic raising has applied. . Note that cluster formation now takes place (in Spanish) in the checking domain of F◦ , not in VP, as in (i): (i)

[F◦ P F◦ [VP cl1 V cl2 ] ] → [ cl1 cl2 V-F◦ [ t1 t2 ]]

One can easily verify that the linear ordering properties obtained with VP-internal cluster formation are preserved. . In the causative construction the subordinate subject surfaces as an oblique clitic, whence the terminology. . See Alibert (1976: 66–69) and Camproux (1958: 351) for Northern/Gévaudan Languedocian; Chabaneau (1876 [1980]: 173–182) and Tinton (1982: 37, 78) for Limousin; Vouland (1988: 165) and Sardou (1978: 122) for Niçois. . See Bonnaud (1992: 128) for Auvergnat; Lespy (1880 [1978]: 306), Birabent and SallesLoustau (1989: 60), Rohlfs (1977: 181–185) for Gascon; Hourcade (1986: 89, 101–103), Lespy ([1978]: 286–287) for Béarnais Gascon; Alibert (1976: 66–69) for Languedocian; Bayle (1989), de Fourvières (1986: 39), Ronjat ([1980]: 48–64, 563–569), and Vouland (1988: 165) for the different sub-varieties of Provençal. . Syncretic forms and mihi illum clusters are italicized. This table has been compiled from the references of Notes 24 and 25, supplemented by the following: Nagore (1977) for Bielsa Aragonese; Bigalke (1994) for Basilicatese; Fontelles et al. (1987), Solà (1973: 52), and Valor (1986), for Valencia Catalan; Pérez Bouza (1996: 30), for Galician; Harris and Vincent (1988: 290–291), for Standard Italian; Galves (1997: 13–14, 33 Fn. 2), for Brazilian Portuguese; da Silva Dias (1959: 71–72), for European Portuguese; Jones (1993: 199), and Blasco Ferrer (1986), for Sardinian; Brero and Bertodatti (1988: 76–77) for Piedmontese; Hewson (1998) for Rumanian; Harris (1997: 39) for Spanish (Castilla; South America); Benincà and Vanelli (1984: 168–170) for Veneto. . See Blasco Ferrer (1986: 211 Fn. 42).



 Fabrice Nicol . “It is quite common for number and gender features associated with the indirect object to be transferred to the accusative clitic”: Jones (1993: 32). This optional property gives bila ‘it to her’, bilos ‘it to them (masc)’, bilas ‘it to them (fem)’, etc. The allomorph si is the Campidanese variant (Blasco Ferrer 1986: 112), which gives the clusters siddu, sidda etc. Instead of the indicated combinations one sometimes observes bilis, in which the suppletive dative is combined with the third person plural dative, “ostensibly replacing the accusative clitic rather than the dative in order to specify plural reference of the indirect object” (Jones 1993: 220). A similar type of suppletion is observed in Basilicatese, see (57). . Delbecque and Lamiroy mention lexical and discourse-related factors in Spanish whereas Garcia emphasizes regional variations, leismo being most frequently used in the Madrid area. . Note, though, that le is disappearing in spoken informal varieties, a change that would be problematic in a strictly synchronic framework. . Whether other main Southern dialects (Sicilian, Abruzzese) conform to the csp is still less clear; a specific analysis, in any case, would be required to account for the pecular prosodic properties of Southern clitic clusters, see Wanner (1993) for additional remarks to this effect. . The condition is necessary, but not sufficient. There may be case-syncretic combinations that do not involve agreement phenomena, as in 4. . The same occasional use of the partitive as locative is found in Aosta Franco-Provençal (Chenal 1986: 371 on nen for y). See also Martin (1974: 85–101) on Lyonnais FrancoProvençal, a variety that directly uses the locative y as a neuter do. Clustering order is fairly unstable in Franco-Provençal; Chenal reports clusters similar to Standard French in Aosta, while Gardette (1984) reports a marked tendency to mihi illum. These variations may be accommodated by using the allomorphic parameter defined below in (60). The assignment of accusative case to the partitive is independently motivated by the combinations with partitive ne as neuter do in Zaragoza Aragonese, see 5.1. . Note that Nice was for a long time an Italian possession, so one might think that the use of li as a feminine accusative plural could be the result of a contact phenomenon, by analogy with the Italian le/li. . See Notes 23, 24. Alvar (1953: 287), Chusé Lera and Chuan-chusé Lagraba (1987), Nagore (1977: 67), for Aragonese; Moll (1975: 170–171, 1980: 50, 64), for Majorca Catalan; Agostini (1984: 111) and Toti (1987: 74), for Corsican; Brunot (1966: 270–271), for Old French; Jensen (1986: 92–106) and Smith and Bergin (1984: 114–115), for Old Occitan/Provençal. . Chusé Lera and Chuan-chusé Lagraba (1987) for Altoaragonese and Alvar (1953), Nagore (1977) for Standard/Zaragoza Aragonese; Fabra (1993: 38–39) and Solà (1973: 52), for Barcelona Catalan; Guiter (1943: 170), for Minorca Catalan. A + sign indicates illum mihi order; a – sign, mihi illum order. . Advanced spoken Barcelona Catalan is resorting to a generalized mihi illum form [elzi] that is gradually replacing all prior clusters, see Harris (1997) for morphological remarks on this issue.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts  . This phenomenon is independently attested in Gascon by Rohlfs (1977: 182), who gives (i): (i)

. . . que les y presentèc era siebo fénnou. . . . that wc.io loc presented his wife. ‘that he presented his wife to them.’

. Neglecting contact phenomena. See Sections 5.1 and 5.3. . Alternatively, one might consider the three sub-varieties of Auvergnat to be geographically close enough for the clitics of Clermontois, Paulinois, and Sanflorain to belong to a common class of allomorphs. Opting for the weak a-parameter, case syncretism for the whole group would result from (accusative-dative) case syncretism in Clermontois, see Table 2. . More details on this phenomenon may be found in Aissen and Perlmutter (1983), who posit a Multiple Clitic Constraint and Moore (1994), who derives the constraint as a Minimality effect. . See (Aoun 1984: 107–108 among others), among others, for a treatment of clitic quantifiers. Relevant here is the fact that many scopal terms are excluded when taking scope on the subordinate predication. . See Miller (1992) for an almost exhaustive study on lexically-determined idiosyncratic constraints in a somewhat different framework.

References Agostini, P. M. 1984. L’usu di a nostra lingua. Grammaire descriptive corse. Bastia: Edizioni Scola Corsa. Aissen, J. L. and D. M. Perlmutter. 1983. “Clause reduction in Spanish.” In Studies in Relational Grammar 1, D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), 360–403. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Alibert, L. 1976. Grammatica occitana: Segon los parlars lengadocians. Montpellier: Université Paul Valery Centre d’estudis occitans. Alvar, M. 1953. El dialecto aragonés [Biblioteca romanica hispanica]. Madrid: Gredes. Aoun, J. 1984. A Grammar of Anaphora. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bayle, L. 1989. Grammaire provençale: Avec exercices, vocabulaires, textes de lecture, tableaux de la conjugaison [Estudi prouvençau]. Berre l’Etang: l’Astrado. Benincà, P. and L. Vanelli. 1984. “Italiano, Veneto, Friulano, fenomeno sintattici a confronto.” Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 8(8): 165–195. Benincà, P. and J. Haiman. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance Languages. London: Routledge. Bigalke, R. 1994. Basilicatese [Languages of the World/Materials 65]. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. Birabent, J-P. and J. Salles-Loustau. 1989. Memento grammatical du gascon. Pau: Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique.

 Fabrice Nicol

Blasco Ferrer, E. 1986. La lingua sarda contemporanea: Grammatica del logudorese e del campidanese [Sintesi storica]. Cagliari: Edizioni della Torre. Bonet, E. 1995a. “Feature structure of Romance clitics.” Natural Linguistics and Language Theory 13(4): 608–640. Bonet, E. 1995b. “The where and how of clitic order.” Revue québécoise de linguistique 54(1): 61–81. Bonnaud, P. 1992. Grammaire générale de l’auvergnat à l’usage des avernisants. ClermontFerrand: Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique. Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Bošković, Z. and D. Takahashi. 1998. “Scrambling and last resort.” Linguistic Inquiry 29:347– 66. Brero, C. and R. Bertodatti. 1988. Grammatica della lingua Piedmontese. Taino: Edizione Piemont/Europa. Brunot, F. 1966. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nos jours, Tome I. Paris: Armand Colin. Camproux, C. 1958. Etude syntaxique des parlers gévaudanais [Thèse d’Etat]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and M. W. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Chabaneau, C. 1876. Grammaire Limousine. (Reprinted from Revue des langues romanes, 2–9. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1871–1876. Marseille: Laffitte Reprints, [1980].) Chenal, A. 1986. Le franco-provençal valdôtain, morphologie et syntaxe. Quart, Aosta: Musumeci. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivations by phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chusé L. A. and M. Chuan-chusé Lagraba, 1987. De la gramatica de lo cheso, fabla altoaragonesa. Concello de la villa de Val d’Echo: Grupo d’Estudios de la Fabla Chesa. da Silva Dias, A. E. 1959. Syntaxe Historica Portuguesa. Lisbon: Libraria Classica Editoria. de Fourvières, X. 1986. Grammaire et guide de la conversation provençales. Raphèle-les-Arles: Culture provençale et méridionale. Delbecque, N. and B. Lamiroy. 1992. “The Spanish “Dative”: A problem of delimitation.” Leuvense Bijdragen 81(1–3): 113–161. Duc, J. 1988. Le patois d’Allevard. Grenoble: Jadis Allevard. Evans, K. J., G. C. Lepschy, S. C. Morris, J. Newman, and D. Watson. 1978. “Italian clitic clusters.” Studi Italiani di linguistica teorica ed applicata 7:153–168. Fabra, P. 1993. Ensayo de gramática de catalán moderno. Barcelona: Alta Fulla. Fiengo, R. and M. R. Gitterman. 1978. “Remarks on French clitic order.” Linguistic Analysis 4: 115–148. Fontelles, A., L. Garcia and J. Lanuza. 1987. Gramatica de la llengua valenciana. Valence: Del Cenia al Segura.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Galves, C. 1997. “La syntaxe pronominale du portugais brésilien.” In Les pronoms, morphologie, syntaxe et typologie, A. Zribi-Hertz (ed.), 11–34. Université de Paris-VIII: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Garcia, E. C. 1992. “Synchronization and phase discrepencies of le-ism and la-ism.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 93(2): 235–256. Gardette, P. 1984. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Lyonnais, Vol. 3. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Giacomo-Marcellesi, M. 1997. Corse [Languages of the World/Materials 65]. MunichNewcastle: LINCOM EUROPA. Guiter, H. 1943. Etude de linguistique historique du dialecte minorquin. Université de Montpellier: Thèse d’Etat. Halpern, A. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. Harris, J. 1997. “Morphologie autonome et pronoms clitiques en catalan et en espagnol.” In Les pronoms, morphologie, syntaxe et typologie, A. Zribi-Hertz (ed), 35–55. Université de Paris-VIII: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Harris, M. and V. Nigel. 1988. The Romance Languages. London: Croom Helm. Hewson, J. 1998. Workbook for Historical Romance Linguistics [LINCOM Studies in Romance Linguistics 03]. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. Hourcade, A. 1986. Grammaire béarnaise. Pau: Los Caminaires. Jensen, F. 1986. The Syntax of Medieval Occitan [Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 208]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Jones, M. A. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge. Kayne, R. S. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. S. 2000. Parameters and Universals [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kroch, A. 1994. “Morphosyntactic Variation.” In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory, K. Beals et al. (eds). Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society. Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. London: Blackwell. Lespy, V. 1880/1978. Grammaire béarnaise, 2ed. Paris: Maisonneuve/Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Martin, J. B. 1974. “Le pronom personnel de la troisième personne en franco-provençal central (formes et structures).” Travaux de linguistique et de littérature, 12(1): 85–101. Melander, J. 1936. “L’origine de l’italien me ne, me lo, te la, etc.” Studia Neophilologica 2: 169–203. Miller, P. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland. Miller, P. and I. Sag. 1997. “French clitic movement without clitics or movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15(3): 573–639. Moll, F. de Borja. 1975. Gramática catalana, referida especialment a les illes balears, 2 ed. Majorca: Moll. Moll, F. de Borja. 1980 El Parlar de Mallorca. Barcelona: Barcino.

 Fabrice Nicol

Moore, J. 1994. “Romance cliticization and relativized minimality.” Linguistic Inquiry 25(2): 335–343. Nagore, F. 1977. Gramatica de la lengua aragonesa [Coleccion Aragon]. Zaragoza: Libreria general. Pearce, E. 1991. “On comparing French and Italian: The switch from illum mihi to mihi illum.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, April 7–9, 1988. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pérez Bouza, J. A. 1996. El Gallego [Languages of the world/Materials 70]. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Perlmutter, D. M. 1970. “Surface structure constraints in syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 1:187– 255. Postal, P. 1981. “The French cohesive infinitive construction.” Linguistic Analysis 8(3): 281– 323. Postal, P. 1990. “French indirect object demotion.” In Studies in Relational Grammar 3, M. Postal and B. D. Joseph, (eds), 104–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Quicoli, A. C. 1980. “Clitic movement in French causatives.” Linguistic Analysis 6: 131–185. Rohlfs, G. 1972/1990. Studi e ricerche su lingua e dialetti d’italia. Florence: Biblioteca universale Sansoni. Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: Morfologia. Turin: Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi. Rohlfs, G. 1977. Le Gascon, Etudes de philologie pyrénéenne, 3e édition. [Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift fir Romanische Phililogie 85]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ronjat, J. 1930. Grammaire historique des parlers provençaux modernes. Marseille: Lafitte/Geneva: Slatkine reprints [1980]. Sardou, A-L. 1978. Grammaire de l’idiome niçois. Marseille: Lafitte reprints. Seuren, P. 1976. “Clitic pronoun clusters.” Italian Linguistics 2: 17–36. Silverstein, M. 1980. “Of nominatives and datives.” Reprinted in Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, R. D. Van Valin (ed.), 465–498. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Simpson, F. and M. Withgott. 1986. “Pronominal clitic clusters and templates.” In The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and Semantics 19, H. Borer, (ed.), 149–174. New York NY: Academic Press. Skårup, P. 1986. “L’ordre de pronoms placés dans la zone verbale en ancien occitan.” Studia neophilologica 58: 85–98. Smith, N. B. and T. G. Bergin. 1984. An Old Provençal Primer. New York: Garland. Solà, J. 1973 Estudis de sintaxi catalana 2. Barcelona: Ediciones 62 s/a. Tinton, M. 1982. Grammaire limousine, 3e ed. Tulle: Lemouzi. Toti, P. 1987. Grammaire corse. Bastia: Edizioni Scola Corsa. Uriagereka, J. 1995. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26(1):79–123. Valor, E. 1986. Curso de lengua valenciana. Valencia: Valor. Vouland, P. 1988. Roudanen, Maritime, Gavouot, Nissart, Se Parlaves prouvençau. Nice: Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique.

Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts 

Wanner, D. 1974. “The evolution of Romance clitic order.” In Linguistic Studies in Romance Languages, R. Campbell, M. Goldin and M. Wang (eds), 158–177. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wanner, D. 1987. The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns from Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wanner, D. 1993. “Multiple clitic linearization principles.” In Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages, W. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto, E. Raposo (eds), 281–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Watson, K. 1997. “French complement clitic sequences: A template approach.” French Language Studies 7: 69–89. Zwicky, A. and G. K. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language 59: 502–513.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.1 (41-106)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions A feature checking analysis* Elena Anagnostopoulou University of Crete

This paper investigates two versions of a constraint, known in the literature as the me lui or Person-Case Constraint. The Strong Version of the Person Case Constraint prevents 1st and 2nd person phonologically weak direct objects from co-occurring with phonologically weak indirect objects of any person (1st, 2nd or 3rd). According to the Weak Version of the Person Case Constraint, combinations of 1st and 2nd indirect and direct objects are licit; 1st and 2nd person weak direct objects are ruled out only in the presence of 3rd person weak indirect objects. I develop an analysis for the two constraints in terms of Checking Theory. I argue that both constraints arise when two objects enter a feature checking relation with one and the same functional head, namely transitive v. In these configurations, high indirect objects move to transitive v first, followed by movement of direct objects. In languages with the Strong Version of the constraint indirect objects check person on transitive v, and direct objects can only check the remaining number features of v resulting in a person restriction. Languages with the Weak Version of the Person Case Constraint have the additional option of Multiple Agree, i.e. the person feature of transitive v can be checked simultaneously against the indirect and the direct object. The inappropriate combination 3rd IO> 1st, 2nd DO is argued to result from a restriction against conflicting feature specifications in Multiple Agree constructions.

Introduction Research on pronominal elements has revealed the existence of a constraint which prohibits 1st and 2nd person phonologically weak direct objects (clitics, agreement markers, weak pronouns) when they cluster together with phonologically weak indirect objects in ditransitives. This constraint, which is extremely robust cross-linguistically, is known as the me lui or Person-Case Constraint. The me lui

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.2 (106-172)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Constraint has been treated in the literature as either a morphological or a syntactic restriction arising in configurations in which there is some sort of competition between the two objects. The precise definition of what constitutes the core environments of the constraint has been a matter of some debate in the literature. According to one view (Bonet 1991, 1994; Boeckx 2000; Ormazabal & Romero 2001; Haspelmath 2001; Anagnostopoulou 2003; Bejar & Rezac 2003; Adger & Harbour 2003; Desouvrey, this volume, among others), there is an absolute prohibition against 1st and 2nd person weak direct objects in the presence of weak indirect objects regardless of the person of the latter, i.e. whether they are 1st, 2nd or 3rd. This conception is known as the Strong Version of the Constraint (Bonet 1991, 1994). According to another view (Murasugi 1994; Bianchi 2003; Nicol, this volume), the prohibition against 1st and 2nd person direct objects is not absolute. What is truly universal1 is the fact that 1st and 2nd person weak direct objects cannot co-occur with 3rd person weak indirect objects. Combinations of 1st/2nd direct and 1st/2nd indirect objects are allowed in principle. And indeed, they are permitted in some, though not all, languages. This less absolute formulation has been referred to by the term the Weak Version of the Constraint (Bonet 1991, 1994). As has been pointed out by a number of researchers in recent years (Boeckx 2000; Ormazabal & Romero 2001; Anagnostopoulou 2003; Bejar & Rezac 2003; Bianchi 2003, among others), there are interesting correlations between the PersonCase Constraint in ditransitives and agreement restrictions attested in a number of other syntactic contexts in different languages. Boeckx (2000; but see Boeckx 2003 for a different view), Ormazabal and Romero (2001) and Anagnostopoulou (2003) draw attention to the fact that Icelandic passives, unaccusatives and infinitival constructions do not allow 1st and 2nd agreeing pronouns in the presence of higher quirky dative subjects (Sigurðson 1990–1991, 1996; Taraldsen 1995). This restriction is strongly reminiscent of the Person Case Constraint understood in its strong/absolute form. On the other hand, Haspelmath (2001) and Bianchi (2003) point out that the Person Case Constraint can be viewed as a reflex of a person/animacy hierarchy the effects of which are most transparently reflected on the syntax of ‘hierarchical’ or ‘inverse’ systems found in e.g. several Algonquian languages (Silverstein 1986; Klaiman 1992; Ura 1996; Aissen 1999; Nichols 2001; Bruening 2001 among many others). Inverse systems have the following descriptive rules (see Nichols 2001: 516): (I) Argument features are given a relative ranking, e.g. 1st person>2nd person> 3rd person animate> 3rd person inanimate. (II) Object person must not outrank subject person. The requirement for alignment of grammatical function prominence and person/animacy prominence has as a result that the object cannot be ranked higher than the subject in the person/animacy scale. When the logical object outranks the logical subject in person/animacy the ‘inverse’ Voice or the passive must be employed. In the ‘direct’ Voice, a 1st and 2nd

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.3 (172-220)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

person object in the presence of a 3rd person subject or an animate object in the presence of a non-animate subject are prevented. Crucially, in such systems a subject and an object are allowed to co-occur (in the, so called, ‘direct’ Voice) as long as they are equally ranked in the person/animacy hierarchy. For example, a language that treats 1st and 2nd person as being equally ranked (i.e. distinguishes ‘local’ from ‘non-local’ arguments without ranking 1st relative to 2nd) permits 1st and 2nd person subjects to co-occur with 1st and 2nd person objects. The Person-Case Constraint can be most straightforwardly viewed as a phenomenon also reflecting relative ranking of the indirect object and the direct object in the person/animacy hierarchy if the effects of the Weak Version of the constraint are taken to constitute the core of the Person Case Constraint (see, in particular, Bianchi 2003 for such an analysis). In previous work (Anagnostopoulou 2003), I took as a starting point the Strong Version of the Person Case Constraint following Bonet (1991, 1994), and I argued for a syntactic analysis of the absolute prohibition against 1st and 2nd person weak direct objects in the presence of higher weak indirect objects. My account was based on the idea that the ban against a 1st, 2nd person direct object arises whenever both objects enter a split feature checking relation with the same functional head, transitive v (v-Tr). The same basic analysis can straightforwardly accommodate the prohibition against 1st and 2nd person objects in Icelandic quirky subject constructions, with the difference that in the latter constructions split feature checking is performed on T. In this account, person/ animacy hierarchies play no role. It is the aim of this paper to outline the motivation and mechanics of the approach advanced in Anagnostopoulou (2003) (Sections 1–4) in order to further explore how languages showing the effects of the Weak Version of the Person Case Constraint can be accommodated in an account along these lines which dispenses with hierarchies and relies exclusively on feature checking procedures (Section 5). Specifically, I will argue that languages with the Weak Version of the Person Case Constraint have the option of Multiple Agree (the person feature of v-Tr is checked against both the indirect and the direct object), while Multiple Agree is impossible in languages with the Strong Version of the Person Case Constraint. I will finally consider the syntax of Passamaquoddy, an inverse system recently discussed by Bruening (2001). I will point out that there is clear evidence in favor of Bruening’s analysis of Passamaquoddy, which links hierarchical effects in this language to the syntax of obviation. Obviation plays no role in Person Case Constraint environments and quirky subject constructions, and therefore the two types of hierarchical effects cannot be unified (Section 6).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.4 (220-268)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

.

Two versions of the Person-Case Constraint

As mentioned in the introduction, combinations of dative and accusative phonologically weak elements (clitics, agreement markers, weak pronouns) show a constraint known in the literature as the *me lui/I-II Constraint, or Person-Case Constraint (henceforth the PCC; see Perlmutter 1971; Kayne 1975; Warburton 1977; Duranti 1979; Bonet 1991, 1994; Miller & Sag 1997; Monachesi 1996; Albizu 1997; Gerlach 1998; Ormazabal & Romero 2001; Haspelmath 2001; Bejar & Rezac 2003; Adger & Harbour 2003; Bianchi 2003; Desouvrey, this volume, Nicol, this volume, among many others). The PCC comes in two versions. The Strong Version of the PCC (based on Bonet 1991: 182) is formulated in (1) and exemplified in (2) with data from Greek, a language which never allows 1st and 2nd person direct object clitics in the presence of indirect object clitics: (1) The Strong Version of the PCC In a combination of a weak direct object and an indirect object [clitic, agreement marker or weak pronoun], the direct object has to be 3rd person (Bonet 1991: 182) (2) a.

Tha mu to stilune Fut Cl(Gen,1st, sg) Cl(Acc, 3rd, sg, neut) send-3pl ‘They will send it to me’ b. Tha su to stilune Fut Cl(Gen, 2nd, sg) Cl(Acc, 3rd, sg, masc) send-3pl ‘They will send him to you’ c. *Tha su me sistisune Fut Cl (Gen, 2nd, sg) Cl(Acc, 1st, sg) introduce-3pl ‘They will introduce me to you’ d. *Tha tu se stilune Fut Cl(Gen, 3rd, sg, masc) Cl(Acc, 2nd, sg) send-3pl ‘They will send you to him’

Examples (2a) and (2b) which contain a genitive 1st and 2nd person indirect object clitic and an accusative 3rd person direct object clitic are well-formed. On the other hand, examples (2c) and (2d) in which a genitive co-occurs with a 1st and 2nd person accusative are ill-formed. Observe that (2c), which contains a cluster of a 2nd and a 1st person clitic, is as strongly ungrammatical as (2d) in which a 3rd person genitive co-occurs with a 2nd person accusative. The Weak Version of the PCC (cf. Murasugi’s 1994 Constraint on the Feature Specification of Agr) is formulated in (3).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.5 (268-332)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

(3) The Weak Version of the PCC In a combination of a weak direct object and an indirect object [clitic, agreement marker or weak pronoun], if there is a third person it has to be the direct object. (Bonet 1991: 182) The Weak Version intends to capture the fact that in some languages combinations of 1st and 2nd indirect object and direct object clitics are by some speakers acceptable. This is exemplified in (4a) and (4b) with examples from Catalan (see Bonet 1994: 41; see Section 5 for more detailed discussion and more facts): (4) a.

Te m’ ha venut el mercader més important you-do me-io has sold the merchant most important ‘The most important merchant has sold you to me’ b. Vi ci manderà 2-pl-io 1pl-do send-fut-3sg ‘S/he will send us to you (pl)’

According to Bonet (1991: 179–182, 1994: 40–41), the judgments concerning combinations of 1st and 2nd person clitics vary considerable from speaker to speaker in Catalan, unlike the effects of the Strong Version of the PCC which are much more robust and do not show comparable idiolectal variation. This difference led her to adopt the Strong Version of the PCC in (1) and to put aside (3). The PCC, as discussed by Bonet (1991, 1994), has five properties: (i) It applies to a wide range of genetically unrelated languages. The languages discussed by Bonet are Arabic, Greek, Romance, Basque, Georgian, English, Swiss German (see Haspelmath 2001: 5 for an additional list). (ii) It affects phonologically weak elements, i.e. clitics, agreement affixes and weak pronouns. (iii) It only affects combinations of weak elements. As long as one of the two elements is not weak, the constraint does not apply. Examples (5) and (6) illustrate this for combinations of clitics and stressed pronouns. In (5) a 3rd person genitive indirect object clitic co-occurs with a 2nd person accusative full pronoun while in (6) a 1st person accusative clitic co-occurs with a 3rd person dative full pronoun. Both examples are grammatical:2 (5) Tha tu stilune esena (cf. (2)d) Fut Cl(Gen) send-3pl you(Acc) ‘They will send you to him’

Greek

(6) Paul me présentera à lui Paul 1st(Acc) will introduce-3rd to him ‘Paul will introduce me to him’

French

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.6 (332-393)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(iv) The fourth property of the PCC is that it also affects combinations in which the accusative clitic is reflexive (Kayne 1975: 173; Bonet 1991: 192 citing Herschensohn 1979): (7) *Elle se lui est donnée entièrement She refl him(Dat) is given(fem) entirely ‘She gave herself to him entirely’ As shown in (7), a dative cannot co-occur with an accusative reflexive clitic. Note, though, the *IO-dat SE-reflexive-acc constraint (and prior claims to this effect) go counter to some facts, among other the Italian sentence in (8) (Nicol, this volume; see also Monachesi 1996): (8) Ci si è rivolto in inglese to-us se-refl has spoken in English I will return to this complication in Section 5. (v) Finally, the PCC is limited to constructions with an external argument. Unaccusatives and passives with a dative and a 1st/2nd person nominative/absolutive argument are well-formed. This is shown in (9) with an example from Basque: (9) Joni joan na-atzai-t John(Dat) go 1Abs-root- 3(Dat) ‘I went to John’ In this example a 1st person absolutive agreement marker may co-occur with a 3rd person dative. The difference between this example and all the examples discussed so far is that it involves an unaccusative and not an active ditransitive predicate.

. The restriction on nominative objects Taraldsen (1994, 1995) and Sirgurðsson (1990–1991, 1996) observed and discussed a restriction on nominative objects in Icelandic quirky subject constructions. This is formulated in (10): (10) The Person Restriction on (agreeing) Nominative Objects In the presence of a dative subject, the agreeing nominative object has to be 3rd person. The properties of the person restriction can be summarized as follows. (i) It is found in Icelandic only, i.e. it looks like a language-specific constraint. (ii) It applies to constructions with a dative subject and a nominative object. Two environments must be distinguished for reasons that will become clear soon:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.7 (393-459)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

(a) Infinitival constructions in which the matrix subject is realized as dative and the nominative serves as an argument of the infinitival. These are called by Sirgurðsson (1996) Dative and Nominative with Infinitive and are exemplified in (11). (11a) contains a 3rd person nominative and the sentence is well formed. (11b) contains a 1st person nominative and the sentence is ill formed: (11) a.

Mér höfðu fundist [þaer vera gáfaðar] Me(Dat) had found they(Nom,pl) be intelligent ‘I had found them intelligent’ b. *Þeim höfum alltaf fundist [við vinna vel] Them(Dat) have always found we(Nom,pl) work well ‘They have always thought that we work well’

(b) Mono-clausal quirky subject constructions (passives, unaccusatives) with nominative objects. Here again we find a contrast in grammaticality, depending on whether the nominative object is 3rd or 1st, 2nd person: (12) a.

Henni leiddust She(Dat) was bored by-3pl ‘She was bored by them’ b. *Henni leiddumst She(Dat) was bored by-1pl ‘She was bored by us’

þeir they (Nom) við us(Nom)

(iii) It affects nominative objects whenever they agree with the verb. When the nominative object does not agree with the verb, the constraint does not apply. To illustrate this, it is necessary to look into bi-clausal and mono-clausal constructions separately because the former show the interplay between the person restriction and agreement more straightforwardly than the latter. (a) In Dative and Nominative with Infinitive constructions, agreement between the matrix verb and the nominative argument of the infinitival is optional. In (13) below the matrix verb is either plural agreeing with the argument of the infinitival or it shows 3rd person singular default agreement: (13) a.

Mér þóttu/þótti [þær vera duglegar] Me(Dat) thought(3pl/dft) they(Nom pl) be industrious ‘I thought they were industrious’ b. Mér virtust/virtist [þær vinna vel] Me(Dat) seemed (3pl/dft) they(Nom,pl) work well ‘It seemed to me that they were working well’

The 3rd person restriction surfaces only when the matrix verb is marked for agreement (Taraldsen 1995; Sigurðsson 1996; Schütze 1997). Example (14) containing a

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.8 (459-520)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

1st person nominative is ungrammatical only when the matrix verb agrees with it, not when it shows default singular agreement: (14) Þeim hefur/*höfum alltaf fundist [við vinna vel] Them(Dat) has-sg/*have-pl always found we(Nom,pl) work well ‘They have always thought that we work well’ (b) According to Sigurðsson (1996), in monoclausal constructions, agreement between the verb and the nominative object is in most cases obligatory (contra Thráinsson 1979; Andrews 1990).3 For this reason, the person restriction arises always. Still, there are certain cases where the restriction is relaxed in mono-clausal constructions (Sigurðsson 1996: 33). The data below illustrate variability in judgments depending on the agreement marking on the verb:

(15) a.

??Henni líkaði ég

Her(Dat) liked I(Nom) b. *Henni líkaðir þú c. *Henni líkuðum við d. *Henni líkuðuð þíð (16) a. ?Henni leiddist ég Her(Dat) bored I(Nom) b. ?Henni leiddist þú c. *Henni leiddumst við d. *Henni leiddust þíð

AGreement marker Person marker on verb on object 1/3sg 1sg 2sg 1pl 2pl

2sg 1pl 2pl

1/2/3sg

1sg

1/2/3sg 1pl 2/3pl

2sg 1pl 2pl

Sigurðsson (1996) points out that the cases that are judged acceptable by many native speakers (15a, 16a, 16b) have verb forms that ‘. . . are homophonous with non-agreeing (default 3rd person singular) forms.’ I take this to mean that in monoclausal constructions – just as in bi-clausal constructions –, the person restriction does not apply when the nominative does not agree with the verb. (iv) Arguably, the constraint also holds in constructions with a nominative reflexive (Taraldsen 1994). In infinitival constructions, reflexive nominative arguments are ruled out (17a) while reflexive accusative objects are ruled in (17b). Thus, reflexive nominatives pattern with 1st and 2nd person nominatives in not being able to co-occur with dative subjects: (17) a. *Maríu fannst sig vera gáfuð Mary(Dat) thought-3sg sig (Nom) be gifted(Nom) ‘Mary thought she was gifted’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.9 (520-581)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

b. María taldi sig vera gáfaða Mary(Nom) believed-3sg sig (Acc) be gifted(Acc) ‘Mary believed she was gifted’ (v) Finally, the restriction is limited to constructions without an external argument. Active ditransitives with a dative and a 1st, 2nd person accusative are well formed (Collins & Thráinsson 1996: 423, Fn. 42; Schütze 1997: 117 citing H. Sigurðsson p.c.): (18) a. *Honum varst gefinn þú Him(Dat) was given you(Nom) b. Ég gaf honum þig í jólagjöf I(Nom) gave him(Dat) you(Acc) as Xmas-gift ‘I gave him you as a Christmas present’ Example (18a) features a passive ditransitive verb, and the person restriction applies. In its active counterpart (18b), the person restriction does not apply.

. The Strong Version of the PCC and the restriction on nominative objects in Icelandic: Similarities and Differences In Anagnostopoulou (2003), I argue that the strong version of the PCC and the person restriction on nominative objects should be correlated. In both cases a 1st and 2nd person argument is banned under very similar conditions: (i) Roles of the arguments affected: In both cases, the restriction arises in environments involving an argument with an indirect object role (goal, beneficiary, experiencer) and another argument with a direct object role (theme) or, in infinitivals, a lower subject. Active ditransitives with a goal, beneficiary or possessor co-occurring with a theme constitute the main environment in which the PCC is found. Similarly, in Icelandic the restriction arises in quirky subject constructions formed with passive ditransitives or with unaccusatives, and thus they typically involve a goal, an experiencer or a beneficiary co-occurring with a theme (mono-clausal constructions) or a lower subject (bi-clausal constructions). (ii) Case properties of the two arguments: In both types of constructions, the indirect object argument typically bears morphological dative or genitive case while the other argument has structural Case. In the core PCC environments, the indirect object with dative (Romance, Basque, Swiss German) or genitive (Greek)4 co-occurs with the direct object which has accusative (Romance, Swiss German, Greek) or absolutive (Basque, Georgian). In quirky subject constructions, the quirky subject, which has dative, co-occurs with the object bearing nominative case.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.10 (581-644)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(iii) Structural Case-3rd person: In both cases, the argument with structural Case has to be 3rd person. In PCC-constructions the accusative or absolutive object cannot be 1st, 2nd person and in quirky subject constructions the nominative object cannot be 1st, 2nd person. (iv) Constraint on SE-Reflexives: The fourth property the two constraints arguably have in common is the fact that reflexives pattern with 1st and 2nd person pronouns in not being able to co-occur with the dative argument. (v) Relation to the same verbal head: Another property with respect to which the two constraints match is that they arise whenever both the dative and the argument with structural Case relate to the same functional head via movement or agreement. We saw in Section 1 that in PCC-constructions, the constraint applies only to clusters of weak elements: clitics, agreements, weak pronouns. As long as one of the two arguments is a strong pronoun realized in its base position the constraint does not arise. As was shown in Section 2, in quirky subject constructions, the restriction arises only when the dative argument undergoes (EPP-driven) movement to the [Spec,TP] and the nominative argument agrees with the inflected verb, i.e. both arguments relate to the same verbal head via movement (the dative subject) and agreement (the nominative object) when the restriction arises. If clusters of clitics, agreement markers and weak pronouns are assumed to relate to the same head (see Richards 1997; Anagnostopoulou 2003), then the PCC arises whenever both arguments relate to the same functional head, similarly to the person restriction in Icelandic. (vi) Some notion of competition is involved: Finally, independent and otherwise obligatory constraints are relaxed in order to circumvent a violation of the 1st/2nd person prohibition in both domains: (a) Starting from the PCC, in all dialects of Spanish clitic doubling of strong personal pronouns is obligatory (see Anagnostopoulou 2002 for a survey of the literature on obligatory doubling of this type). This is shown in (19a) for direct objects and (19b) for indirect objects. Both are ungrammatical if the doubling clitic is absent: (19) a. *(La) nombraron a ella como embajadora direct object doubling Cl(Acc) appointed-3pl a her(Acc) as ambassador ‘They appointed her as ambassador’ indirect object doubling b. *(Le) di el libro a él CL(Dat) gave-1sg the book to him(Dat) ‘I gave the book to him’ In order to overcome a PCC violation, however, clitic doubling of dative pronouns does not take place in the presence of a 1st/2nd person accusative (see Bonet 1994 for an analysis in terms of Optimality Theory). In (20) clitic doubling of the dative

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.11 (644-703)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

pronoun does not take place and the result is grammatical. Crucially, this example contains an accusative 1st or 2nd person pronoun. (20) Me/te recomendaron a él Me/you(Acc) recommended-3pl to him ‘They recommended me/you to him’

no indirect object doubling in a PCC environment

(b) Coming to the person restriction on nominative objects (see Sigurðsson 1996; Schütze 1997 for discussion), recall that in Icelandic mono-clausal constructions, agreement with nominative objects is by and large obligatory. In the exceptional cases where agreement is optional (see Fn. 3), the agreeing form (21a) is still preferred over the non-agreeing one (21b). (21) a.

Henni líkuðu ekki þessar athugasemdir Her(Dat) liked-3pl not these comments(Nom) ‘She did not like these comments’ b. Henni líkaði ekki þessar athugasemdir Her(Dat) liked-dft not these comments(Nom) ‘She did not like these comments’

Nevertheless, we saw that some speakers allow 1st/2nd person nominative objects in mono-clausal constructions when agreement can be interpreted as default (see the discussion of (15) and (16) above). Thus, even though agreement in Icelandic mono-clausal constructions is obligatory or strongly preferred, it is relaxed in the presence of a 1st or 2nd person nominative object. Just like Spanish clitic doubling – which is otherwise required – is not triggered in order to avoid a violation of the PCC, agreement between nominative objects and verbs in Icelandic – which is otherwise strongly preferred – is suspended in order not to incur a violation of the person restriction. Despite their similarities, the PCC and person restriction on nominative objects differ in three respects: (i) External arguments: First, the PCC arises in constructions with external arguments while the person restriction in Icelandic is attested in constructions without external arguments. Recall that the PCC is not triggered in passives and unaccusatives while the person restriction in Icelandic is not attested in active ditranstives. (ii) Weak elements vs. full DPs: The second difference is that the PCC affects combinations of weak elements (clitics, agreement affixes, weak pronouns). On the other hand, the restriction in Icelandic affects full pronominal nominatives, i.e. ‘lightness’ or ‘heaviness’ do not seem to play a role. (iii) Emergency strategies: A related difference concerns the strategies used to overcome the ban on 1st and 2nd person pronouns. While violations of the PCC are salvaged by employing full dative or accusative pronouns, structures that would

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.12 (703-756)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

otherwise offend the person restriction in Icelandic are saved by choosing a nonagreeing verb form.

. A common analysis in terms of split feature checking In order to capture the properties the two constraints have in common, in Anagnostopoulou (2003) I argue for a uniform analysis of the two constraints in terms of Checking Theory. I propose that in constructions where a person restriction arises φ-features are not checked simultaneously. Person is checked separately from number. Split φ-features checking takes place whenever two arguments, an indirect object and a lower argument with structural Case (accusative or nominative), relate to the same functional head via Move or Agree. In such ‘two arguments against one head’ configurations, the indirect object checks person and the lower argument checks number. In the PCC-environments, split φ-feature checking takes place in transitive v. In Quirky Subject constructions, split checking takes place in T. The different locus of split feature checking derives the differences between the two constraints. More specifically, I follow Taraldsen (1995) who assumes that datives have person features which permit them to enter checking against functional heads. Taraldsen argues that even though INFL enters person checking with quirky subjects, verbs do not overtly agree in person with quirky subjects because of failure of number agreement. Consider a sentence like (22) where the dative subject is 1st person and the verb inflects for 3rd person: (22) Mér líkar/*líka bókin I-dat like-3sg/*1sg the book-nom ‘I like the book’ Taraldsen proposes that the fact that the dative and the verb do not agree in number provides the key to the understanding of the person agreement pattern in (22). 1st and 2nd verbal agreement must result from a combination of [1], [2] with singularity or plurality (see Taraldsen 1995 for detailed argumentation). In (22), the person feature of the verb is checked against the person of the dative but the number of the verb is not checked against the number of the dative, but against the number of the nominative. Since the person value [1] does not combine with number, [1] is not a possible specification for verbal inflection. As a result, the verb must surface as 3. In Anagnostopoulou (2003) I adopt the essentials of this proposal, recasting it in a theory according to which, uninterpretable φ-features are unvalued, and feature checking is the mechanism that values them (Chomsky 2001). Specifically, I assume that the dative in (22) is ‘defective’ in the sense that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.13 (756-810)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions

its number feature is inaccessible to T (i.e. in Chomsky’s terminology ‘it does not match T’). Under the assumption that the values [1] or [2] must combine with the values [singular] or [plural], [1] is not a possible value for the person feature of T in (22), because the dative is not allowed to also check and value the number feature of T. Therefore, the person value of the verb in (22) is the default (Chomsky 2001). I furthermore assume that 1st, 2nd and reflexive pronouns are [+person]5 pronouns (Bonet 1991, 1995; Taraldsen 1995; Ritter 1995; Kayne 2000) while 3rd person pronouns are ‘determiner pronouns’. (Benveniste 1966; Postal 1966; Silverstein 1986; Bonet 1991; Johns 1993; Taraldsen 1995; Ritter 1995; Kayne 2000, among many others). I assume, though, that dative/indirect object arguments are specified for person (and therefore check person features on T and v) even when they are 3rd person (see Anagnostopoulou 2003: 270–271 who discusses evidence for this based on the serialization of agreement markers in Georgian) while accusativenominative/direct object 3rd person pronouns lack person features altogether (cf. Desouvrey, this volume, for an alternative account which takes all oblique clitics to be specified for the feature animate, unlike accusative clitics). Technically this distinction can be expressed if we follow Adger and Harbour (2003) who argue that 3rd person indirect objects have a negative person specification (i.e. they are [–person]) while 3rd person direct objects lack a person feature entirely.6 In Sections 5 and 6, I will make crucial use of this proposal. Finally, I argue (following Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001; Richards 1997) that two arguments can target a single functional head resulting in a ‘two arguments against one head’ construction. The argument that is closer to the functional head moves/agrees first while the argument that is further down moves/agrees second. Multiple movements to the same head employ tucking in which results in crossing paths, i.e. the pre-movement configuration is preserved. I argue that both the PCC and the restriction on nominative objects arise in ‘two arguments against one head’ contexts. Whenever a dative argument enters Move/Agree with a functional head F checking its person features, as in Step I of (23), the lower argument enters Moves/Agree with F second and checks the remaining number features, as in Step II of (23): (23) Base:

FP F{P, N}

XP

DPDAT

(P=person features N=number features) X’

X

...ZP

DPACC/ABS/NOM



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.14 (810-844)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Step I: Checking of person feature by dative

FP

FP DPDAT

Step II: Checking of number by structurally marked DP

DPDAT

F’

F{0,N}

DPACC/ABS/NOM

XP e

F’

F{0,0}

X’ X

FP

...ZP

DPACC/ABS/NOM

XP e

X’ X

...ZP e

If the lower argument is of an appropriate type (third person, i.e. no person) the derivation converges. If, however, the accusative/absolutive or nominative argument is inappropriate (1st, 2nd person or se reflexive pronoun, i.e. person pronouns) the derivation crashes. (Cf. Ormazabal & Romero 2001; Desouvrey, this volume, for alternative accounts of the PCC in terms of animacy; see Anagnostopoulou 2003 for arguments against an analysis of the PCC as found in Greek in terms of animacy). The most straightforward way of explaining the inappropriateness of 1st and 2nd person pronouns in contexts where only the number feature of F is available for checking is to propose that the person feature of pronouns undergoing movement to a checking position must be checked against the person feature of a functional head (see Taraldsen 1995). The requirement for complete checking can, in turn, be reduced to structural Case (cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001). Assuming that Case checking takes place only when there is complete phi-checking, it follows that pronouns entering Case-checking cannot have phi-features that remain unchecked. Having outlined the basic analysis of the two constraints, I now proceed to the details of each one of them. In Anagnostopoulou (2003) I argue that the PCC obtains in transitive double object constructions where the indirect object is introduced by an applicative light v head and the external argument is introduced by a higher transitive v as in (24) (Marantz 1993; Collins 1997; McGinnis 1998; Anagnostopoulou 2003). I furthermore propose that transitive v in (24) contains φ-features to check, namely person and number, while applicative v lacks φ-features.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.15 (844-867)


(24)

v1P Subj

v1’ v

v2P

Tr{P,N} Dat

(Tr=transitive)

v’

vAPPL

VP V

Acc

The dative is closer to v-Tr than the accusative by the definition of ‘Closeness’ in (25) (Chomsky 1995; Collins 1997). (25) If β c-commands α, and τ is the target of movement, then β is closer to τ than α unless β is in the same minimal domain as (i) τ or (ii) α Being closer to v-Tr, the indirect object moves first to v-Tr checking its person feature, as illustrated in (26a). (26) a.

v1P Dat

v1P Subj

v1’

v{0,N} Tr

v2P e

v’ vAPPL

VP V

Acc

The accusative moves next to another specifier v-Tr.7 Only the number feature of v can be checked against the accusative, as illustrated in (26b):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.16 (867-902)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(26) b.

v1P Dat

v1’ Acc

v1’ Subj

v1’

v{0,0} Tr

v2P e

v’ vAPPL

VP V

e

In (26) determiner pronouns match v{0,N} while 1st/2nd person pronouns and reflexives do not. The result is the PCC effect. Note, on the side, that nothing in the analysis would change if clitics checked features directly on the complex head [v-T], i.e. if the verbal complex v-V moved to T first, followed by movement of the subject and the two clitics to the v-T complex. In the schematic derivation (27), the external argument raises first (Step I) and enters a checking relation with the most proximate/external head, namely T. In Step II, the dative clitic raises and checks the person features of v-Tr. Finally, the accusative clitic raises last, and can only check v-Tr’s number features (Step III). (27)

TP DPNom

T’

Step I

T

DPDat

vP DPNom

T

DPAcc

v

T v

v’

T

vP DPDat

v’

Step II v

VP V

Step III

DPAcc

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.17 (902-924)


Turning to Icelandic next, I assume that in Icelandic quirky subject constructions, the dative is introduced by an applicative head (see McGinnis 1998 among others), while the nominative is in a lower domain, the VP in mono-clausal constructions and the infinitival TP in bi-clausal constructions. Following Collins (1997) and others, I assume that in passives and unaccusatives an intransitive v is present, which lacks a specifier and cannot check Case of the object. I furthermore propose that v-Intr lacks φ-features. T is merged with φ-features resulting in (28). (28)

TP T{P,N}

vP

v-Intr

vP Dat

v’ vAPPL

VP V

DPNom/IP DPNom

The person restriction arises when the dative and the nominative check features on T. The dative raises first because it is closer to T than the nominative: the dative is in the minimal domain of vAPPL, the nominative is in the minimal domain of V or infinitival T. Raising first, it checks the P feature of T. Since the person feature of T is checked, the nominative DP can’t be 1st/2nd person or a SE pronoun: TP

(29) DPdat

T’

T{0,N}

vP

v-Intr

vP t

v’ vAPPL

VP V

a. *DPNom, 1st/2nd pers b. *SENom c. DPNom, 3rd pers



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.18 (924-987)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

In (29), determiner pronouns match T{0,N}, because they lack the feature [person] while 1st/2nd person pronouns and reflexives do not match T{0,N}, since they are [+person]. The analysis of the person restriction on nominatives is identical to the analysis of the PCC except that in the former the two arguments check features on T while in the latter on v-Tr. The proposal that the PCC results from split checking in v-Tr while the restriction on nominative objects results from split checking in T leads to a view on checking of dative arguments according to which they check person features ‘parasitically’ either on the head that canonically checks nominative (T) or on the head that canonically checks accusative/absolutive (v-Tr). This is expressed in (30): (30) Dative checking The dative argument checks [+/– Person/Participant] either on v-Tr or in T a. [+/– Person/Participant] is checked in v-Tr. b. [+/– Person/Participant] is checked in T. The PCC arises when datives and accusatives check features against v-Tr, which introduces the external argument. The person restriction against nominative objects arises when both arguments check features against T, a process taking place in constructions lacking an external argument. This accounts for the first difference between the two constraints noted in Section 3: presence vs. absence of an external argument. As pointed out in Sections 1 and 2, the PCC is found in a wide range of languages while the person restriction on nominatives looks like a language-specific constraint, i.e. it is found mainly in Icelandic. This entails that dative arguments check person features against v-Tr more frequently than they do against T. In Anagnostopoulou (2003) I argue that that this correlates with the fact that quirky subjects of the type found in Icelandic are crosslinguistically rare.8 Turning, finally, to a comparison of the conditions under which the two constraints are suspended, I start by looking more closely at the conditions under which the PCC does not arise. The PCC does not arise when either (i) the dative clitic is spelled out as a strong pronoun or (ii) the accusative clitic is spelled out as a strong pronoun. Option (i) is instantiated in French, as illustrated in (31): (31) a.

Paul me présentera à lui Paul 1st(Acc) will introduce-3rd to him ‘Paul will introduce me to him’ b. *Paul me lui présentera Paul 1st(Acc) 3rd(Dat) will introduce(3rd) ‘Paul will introduce me to him’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.19 (987-1035)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

As pointed out by Kayne (1975) and Bonet (1991), the reverse is not possible in French, Spanish and Catalan. A 3rd person dative clitic cannot co-occur with an accusative 1st or 2nd strong pronoun: (32) a. *Paul lui présentera moi Paul 3rd(Dat) will-introduce-3rd 1st(Acc) ‘Paul will introduce me to him’ b. *Le recomendaron a mi 3rd(Dat) recommended-3pl to me ‘They recommended me to him’

French

Spanish

The restriction illustrated in (32) is not general, though. In Greek such sequences are grammatical: (33) a.

Tu sistisan emena Cl(3rd Gen) introduced-3pl me(Acc) ‘They introduced me to him’ b. Tu sistisan esena Cl(3rd Gen) introduced-3pl you (Acc) ‘They introduced you to him’

Greek

According to Kayne (1975: 174), the ungrammaticality of the French example (32a) is due to the fact that cliticization of accusative pronouns is absolutely obligatory in French. He furthermore suggests that (31a) is grammatical because dative cliticization is sometimes optional (see also Kayne (2000) who discusses a comparable difference between accusatives and datives in constructions showing clitic doubling of strong personal pronouns in French). Adopting and extending his account, I suggest that in Catalan and Spanish, clitic doubling or cliticization of accusative personal pronouns is always obligatory, while this requirement is less strict with datives. Unlike French, Catalan and Spanish, Greek does not require clitic doubling or cliticization of accusative personal pronouns, as shown in (34) and, as expected, the examples in (33) are grammatical. (34) Idhe emena xtes Saw-3sg me (Acc) yesterday ‘He saw me yesterday’ Turning to an explanation of the facts in (31) and (33), when the dative is a strong pronoun, as in the French example (31a), then the accusative moves to v checking both person and number, and the dative stays in situ. A similar configuration exists in Icelandic where, as shown in (35a) as opposed to (35b), 1st/2nd person nominative arguments are licit as long as they precede the dative:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.20 (1035-1087)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(35) a.

Þú varst gefinn honum You(Nom) were-2sg given him(Dat) b. *honum var/varst gefinn þú Him(Dat) was-3sg/2sg given you(Nom) ‘You were given to him’

Nom > Dat *Dat > Nom

As in French (31a), in Icelandic (35a) the restriction is suspended when the dative remains in situ and the nominative checks both person and number on T. On the other hand, constructions like the Greek examples in (33), where the accusative is a strong pronoun, have exactly the same syntax as the Icelandic quirky subject constructions with a non-agreeing verbal form of the type illustrated in (14), repeated here: (14) Þeim hefur/*höfum alltaf fundist [við vinna vel] Them(Dat) has-sg/*have-pl always found we(Nom,pl) work well ‘They have always thought that we work well’ In Anagnostopoulou (2003) I argue that absence of agreement on the verb in (14) signifies the absence of a Move/Agree relation between the nominative argument and T, which in turn permits to the nominative to be 1st and 2nd person. More specifically, nominative pronouns in Dat>Nom constructions can be specified for person when they do not check φ- and Case- features, presumably because the language makes use of default Case in such constructions. In a similar manner, the absence of an accusative clitic/agreement marker in (33) signifies the absence of a Move/Agree relation between the accusative and v-Tr. When there is no clitic on the verb, as in (33), then there is no Move/Agree between the accusative and v-Tr, and the accusative can be 1st and 2nd person. Similarly to nominative pronouns, accusative pronouns in Dat>Acc constructions can be specified for person provided that they do not check φ- (and Case-) features against v-Tr. On this view, accusative clitics and verbal agreement with nominatives in the two environments have an entirely parallel syntax: they reflect Move/Agree, resulting in checking of φs-features and Case (see Anagnostopoulou 2003: 316–321 for discussion of the implications of this analysis for the theory of Case and Agreement).

. The Weak Version of the PCC and the Multiple Agree parameter Even though Bonet attempted to dismiss the Weak Version of the PCC on the basis of the observation that the availability of 1st/2nd >1st/2nd sequences is limited and subject to idiolectal variation (see the discussion in Section 1 above), the mere well-formedness of such combinations even for a small group of native speakers calls for an explanation. It moreover seems that data supporting the Weak Version

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.21 (1087-1144)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

of the PCC are quite widespread among varieties of Romance leading to the view that the distribution of clusters of two clitics with the feature [person] is more systematic than Bonet claims. More specifically, as discussed in Nicol (this volume), Spanish and Italian along with Catalan (see examples (4) in Section 1 from Catalan; see the examples in (37) and (38) below for Spanish and Italian) tolerate violations of the Strong Version of the PCC rather easily.9 Moreover, violations of the Strong Version of the PCC in Old Occitan are well-attested, as shown by (36): (36) qu’ie us mi don ses bauzia. that I 2pl-io 1sg-do give without deceit ‘I surrender myself to you without deceit’. (Jensen 1986: 105–6) Modern Occitan varieties productively violate the Strong Version of the PCC too. Other counterexamples can be found in literary Portuguese texts. Fabrice Nicol (personal communication) points out that violations of the Strong Version of the PCC are easier in non-vernacular, dialectal, mainly spoken, and possibly less prestigious varieties, and that there might be a North-South gradient too, as French seems to have never allowed PC violations, while all southern Romance varieties seem to have allowed them at least to some extent at some point of their diachronic evolution. There appears to be interesting micro-variation in the conditions under which 1st/2nd person clusters are allowed to surface in those languages that they do. Nicol (this volume) observes that 1st/2nd person combinations in Spanish are judged grammatical when the direct object is interpreted as reflexive (37a) while they are considered to be less acceptable when the direct object is understood as a pronoun (37b): (37) a.

Te me presentas do-2sg io-1sg presented-2sg ‘You presented yourself to me’ b. ?Te me presentó io-2sg do-1sg presented-3sg ‘He presented me to you’

On the other hand, the two types of clusters are considered to be equally acceptable in Italian: (38) a.

Mi ti presentano do-1sg io-2sg introduce-3pl ‘They introduce me to you’ b. Mi ti presento do-1sg io-2sg introduce-1sg ‘I introduce myself to you’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.22 (1144-1202)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Recall, finally, from Section 1 that se reflexive clitics are allowed to co-occur with 1st and 2nd person clitics in e.g. Italian. An example illustrating this has been provided in (8). It thus seems accurate to conclude that clitic languages split into two basic types:10 (i) Italian, Spanish and Catalan have the Weak Version of the PCC. Combinations of 1st and 2nd person clitics are allowed to surface. What is not permitted is a 1st/2nd direct object in the presence of a 3rd person indirect object. Moreover, clusters of a 1st and 2nd person indirect object with a se reflexive direct object are also permitted in (a subset of) languages showing the Weak Version of the PCC, as expected by an analysis that treats se reflexives as having a person feature. The conditions permitting 1st/2nd person clusters are not fully understood, but one factor that appears to play a role is reflexivity. When a 1st or 2nd direct object is interpreted as reflexive, 1st/2nd combinations are more readily acceptable in e.g. Spanish.11 (ii) Greek and French have the Strong Version of the PCC. 1st and 2nd person direct object clitics are absolutely impossible, regardless of the person of the indirect object. Greek doesn’t have se reflexives but French does. As expected, se clitics can never co-occur with an indirect object in French (see example (7) in Section 1; see also Nicol, this volume). Proceeding now to an explanation of the Weak Version of the PCC in the present system,12 it is evident that the analysis in terms of split φ-feature checking outlined in Section 4 cannot, as it stands, account for languages permitting 1st/2nd combinations. In its present form, this analysis prevents direct objects with a person feature from entering Move/Agree with v-Tr in the presence a higher moving/agreeing indirect object. Since it has been checked and deleted by the indirect object, the person feature of v-Tr is no longer available to check person (and Case) on the direct object. Only the number feature of v-Tr is available for checking, and only 3rd person determiner pronouns, which have number but lack person, are predicted to be licit. The proposal I would like to make for languages with the Weak Version of the PCC is that in e.g. Catalan, Italian and Spanish the person feature of v-Tr is allowed to enter Multiple Agree with the two objects, i.e. [person] can be checked simultaneously against both objects. Multiple Agree is parametrized, just as the availability of layered specifiers to C, T, v-Tr and applicative v-APPL has been argued in the literature to result from a parameter (see, among many others, Chomsky 1995; Ura 1996 for v-Tr, Richards 1997 for C, McGinnis 1998 and Anagnostopoulou 2003 for v-APPL). The proposal that person on v-Tr can enter multiple Agree explains why 1st, 2nd and se clitics are allowed to occur in the direct object position of clitic clusters. The person (and Case) feature of the direct object can be checked against v-Tr even when the higher indirect object enters Agree with the person feature of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.23 (1202-1262)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

v-Tr. On the other hand, the ban against 1st, 2nd person and se direct object pronouns is absolute in languages showing the Strong Version of the PCC because these languages do not have the option of multiple Agree. Proceeding next to a characterization and an analysis of the possible and impossible combinations in languages with the Weak Version of the PCC, there are three cases to consider, which are schematically represented in (39): √ (39) a. 1st/2nd io > 1st/2nd / SE-refl do b. √1st/2nd/3rd io > 3rd do c. *3rd io > 1st/2nd do Starting from the well-formed sequences in (39a), it is straightforward that 1st and 2nd person and se pronouns are allowed to co-occur since both objects are allowed to check [+person] against v-Tr due to the Multiple Agree parameter. Sequences as in (39b), i.e. combinations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd person indirect objects with 3rd person direct objects, have the same analysis as comparable clusters in languages with the Strong Version of the PCC, which have been extensively discussed in Section 4. The indirect object checks the person feature of v-Tr and the direct object the number feature of v-Tr. These combinations instantiate split φ-feature checking of the familiar type and do not result from multiple Agree. The interesting case to explain is the ungrammaticality of (39c) where a 3rd person indirect object is not allowed to co-occur with a 1st and 2nd person direct object, i.e. the combination that appears to reflect a person-hierarchy effect (see the discussion in the introductory section). In order to account for this order, I would like to suggest that two pronouns are allowed to enter into multiple Agree with v-Tr only when they do not have conflicting feature specifications. Condition (40) captures this requirement: (40) A Condition on Multiple Agree Multiple Agree can take place only under non-conflicting feature specifications of the agreeing elements In (39c) the indirect object is 3rd person, hence specified as [–person]. Recall from Section 4 that indirect objects are always specified for person and that 3rd person IOs are [–person], unlike 3rd person DOs, which lack a person feature altogether. On the other hand, the direct object is specified as [+person]. Since the feature specifications of the two objects are contradictory, sequences as in (39c) are ruled out by (40).13 Icelandic long distance agreement in expletive constructions provides independent evidence for the claim that Multiple Agree is possible only if the agreeing NPs have non-conflicting feature values.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.24 (1262-1319)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

We saw in Sections 2 and 4 that in Icelandic infinitival constructions the embedded nominative may enter Agree with T, and when it does, a person restriction arises. When a dative argument intervenes between the matrix T and the nominative in the embedded infinitival, default agreement on the matrix verb is obligatory, as illustrated by (41) (data from Schütze 1997: 108): (41) Mér fannst/*fundust henni leiðast þeir Me-dat seem-3sg/*3pl she-dat to-be bored they-nom ‘I thought she was bored with them’ Chomsky (2000) proposes that default agreement in examples like (41) is the reflex of an MLC effect on long-distance Agree (see also Schütze 1997 and others). The intervening dative blocks agreement between matrix T and the nominative, and therefore, the matrix verb bears default singular specification obligatorily. Chomsky (2000, 2001) assumes that the MLC effect in (41) is an instance of what he calls ‘a defective intervention effect’. Specifically, he proposes that even though the intervening dative is inactive (i.e. it does not have a Case feature that matches matrix T), it still has interpretable φ-features which block the checking relationship between the matrix T and the φ-features of the nominative in the embedded clause. In expletive constructions with a dative experiencer, though, the defective intervention effect of intervening datives is lifted. When EPP on the matrix T is checked by an expletive, the verb agrees in number with the nominative argument of the infinitival clause, even though a dative experiencer intervenes between the matrix T and the embedded nominative (Jonas 1998 cited in McGinnis 1998: 51). In (42) matrix T has plural specification, agreeing in number with the plural embedded nominative across the dative experiencer: (42) Það virðist sumum málfræðingum þessir stúdentar vera there seem-pl some linguists-dat these students-nom be duglegir intelligent ‘These students seem to some linguists to be intelligent’ The crucial difference between (41) and (42) is that in (42) the dative is the associate of the expletive in Spec, TP. The Definiteness Restriction (DR) effect induced by expletives manifests itself on the dative experiencer rather than the embedded nominative, as evidenced by the fact that in (42) the dative experiencer is indefinite and the embedded nominative is definite. Further evidence for this is provided by the data in (43), which show that when the dative is definite the sentence is ill-formed, even when the nominative is indefinite:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.25 (1319-1361)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

(43) *Það virðast þessum málfræðingum margir stúdentar vera there seem-pl these linguists-dat many students-nom be duglegir intelligent ‘Many students seem to these linguists to be intelligent’ Thus, the dative and not the nominative argument is the associate of the expletive (see McGinnis 1998; Chomsky 2000). Chomsky (2000, 2001) argues that the expletive associate relation is mediated through T: the expletive enters agreement with T, and T agrees with the associate. Matrix T then enters agreement with (i) the expletive, (ii) the associate and (iii) the nominative in (42), as schematically represented in (44): (44)

I EPP [[ EXPL T10

DAT

NOM]]

II Associate III Number Agreement

Crucially, long distance agreement with the nominative is licit when the intervening dative is in an Agree relation with the matrix T, i.e. such configurations represent one more instance of Multiple Agree. Condition (40) above, namely that Multiple Agree can only take place under non-conflicting feature specifications of the agreeing elements, now predicts that Multiple Agree between the matrix T and the dative and nominative arguments will be possible only if both NPs have the same number, i.e. when they are both [+plural], as in (42) above, or when they are both [–plural]. The matrix verb will not be able to agree (i) with a [+plural] nominative across a [–plural] dative or (ii) with a [–plural] nominative across a [+plural] dative. The second part of the prediction cannot be tested because the verb anyway surfaces with default 3rd person singular agreement when it does not enter long-distance Agree with the nominative, as has been seen in (41). The first part, though, can be tested, and indeed the prediction is borne out. As extensively discussed in Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir (2002), an intervening dative experiencer blocks agreement between the matrix verb and the embedded plural nominative when it is singular, i.e. the defective intervention effect re-emerges when the two arguments have contradictory values with respect to plurality:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.26 (1361-1414)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(45) Það virðist/ *virðast einhverjum manni [hestarnir vera there seems-sg/seem-pl some man-dat the horses-nom be seinir] slow ‘It seems to some man that the horses are slow’ This provides independent evidence for Condition (40) above.14 Multiple Agree in Icelandic is possible when both the dative and the nominative are [+plural] and impossible when the dative is [–plural] and the nominative [+plural]. Before closing this discussion, I would like to return to the observation that in some languages, like Spanish, 1st/2nd combinations are preferred when the 1st or 2nd person direct object receives a reflexive interpretation. In the present account, this entails that reflexivity activates or facilitates the option of multiple Agree, a proposal that fits the view of reflexive binding as a relation mediated through checking of φ-features against functional heads advocated in Reinhart & Reuland (1991), Reuland (1996) and others.

. A comparison to inverse systems I finally turn to an inverse language, namely Passamaquoddy, where, as will be seen in this section, hierarchical effects result from the interaction of the following factors: (i) Person/participant features are hosted on only one head in the clause, namely T. (ii) In the transitive clause, person/participant features on T must be checked (an EPP-like requirement). (iii) [+Person] arguments must always check their features against T. (iv) 3rd person arguments check a person/participant feature against T only as a Last Resort: to satisfy the requirement of T in the transitive clause to enter Agree with a person/participant feature on an NP (see condition (ii) above). The analysis I will propose, which relies heavily on Bruening (2001), makes use of the ingredients discussed in Section 4 and 5. Crucially, though, hierarchical effects in inverse systems never result from split phi-feature checking, unlike the effects found in PCC environments and quirky subject constructions. Hierarchical effects in Passamaquoddy are the result of the fact that 1st and 2nd person arguments must check their features against T, while 3rd person arguments are assigned a participant feature only when they must check a person/participant feature of T. As in the case of the PCC and the person restriction in Icelandic, person/ animacy

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.27 (1414-1474)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

hierarchies play no role in the analysis of inverse systems, which relies exclusively on feature checking conditions. In Passamaquoddy, transitive verbs are formed with finals that reflect the animacy of the object. There are TA (Transitive Animate) verbs that take animate objects, and TI (Transitive Inanimate) verbs that take inanimate objects. All animate nouns qualify as either proximate or obviative, depending on several (discourse and grammatical) factors. TA verbs have a prefix that always marks the proximate argument (in bold in (46)). A plural suffix (in bold in (46)) also marks this argument. The other argument is marked by a suffix in final position (underlined in (46)). If the subject is the proximate argument, the verb is Direct (marked by a), as in (46a). If the object is the proximate argument, the verb is Inverse (marked by ku), as in (46b). First and second persons are always proximate with respect to third persons: (46) a.

k-ciksotuw-a-nnu-k 2-listen to ta-dir-1p-3p ‘we (Incl) listen to them’ b. k-ciksota-ku-nnu-k 2-listen to ta-inv-1p-3p ‘they listen to us (Incl)’

Direct

Inverse

First and second person subjects and objects show a different agreement pattern. According to Bruening (2001), they behave as if they are competing for the same agreement slot: the slot they would occupy if their co-argument were a third person. The principle that decides the conflict is that the second person prefix always over-rules the first person prefix. Suffixes display the opposite preference: if there is a first person plural it is marked. Otherwise, a second person plural is marked. Which is the subject and which the object is marked by a sign, similar to the one marking the Direct and Inverse in (46): first person subject, second person object is marked by l; second person subject, first person object is marked by i: (47) a.

k-ciksotuw-i-pon 2-listen to ta-2/1-1p ‘you(Sg/P) listen to us (Excl)’ b. k-ciksotu-l-pon 2-listen to ta-1/2-1p ‘we listen to you (Sg/P)’

Drawing on evidence from binding, Bruening argues convincingly that inversion is A-movement of the object across the subject to a higher head H, which proceeds via a secondary specifier to v-Tr, the head that introduces the subject. As argued extensively in Ura (1996), Richards (1997) and Anagnostopoulou (2003), non-local A-movement always proceeds successive cyclically through the specifier of a higher head introducing the intervener. I will therefore adopt the essentials

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.28 (1474-1522)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

of Bruening’s analysis and I will assume that the target H of inversion is T. I will furthermore assume that inverse languages have two types of v-Tr (see Ura 1996): (i) (Direct) v-Tr does not license a secondary specifier that can host the object on its way to T; therefore, only the subject is allowed to move to T in the Direct Voice. (ii) (Inverse) v-Tr licenses a secondary specifier through which the object moves to T across the subject. Bruening hypothesizes that there is a syntactic uninterpretable feature in Passamaquoddy Proximate [P] which is a feature on NPs. When this feature has a positive specification [+P] it must be checked against T. First and second person pronouns are always [+P]. Inanimates cannot be [+P]. Animate third person arguments have unvalued [P]. When two animate NPs co-occur in a single clause, one of them is assigned [+P]. If the subject is [+P], it enters Agree with T. If the object is [+P] it has to move to T through a layered specifier to (inverse) v-Tr. The other argument receives an unvalued [P] feature which is checked against v, and is then assigned another feature [Obv] which is spelled out as the obviative suffix in the morphology. As pointed out by Bruening (2001: 120), in this analysis of the Direct/Inverse alternation there is no need to appeal to a person/animacy hierarchy of an uncertain grammatical status, no need for ranking of violable constraints (e.g. Aissen 1999), or any other mechanisms. I will adopt the essentials of this analysis, except that instead of postulating a syntactic uninterpretable feature Proximate [P] to underlie obviation, I will assume that the crucial feature is Person/Participant, an interpretable feature on NPs (cf. Bianchi 2003; see Fn. 5 above on the ‘Person/Participant’ notation I use). As will be seen immediately, this quite naturally accounts for the characterization of certain NPs as necessarily proximate and of other NPs as necessarily obviative. More specifically, extending the featural analysis of pronouns and NPs proposed in Section 4 for PCC languages and Icelandic to languages with inverse systems, I propose that NPs can be inherently specified as [+Person/Participant], they can be specified as [–Person/Participant] or they can lack a Person/ Participant feature altogether. 1st and 2nd person pronouns are [+Person/Participant]. Inanimate NPs lack [Person/Participant] features since they cannot encode point of view (see Footnote 6 above on Adger & Harbour’s 2003 proposal). Animate 3rd person NPs can, in principle, have a specification for person. When they are contextually salient (topic-like) they are assigned the feature [–Person/Participant], i.e. they have a feature specification similar to 3rd person dative arguments discussed in Section 4. When they are not salient they lack a person/participant feature, being similar to 3rd person accusative/nominative/absolutive arguments discussed in Section 4. When 3rd person animates are assigned the feature [–Person/Participant] they surface with unmarked proximate morphology, and the prefix on the verb agrees with them. When they lack the participant feature they have marked obviative morphology and are coindexed with the verb’s final suffix. The [–Person/Participant]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.29 (1522-1589)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

specification is assigned in opposition to another third person argument which lacks the [Person/Participant] feature. To sum up, the feature specification of NPs in languages with inverse systems is no different than the feature specification of NPs in languages with the PCC and Icelandic (contra Bruening 2001). The only special property of inverse languages is that animate 3rd person NPs must be assigned a feature [–Participant] in opposition to another 3rd person NP. As will be seen below, obligatory assignment of a [–Participant] feature to one third person animate NP in a transitive clause lacking another 1st or 2nd person argument is linked to the (EPP-like) requirement of T in the transitive clause to check a participant feature. The other crucial property of languages with inverse systems that differentiates them from the languages discussed in Section 4 is that only T hosts person/participant features that can be checked against NPs. That is, a [+/–Person/ Participant] object cannot check its person feature against v-Tr, and must enter an Agree relation with T. In contrast, in PCC languages and Icelandic, a subject specified as [+person] checks its features against T and an object specified as [+person] checks its features against v-Tr (see Bianchi 2003 for a different implementation of the same intuition). Therefore, a first/second person subject in Icelandic or Italian surfaces as nominative and a first/second person object in Icelandic or Italian transitive clauses surfaces as accusative. On the other hand, in Passamaquoddy 1st/2nd person subjects and objects occupy the proximate agreement slots (prefix and prefinal number suffix), as was seen in (47), entering a Multiple Agree relation with T (see Bruening 2001: 119–122 for detailed argumentation). With respect to Multiple Agree, Passamaquoddy behaves like a language with the Weak Version of the PCC: T may enter multiple Agree with the subject and the object. The difference between e.g. Italian and Passamaquoddy is that in Italian v-Tr enters multiple Agree with the indirect object and the direct object because v-Tr has participant features, and the subject checks its person feature separately on T. In Passamaquoddy only T has person/participant features, and [+Person/+Participant] subject and object agree with the verb’s prefix and the pre-final number suffix, i.e. they both show proximate agreement. In addition, T must check a participant feature in the transitive clause, i.e. it has an EPP-like requirement (in the sense of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998, 2001) to enter an Agree relation with an argument that bears a participant feature (regardless of whether this is positively specified as [+Person/+Participant] or it is negatively specified as [–Person/–Participant]). As discussed by Bruening (2001), certain asymmetries between transitive and intransitive clauses lead to the conclusion that T in transitives must check a [Person/Participant] feature,15 unlike T in intransitives which may or may not enter Agree with a [Person/Participant] feature.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.30 (1589-1656)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

First of all, observe that 1st and 2nd person arguments agree on the verb in intransitives as subjects of transitives ((48a), (48b)), but third persons agree on the verb like objects (48c): (48) a.

nt-op 1-sit ‘I sit’ b. kt-op ‘2-sit’ c. opu-wok (cf. n-tokom-a-k) sit-3P 1-hit-Dir-3P ‘they sit’ ‘I hit them’

The fact that there is never a prefix for a third person in an intransitive clause suggests that only 1st and 2nd person arguments, which are inherently specified as [+Participant/+Person], check their features against T in the intransitive clause. 3rd person arguments do not enter Agree with T but with v-Intr. Syntactically they behave as obviative (i.e. they lack a Person/Participant feature) arguments, even though they surface with unmarked (i.e. proximate) case morphology. This is expected if assignment of a participant feature to a 3rd person argument is always performed in opposition to another third person argument, as proposed by Bruening. (See Marantz 1991 on comparable mismatches between marked – and ‘dependent’ – agreement and case morphology in so called split ergativity phenomena.) The example in (48c) provides evidence that T does not have to enter Agree in intransitives. In contrast, T in transitives must enter Agree. For this reason, when 1st and 2nd person arguments are not present in the clause a 3rd person animate argument that is considered central is singled out as proximate; all other third persons are obviative. When the proximate argument is the subject, as in (49) below (Bruening 2001: 38), the Direct Voice is employed: (49) Mali ´-kis-ewestuwam-a-l peskuw-ol pomawsuwinuw-ol Mary 3-Perf-talk to-Dir-3 one-Obv person-Obv ‘Mary (Prox) spoke to one person (Obv)’ When the proximate argument is the object, the Inverse Voice is employed. Crucially, it is absolutely impossible for two inanimates to co-occur as subject and object in Passamaquoddy (see Bruening 2001: 127 who shows that there is no such restriction against inanimate arguments in intransitives), a restriction that follows from the requirement that T must enter Agree in transitives. Since inanimate arguments cannot be assigned a [–Participant] feature, the requirement of T to enter Agree is not satisfied, and the derivation crashes.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.31 (1656-1683)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

In conclusion, the subject and the object in Passamaquoddy check features against the same head T only when they are both inherently specified as [+Person/+Participant], i.e. they are both 1st and 2nd person, as in (47) above. In constructions of this type both arguments are allowed to surface due to the Multiple Agree Parameter. Note that if a 3rd person argument and a 1st, 2nd person argument both entered Agree with T in transitives, the analysis in Section 5 would predict 1,2>3 combinations and 3>1,2 combinations to be equally impossible in Passamaquoddy (in both the Direct and the Inverse) due to Condition (40). Since a 3rd person argument moving to T in Passamaquoddy is [–Participant], and a 1st, 2nd person argument is [+Participant], the two arguments are not expected to enter multiple Agree with T, regardless of their order, because they have conflicting feature values. But we saw that assignment of the [–Participant] feature on an animate 3rd person argument is forced by the requirement of T in transitives to enter Agree. Intransitive T does not have this requirement, and 3rd person arguments do not Agree with T in e.g. (48c), i.e. they are not assigned the [–Person/Participant] feature. The fact that 1,2>3 combinations are licit and 3>1,2 combinations are illicit in this language is therefore reduced to an independent factor. As shown by the transitive examples in (47) and the intransitive ones in (48a) and (48b), arguments inherently specified as [+Participant] must always enter Agree with T. In contrast, 3rd person animate arguments are assigned the feature [–Participant] only in opposition to another third person argument as a Last-Resort: when there is no other way to satisfy properties of T.

. Summary In this paper I investigated two versions of the me-lui or Person Case Constraint, namely the Strong Version in (1) and the Weak Version in (3), repeated here: (1) The Strong Version of the PCC In a combination of a weak direct object and an indirect object [clitic, agreement marker or weak pronoun], the direct object has to be 3rd person (Bonet 1991: 182) (3) The Weak Version of the PCC In a combination of a weak direct object and an indirect object [clitic, agreement marker or weak pronoun], if there is a third person it has to be the direct object. (Bonet 1991: 182) I argued that both (1) and (3) arise in configurations in which the two objects check features against a single functional head, namely v-TR. In that sense, they

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.32 (1683-1741)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

share the same underlying syntax. However, (1) and (3) should be seen as separate Constraints as they reflect different feature checking procedures. More specifically, the Strong Version of the PCC is the result of split φ-feature checking. In languages where (1) is operative (i.e. Greek, French), the dative object checks person and the accusative number, a situation that prevents the accusative from being 1st, 2nd or reflexive, regardless of the person of the dative. Exactly the same restriction holds in Icelandic quirky subject constructions, except that the head against which split checking is performed is T. On the other hand, the Weak Version of the PCC is the result of Multiple Agree. In languages where (3) is operative (i.e. Italian, Catalan), both objects are allowed to check person against v-TR, and therefore accusative 1st, 2nd person objects and reflexives are allowed to surface in the presence of 1st and 2nd person datives. Illicit IO-3>DO-1,2,refl combinations are reflexes of the constraint in (40), repeated here, which prevents arguments with conflicting feature specifications from entering Multiple Agree. (40) A Condition on Multiple Agree Multiple Agree can take place only under non-conflicting feature specifications of the agreeing elements The same constraint has been argued to regulate multiple long distance number agreement dependencies in Icelandic. I finally compared the effects of (1) and (3) to hierarchical effects in Passamaquoddy, an inverse language. Similarly to languages with (1) and (3), hierarchical effects arise in Passamaquoddy because the subject and the object check features against a single functional head, namely T. In this respect, all three phenomena share the same underlying syntax, i.e. they arise in ‘two arguments against one head’ configurations. Even though Passamaquoddy has also been seen to have Multiple Agree, similarly to languages with the Weak Version of the PCC, illicit 3>1,2 combinations do not result from (40). They are reduced to an independent property of the language, namely that 3rd person animate arguments are assigned a [–Person/Participant] feature only as a Last Resort when there is no 1st or 2nd person argument in the transitive clause to satisfy the requirement of T to enter person agreement.

Notes * Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the 21st Glow Colloquium, ZASBerlin, March 29, 1999, at the Thermi International Summer School in Linguistics (July, 5–30, 1999) and at the Tübingen Colloquium, Tübingen, May 31, 2000. I thank the audiences for comments and suggestions. I thank Juan Romero, Martin Everaert, Eric Reu-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.33 (1741-1795)


land, Michael Brody, Luigi Burzio, Richard Kayne, Henk van Riemdijk, Artemis Alexiadou, Jonathan Bobaljik, Daniel Harbour, Lea Nash, Norvin Richards, David Adger, Vina Tsakali and Fabrice Nicol for their feedback. I would like to particularly thank Winfried Lechner for extensive discussions and comments on earlier versions of the paper. Parts of the material discussed here are extensively discussed in Anagnostopoulou (2003), Ch. 5. The material in Sections 5 and 6 is not included in Anagnostopoulou (2003). . Richard Kayne (personal communication) points out that the Weak Version of the restriction is not universal either. In Paduan strings like ‘?te ghe meto in brasso’ (‘I put you in his/her/their arms’), are to some degree acceptable, as opposed to Italian ‘*ti gli metto in braccio’ (Paola Beninca, personal communication to R. Kayne). . Richard Kayne (personal communication) notes that there are counterexamples to the claim that the restriction is limited to combinations of weak or clitic pronouns. More specifically, the following contrast in French shows that the constraint also affects combinations of accusative clitics and dative full phrases: (i)

Il la/le faut à mon ami. ‘my friend needs her/him/it’

(ii) *Il te faut à mon ami(e). ‘my friend needs you’ He furthermore points out that these cases would fall back into place if there was a covert dative clitic associated with the à-experiencer in (i) and (ii). . According to Sigurðsson (1996: 24ff.), lack of agreement is exceptional and largely limited to clauses with either leiðast/ ‘find boring’ or líka /‘like’. Even there, agreement is preferred to non-agreement. . As pointed out by Ormazabal & Romero (2001) and Haspelmath (2001), the PCC also arises in languages where the indirect object has accusative or no morphology. I take indirect objects in these languages to behave like the dative arguments discussed here. See Anagnostopoulou (2003: 316–321) for discussion. . The terms [+/–person] and [+/–participant] are synonyms and are used interchangeably in the present paper. Sometimes I use the notation +/–Person/+/–Participant (see especially Section 6). . Adger and Harbour (2003) argue that indirect objects must have a +/– participant value since they encode point of view, affectedness etc. On the other hand, direct objects are undergoers and therefore they do not have to have a participant value (they have one only when they are 1st or 2nd person). . See Anagnostopoulou (2003) for extensive discussion of how the order predicted by tucking in is altered by the morphology in combinations of clitics and agreement markers. Cf. Desouvrey, this volume, and Nicol, this volume, for extensive discussion of clitic ordering in Romance. . Georgian has been argued to be a true quirky subject language, and yet Georgian has the PCC and shows no restriction against nominative objects, as illustrated in (i):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.34 (1795-1855)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(i)

Turme dedas caubarebixar mascavleblistvis Apparently mother(Dat) she-rendered-you-ev teacher-for ‘Apparently mother has turned you over to the teacher’

However, in Georgian quirky subject constructions datives agree in number with the verb and nominatives do not (see Harris 1984 for discussion). This is a crucial difference between Georgian and Icelandic quirky subject constructions (see Anagnostopoulou 2003 for more details on Georgian). . See Seuren (1976) for Italian and Spanish, and Wanner (1987) for Italian. See also Monachesi (1996). . Bonet (1994) claims that only clitic languages show the Weak Version of the PCC. Agreement languages always have the Strong Version of the PCC. It is not clear to me why there is this difference. . Bonet (1991) notes that inherent reflexive clitics do not trigger the PCC, but the examples listed above contain non-inherent reflexive clitics. . See Murasugi (1994), Bianchi (2003), Nicol (this volume) for alternative proposals. . Observe that the ban against conflicting feature specifications of DPs in contexts of Multiple Agree is quite natural in a theory like the one advanced in Chomsky (2000, 2001) where checking leads to valuing of uninterpretable φ-features of T and v-Tr. Two DPs that check and value the φ-features of T and v-Tr cannot have conflicting feature specifications as this will lead to contradictory values for the features of T and v-Tr. However, see the discussion of Icelandic agreement below (and, in particular, Fn. 14) for a complication. . As pointed out by Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir (2002: 157, Fn. 5), these facts entail that T can ‘see’ the number feature of datives, even though the number feature of T cannot be valued by dative arguments. This has two consequences for the present analysis. First, Condition (40) cannot be reduced to conflicting valuing, contrary to what has been suggested in fn 14 above. Second, it must be ensured that even though T has the option of entering into some kind of defective Agree with the number feature of the dative associate in expletive constructions, T and v-Tr do not enter Agree in number with dative arguments in Quirky Subject Constructions and PCC environments. Otherwise, Condition (40) would be at play incorrectly predicting number restrictions in such environments (i.e. that both objects must be singular or both plural). . The transitive/intransitive asymmetry is reminiscent of the Subject in-situ Generalization discussed in Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001).

References Adger, D. and D. Harbour. 2003. “The syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint.” Ms. Queen Mary, University of London and MIT. (To appear in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics). Aissen, J. 1999. “Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.35 (1855-1957)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

Albizu, P. 1997. The Syntax of Person Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, Los Angeles, USC. Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verbmovement and EPP checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 491–539. Alexiadou, A and E. Anagnostopoulou. 2001. “The subject in-situ generalization, and the role of case in driving computations.” Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 192–233. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2002. “Case 17: Clitic doubling.” SYNCOM Project. [http://wwwuilots.let.uu.nl/syncom/] Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Andrews, A. 1990. “Case structure and control in modern Icelandic”. In Syntax and Semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax, J. Maling and A. Zaenen (eds), 187–234. New York: Academic Press. Bejár, S. and M. Rezac. 2003. “Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects.” Ms. University of Toronto. Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. Bianchi, V. 2003. “On the syntax of personal arguments.” Paper presented at the XXIX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Urbino, 13–15 February 2003. Boeckx, C. 2000. “Quirky agreement.” Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380. Boeckx, C. 2003. “Intricacies of Icelandic agreement.” Ms. University of Maryland/Harvard University. Bruening, B. 2001. Syntax at the Edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Bonet, E. 1994. “The person-case constraint: A morphological approach.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22. The Morphology-Syntax Connection: 33–52. Bonet, E. 1995. “Feature Structure of Romance Clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by step, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, C. and H. Thráinsson. 1996. “VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic.” LI 27: 391–444. Duranti, A. 1979. “Object clitic pronouns in Bantu and the topicality hierarchy.” Studies in African Linguistics 10: 31–45. Gerlach, B. 1998. Restrictions on clitic sequences and conditions on the occurrence of clitics in Romance. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungs-bereichs 282. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. Harris, A. C. 1984. “Inversion as a rule of Universal Grammar: Georgian evidence.” In Studies in Relational Grammar, D. M. Perlmutter and C. G. Rosen (eds), 259–291. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.36 (1957-2060)

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Haspelmath, M. 2001. “Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based approach.” Ms., Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie. Herschensohn, J. 1979. “On clitic placement in French.” Linguistic Analysis 6: 187–219. Holmberg, A. and T. Hróarsdóttir. 2002. “Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69: 147–168. Jensen, F. 1986 The Syntax of Medieval Occitan [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 208]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Johns, A. 1993. “Symmetry in Labrador Inuttut.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18. Papers on Case & Agreement I: 43–57. Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klaiman, M. H. 1992. “Inverse languages.” Lingua 88: 227–261. Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing.” ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. [Distributed by the ESCOL Publications Committee.] Marantz, A. 1993. “Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.” In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, S. Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. McGinnis, M. 1998. Locality in A-Movement. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Miller, P. and I. Sag. 1997. “French clitic movement without clitics or movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639. Monachesi, P. 1996. A Grammar of Italian Clitics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tilburg. Murasugi, K. 1994. “A constraint on the feature specification of Agr.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22. The Morphology-Syntax Connection: 131–152. Nichols, L. 2001. “The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: Clues from languages with an without morphological case.” Lingua 111: 515–537. Ormazabal, J. and J. Romero. 2001. “Agreement restrictions.” Ms. University Basque Country (EHU)/Basque Center for Language Research (LEHIA) and U. of Alcalá/U. Autónoma de Madrid. Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Rinehart & Winston Inc. Postal, P. 1966. “On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English.” In Report of the 17th Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, F. P. Dineen (ed.), 177–206. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [reprinted in Reibel, D. A. and S. A. Schane (eds). 1969. Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland. 1991. “Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective.” In Long-distance anaphora, J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds), 283–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reuland, E. 1996. “Pronouns and features.” In the Proceedings of NELS 26: 316–333. Amherst MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Richards, N. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language? Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Ritter, E. 1995. “On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405–443. Schütze, C. 1997. Infl in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, case and licensing. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:47

F: LA7406.tex / p.37 (2060-2106)

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions 

Seuren, P. 1976. Clitic pronoun clusters, Italian Linguistics, 2.17–36. Sigurðsson, H. A. 1990–1991. Beygingarsamræmi [Agreement]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 12–13: 31–77. Sigurðsson, H. A. 1996. Icelandic Finite Verb Agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46. Silverstein, M. 1986. “Hierarchy of features and ergativity.” In Features and Projections, P. Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris. Taraldsen, T. 1994. “Reflexives, pronouns and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 54: 43–58. Taraldsen, T. 1995. “On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic.” In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds), 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Thráinsson, H. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York NY: Garland. Ura, H. 1996. Multiple Feature-Checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. Wanner, D. 1987 The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns from Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Warburton, I. 1977. Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘surface structure constraints’ hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics 13: 259–368.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 10:52

P II

Clitics vs. Affixation

F: LA74P2.tex / p.1 (42-68)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.1 (41-94)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean* James Hye Suk Yoon University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

In this paper, we argue that syntactic principles are better-suited to accounting for the complexities of morpheme ordering of nominal inflectional particles in Korean. We address the arguments made in Sells (1995, 1997) and Cho and Sells (1995) that syntactic principles are incapable of providing a principled account of morpheme order in Korean inflectional morphology and show that syntactic approaches are superior conceptually and empirically to the lexicalist analyses proposed in the papers.

.

Introduction – Morphosyntactic status of nominal particles

Investigation of the morphosyntactic status of the nominal particles in the agglutinative East Asian languages such as Japanese and Korean has been a matter of on-going debate for some time now (Cho & Sells 1995; Sells 1995, 1997; Yoon 1994, 1995; Nishiyama 1996; Koopman 2003; inter alia). The debate has revolved around the question of whether the nominal particles such as those highlighted in (1) below are affixes added to the nominal root in the morphology, as sketched in (2a), or whether some or all of the nominal particles should be treated as heads of functional (adpositional) projections in the syntax, as illustrated in (2b).1 (1) Seoul-eyse-pwuthe-chelem-mankhum-man-ina-tul Seoul-loc-abl-like-as.much-only-like-con.pl hay-la (H-B Lim 1996) do-imper ‘(You all) behave at least in much the same way you have been since you were in Seoul.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.2 (94-151)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

(2) a.

NP | N | Seoul-eyse-pwuthe-chelem-mankhum-man-ina-tul

b. [[[[[[[[NP/DP Seoul]-eyseP ]-pwutheP ]-chelemP ]-mankhumP ]manDel ]-inaDel ]-tulDel ] The analysis sketched in (2a) conforms broadly to the assumptions of lexicalism, while that sketched in (2b) represents the position that the particles and their hosts form separate constituents in the syntax and are only put together in the phonology. That there are two contrasting positions on the proper analysis of nominal particles owes in large measure to the fact that particles such as those shown in (1) above do not lend themselves to an easy morphological classification. Specifically, the particles behave neither as prototypical, lexical, affixes nor as simple, bound word, clitics. Clitics and affixes are two types of dependent, or prosodically weak, elements whose distinctness is recognized in both traditional and generative research. In the generative tradition, a widely cited articulation of the differences between clitics and affixes can be found in Zwicky and Pullum (1983). The criteria they propose to distinguish affixes from clitics deal mostly with morphological (ir)regularity and properties that can be attributed to the different loci where the host-affix (and host-clitic) cluster are formed.2 While these criteria are widely accepted, especially in lexicalist circles, it is not without problems. For example, Heggie and Ordóñez (this volume) show that the criteria yield indeterminate results in many cases. In a similar vein, Lapointe (1996) observed that elements that are called phrasal affixes (Nevis 1985; Poser 1985; Zwicky 1987; Yoon 1987, 1995; Lapointe 1990; Miller 1991; Halpern 1995, etc.) are problematic for the attempt to shoehorn dependent elements into the clitic vs. affix dichotomy. Phrasal affixes (also called edge affixes or lexical clitics) possess properties of both lexical affixes and simple clitics. These properties are exemplified by the English possessive, which is an example of a phrasal affix (Lapointe 1996: 76):3 a. They attach to an item on a phrase’s margin rather than to the head: (3) a. The woman in the front seat’s hat b. *The woman’s in the front seat heat b. They show morphological (e.g., haplology) and phonological alternation properties (e.g., allomorphy) that are typical of lexical affixes, rather than clitics:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.3 (151-214)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(4) toy-’s[z] vs. map-’s[s] vs. moss-’s[iz] (5) Chris’s book vs. *Macdonalds’s hamburgers c. They appear outside lexical affixes: (6) Childr-en-’s books vs. *Childr-’s-en books d. They cannot be attached outside the phrase that they have scope over, unlike clitics: (7) a. The woman in the front seat’s hat b. *The woman in the front seat hat’s e. They can appear separately in each conjunct of a coordinate structure: (8) Rocky’s Bullwinkle’s, and Boris’s plans f. They can appear in a single conjunct, with their syntactic-semantic force distributing over the entire coordinate structure: (9) [Rocky, Bullwinkle, and Boris]’s plans Properties (b), (d) and (e) are expected if the possessive is a lexical affix. However, properties (a), (c), and (f) are those expected if the possessive is a clitic. As readers can verify for themselves, a true lexical affix, such as the nominal plural affix in English, does not exhibit the latter three properties. The nominal particles in Korean behave as phrasal affixes, rather than as lexical affixes or simple clitics. This behavior is exemplified below. (10) shows that when the right edge of a phrase is not its Head (as in a DP containing a post-head appositive modifier), the particle attaches to the right edge rather than to the Head. (11a–b) and (12) show that the Nominative particle displays allomorphy and in turn causes stem allomorphy with certain stems. (13) shows that it attaches after lexical affixes. (14) shows that it must attach within the phrase it is associated with syntactically and semantically, unlike certain clitics. Finally, (15) shows that the particle can appear in each conjunct separately or once in a coordinate structure, with its interpretive force distributing over the entire coordinate structure. (10) a.

Chomsky, ku enehakca-ka o-ass-ta C dem linguist-nom come-pst-decl b. *Chomsky-ka ku enehakca o-ass-ta C-nom dem linguist come-pst-decl ‘Chomsky, the linguist, came.’

(11) a.

Chomsky-ka/*-i o-ass-ta C-nom come-pst-decl ‘Chomsky came’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.4 (214-276)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

b. Postal-*ka/-i o-ass-ta P-nom come-pst-decl ‘Postal came.’ (12) na vs. *na-ka vs. nay-ka I I-nom I-nom (13) kyoswu-tul-i vs. *kyoswu-ka-tul professor-pl-nom professor-nom-pl (14) a.

Chomsky, ku enehakca-ka onul o-ass-ta C dem linguist-nom today come-pst-decl b. *Chomsky, ku enehakca onul-i o-ass-ta C dem linguist today-nom come-pst-decl ‘Chomsky, the linguist, came today.’

(15) a.

Chomsky-ka kuliko Postal-i o-ass-ta C-nom and P-nom come-pst-decl b. Chomsky-wa Postal-i o-ass-ta C-and P-nom come-pst-decl ‘Chomsky and Postal came.’

Now, the existence of a class of dependent elements that is intermediate between typical affixes and clitics is interesting in and of itself. However, it may not be immediately obvious how this fact bears on the proper analysis of nominal particles in Korean. As we shall see, it does, when certain other assumptions are brought into the picture. The argument in Sells (1995) and Cho and Sells (1995) is based on the supposition that there are only two types of dependent elements in natural languages (see Lapointe 1996:78ff. for discussion). That is, they deny the existence of phrasal affixes. If there are no phrasal affixes, then the nominal particles in Korean must be clitics or affixes. And since the particles do not have the phonological and morphological properties of simple clitics, they conclude that the particles must be affixes. Now, in lexicalist approaches to morphosyntax, the classification of a weak element as affix or clitic has important repercussions. Strict adherence to the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (Lapointe 1980; Di Sciullo & Williams 1987; Bresnan & Mchombo 1995, etc.) dictates that an affix cannot be a formative in the syntax, while a clitic, though prosodically dependent on its host, is an independent syntactic formative. Thus, the decision to treat the nominal particles as affixes automatically rules out a syntactic analysis of the particles. By contrast, in approaches to morphosyntax where syntax is implicated in the formation of certain types of words (for example, Baker 1988; Pollock 1989), the exact morphological status of a dependent element does not prejudge the domain

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.5 (276-328)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

where it combines with its host. Clitics, of course, are analyzed as syntactically autonomous from their hosts in this research tradition, but so are certain dependent elements that have the undisputable status of affixes – for example, rightly or wrongly, the affixes found in English verbal inflection have long been held to be syntactically autonomous from their hosts (Chomsky 1957; Pollock 1989). Given that nominal particles in Korean do not always behave like lexical affixes, it is not surprising that syntactic approaches to Korean morphosyntax have adopted the view that the nominal particles are syntactically autonomous from their hosts. The larger issue framing the debate then is whether lexicalist methodology as pursued in Sells (1995, 1996, 1997) and Cho and Sells (1995) that pays due attention to the morphosyntactic status of a dependent element is correct, or whether the syntactically informed approach that downplays it can be sustained. The particular argument in favor of the lexicalist position launched in the papers cited above is that the decision to treat the nominal particles as affixes, hence invisible to syntactic rules, is justified not only on morphophonological grounds, but also on morphosyntactic and theoretical grounds. In particular, the charge is that syntactic analyses fail to provide a principled account of the fixed, template-like ordering of nominal particles. Syntactic principles, it is held, are too coarse-grained to account for the actual intricacies of particle ordering. And once the relevant morphological constraints are developed, they suffice to explain the ordering of particles, rendering superfluous the positing of syntactic functional heads and the accompanying technology of syntactic head movement that brings the particles and the root together to form a word.4 My goal in this paper is to demonstrate that syntactic principles, once carefully articulated, are capable of providing a principled account of nominal particle ordering in Korean that is superior both conceptually and empirically to lexicalist analyses. In this, I am delivering on a promissory note made earlier (Yoon 1995) where the conjecture was put forth that there may be fewer restrictions of a purely morphological nature on the attachment and sequencing of particles than envisaged in the lexicalist analyses of Sells (1995) and Cho and Sells (1995), but where no concrete analysis was given. I will not address the arguments showing that the particles have the phonological and morphological properties of affixes, for reasons given a few paragraphs earlier. Instead, my focus will on the morphosyntactic arguments advanced against syntactic analyses. In fact, the focus will be even narrower, since I will propose detailed reanalyses of the arguments against the syntactic position that have been made on the basis of nominal particles in Korean, leaving aside similar arguments based on verbal inflection or those based on Japanese. These restrictions notwithstanding, I believe the present exercise is worth the effort. A facile and shallow reanalysis is always possible, but rarely withstands the test of changing theoretical climates or the discovery of related generalizations in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.6 (328-367)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

the language under investigation. In the same vein, I believe that even though the central papers that I am reacting to appear dated, they are still worth addressing, since to date, there is no definitive response to the arguments put forth in the papers that syntactic approaches to Korean/Japanese morphosyntax (and more generally) are fundamentally flawed.5 The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, I present three arguments from Sells (1995) against the syntactic analysis of nominal particles. Section 3 evaluates the adequacy of morphological templates as the theoretical explanation of the particle ordering for Korean. Section 4 offers a syntactic reanalysis of the second and third arguments introduced in Section 2. Section 5 concludes the paper.

. Lexicalist critique of syntactic analyses In this section, I present three arguments from Sells (1995) based on Korean nominal particles designed to show empirical and theoretical difficulties with syntactically oriented analyses. A reanalysis of the first argument is given, while the rebuttal of the second and third arguments is reserved for Section 4.

. Non-local c-selection The first argument against the syntactic analysis of Korean nominal particles is based on assumptions about the locality of c-selection (or subcategorization – see also K-Y. Choi 1991). Under the assumption that nominal particles are functional heads, the verb cwu- (‘give’) in (29) below must c-select its Dative-marked complement across two layers of functional projections headed respectively by -man (X-Delimiter) and -(n)un (Z-Delimiter). This violates the standard assumption in the literature that c-selection is local, thereby weakening the syntactic position that takes these particles to be heads in the syntax. On the other hand, if the particles are attached in the lexicon to the nominal and the nominal is projected as a single syntactic atom, selection can remain local. (16) Swuni-hanthey-man-un cwu-ess-ta6 S-dat-only-top give-pst-decl ‘(I gave it) to only Swuni.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.7 (367-402)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean  V’ ZLimP XLimP PP

ZLim

V: [PP[dat] ___ ] cwu-ess-ta

XLim -un -man

DP

P

D

-hanthey

non-local c-selection

Swuni

However, as already pointed out in Yoon (1991) in response to an earlier version of Sells (1995), this argument is weak at best. It is not the case that any nominal affix can intervene between the Dative morpheme and the verb that c-selects it. The nominal affix -se, which combines with the Dative morpheme to form the Ablative, is prohibited from intervening between -hanthey and verbs like cwu- that c-select a Dative. This is shown in (17a) below. (17) a. *Swuni-hanthey-se cwu-ess-ta S-dat-abl give-pst-decl ‘gave from Swuni’ b. Swuni-hanthey-se pat-ass-ta S-dat-abl receive-pst-decl ‘received from Swuni’ The morpheme sequence N-hanthey-se is acceptable when the verb is one that cselects an Ablative, as shown in (17b). What then is the difference between morphemes like -man, -un and those like -se such that the former but not the latter can intervene between the verb and the c-selected morpheme? Yoon (1991) argues that the relevant difference between the two types of morphemes is that the former are category-neutral (see Chae & No 1998; Nishiyama 1996 for similar conclusions), while the latter are Postpositions with their own categorial specifications. It is clear that any theory must allow selectional requirements to be met in an apparently non-local manner when what intervenes between the c-selected constituent and the selecting head are category-neutral elements. This is seen in the following examples from English.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.8 (402-473)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

(18) a. John emerged [from [behind the curtain]] emerge: [ __ PP[from]] b. *John hid [from [behind the curtain]] hid: [ __ PP[behind]] c. John hid [even [behind the curtain]] In (18) above, emerge selects a PP headed by from, while hide selects a PP headed by behind. Under the assumption that c-selection must be local and that both from and behind are categorially specified Prepositions, we predict that (18b) will be illformed. The PP headed by behind is separated by another PP headed by from. In contrast, the presence of additional structure introduced by the category-neutral particle even does not interfere with selectional locality, as we can see from the well-formed (18c). The difference between even and from is that while the former is category-neutral, the latter is not. In the same way, we can account for the difference between (17a) and (17b) above. In the syntactic approach, -hanthey and -se both head PPs. In (17a), the verb cwu- requires a Dative-marked complement, but the Dative Postposition is embedded inside another PP headed by the Postposition -se, leading to a violation of local c-selection. In contrast, since the morphemes that intervene between the verb and the c-selected morpheme in (16) are category-neutral, the locality of cselection will not be violated, just as it is not in (18). I conclude therefore that the first argument that Sells presents against syntactic analyses is without force.7 The next two arguments against syntactic analyses focus on the inability of the particles-as-syntactic heads hypothesis to account for the actual complexities of particle ordering. There are two cases exemplifying this sort of problem.

. Problem of underlying structure Sells (1995) argues that the assumption that all the nominal particles in (19) below are syntactic functional heads gives rise to a number of problems. (19) sensayng-nim-tul-kkeyse-man-i o-si-ess-ta teacher-hon-plu-hon.nom-only-plain. nom come-hon-pst-decl ‘Only the teachers(honorific) came(honorific).’ The affix -kkeyse, which Sells analyzes as an honorific Nominative case-marker, is in the morphological slot where Postpositional particles occur (cf. 23). Therefore, it would have to be the Head of a PP in the syntactic account. However, while other Postpositions mark semantic or inherent case, -kkeyse marks structural Nominative case. Other than the fact that it occurs in a slot where Postpositional particles occur, the particle -kkeyse appears to have no Postpositional properties. In the syntactic account where each slot in the particle template corresponds to a particular type of functional head, we expect each class of syntactic head to be associated with a coherent syntactic function. However, this does not seem to be the case in (19).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.9 (473-511)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

A related problem for the particles-as-heads approach is that in (19), Nominative case seems to be marked twice, once by -kkeyse, and again by -i, despite the fact that there is no reason to suppose that the NP is assigned nominative case twice. Such extended exponence is typical of morphology, and not syntax. A similar argument that slot assignments are syntactically arbitrary can be made for other slots. The final slot where the Nominative case-marker -i occurs is occupied by structural case-markers like -ka/-i (Nominative), -(l)ul (Accusative), and -uy (Genitive). But along with case-marking particles, those that mark semantic or pragmatic functions such as -(n)un (Topic) and -to (Inclusive Scalar Focus) are also found. All five particles are mutually exclusive in this slot. Therefore, in the syntactic analysis, they would have to be assigned to a single functional category. However, it is difficult to find properties that are shared between structural case-markers and the latter two particles.

. Paradox of movement and selection The third argument that Sells offers is also directed towards highlighting the inability of syntactic approaches to account for combinatorial restrictions on particles. With regard to the problem of non-local c-selection, Sells (1995) suggests a possible way out. He then argues that the solution in turn leads to another analytic paradox. While the solution that Sells argues against is a strawman in that no one has championed this particular analysis, and while we have already proposed an alternative analysis, let us evaluate the import of Sells’ argument nonetheless. Sells suggests that the problem of non-local c-selection may be overcome in the following manner under the syntactic approach. Assume that c-selection is checked not in the underlying structure shown in (16), but in the surface structure after Head Movement collects the particles and the nominal root into a single constituent and positions the moved complex in the Head position of the constituent that is sister to the c-selecting head. Selection in this configuration is local, as shown below.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.10 (511-554)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

(20)

V’ ZP ...

V Z

X

N

P

cwu-ess-ta Z

X

P

local c-selection after head movement

-un

-man

Swuni -hanthey

Sells (1995) argues that while making such an assumption might work for the case at hand, the supposition that c-selection is checked after Head Movement fails to provide an adequate account of the following contrast (the judgments are those reported in Sells 1995). (21) a.

Swuni-hanthey-man-i-ta S-dat-only-cop-decl ‘(it is) only to Swuni’ b. *Swuni-hanthey-man-un-i-ta S-dat-only-top-cop-decl ‘(it is) only to Swuni’ c. Swuni-hanthey-man-un ani-ta S-dat-only-top neg.cop-decl ‘(it isn’t) only to Swuni’

The argument based on (21a–c) is as follows. In the syntactic approach, the Copula -i(ta), which has particle-like properties, would presumably be analyzed as a Head which attaches to the predicate nominal DP/NP. The attachment of particles like -man or -to to the predicate DP/NP, projecting additional layers of syntactic structure and creating potential problems of non-local c-selection at D-structure, can be circumvented under the assumption just given that selection is checked after movement, since after movement, the entire complex will be a position locally selectable by the Copula. The alternative account then predicts that any type of nominal particle should be able to come between the predicate nominal and the Copula. However, this is not the case. (21b) shows that while the -man series particles (X-Lims) can indeed come between the noun root and the affixal Copula, the -un series particles (Z-Lims) cannot. In contrast, no such restriction surfaces with the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.11 (554-605)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

analytic negative Copula ani-ta in (21c). Now, one cannot account for (21c) by ordering selection before movement, given that the facts in (16) (and the analysis that Sells suggests for them in 20) demand that selection be checked after movement. Consequently, syntactic analyses face a paradox regarding the timing of c-selection satisfaction.

. Lexicalist solution of the problems – An evaluation Let us now set aside the first argument, since it has been shown to be without force, and concentrate on evaluating the second and third arguments that Sells presents against analyzing nominal particles as syntactically autonomous functional heads. The second and third arguments center respectively on the inability of syntactic analyses to account for certain idiosyncracies of particle ordering and to distinguish different ‘sizes’ of morphological constituents. Now, to the best of my knowledge, no one has championed the particular syntactic analysis that Sells criticizes in his third argument as an account of the contrast between (21a) and (21b), so that one may charge that Sells is guilty of attacking a straw man. However, it is equally clear that the facts would pose problems for analyses where syntax alone is deemed responsible for the positioning of particles. Syntactic analyses need to show how the facts could receive a principled account. Before turning to how a syntactic account can cope with the facts, let us take a look at how the facts introduced above that were deemed problematic for syntactic approaches are accounted for under lexicalist assumptions.

. Lexicalist solution using morphological templates How does a lexicalist analysis cope with the problems identified above for a syntactic account? Recall that the second argument centered on the surprising (from the point of view of syntactic analyses) position of the honorific Nominative marker -kkeyse, while the third of Sells’s arguments was based on the unexpected restriction against attaching Z-delimiters to the predicate nominal when the affirmative Copula is attached to the nominal root. In the lexicalist analysis defended by Sells (1995) and Cho and Sells (1995), the account of these facts relies on morphological templates. Specifically, Cho and Sells (1995) propose the following templates for the affixation of nominal, verbal, and cross-categorial/delimiting inflectional particles/affixes in Korean. (22) a.

Nominal Affixation Template: (Cho & Sells 1995: 119) Nroot – Post – Conj* * = recursion allowed

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.12 (605-670)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

b. Cross-categorial/delimiter Affixation Template: – X-Lim – Z-Lim c. Verbal Affixation Template: (Cho & Sells 1995: 127) Vroot – V1 – V2 – V3 – V4 (if the host is ∼TYPE, V1-V3 particles may be attached) We need not be concerned with the verbal template here. Nor should we be concerned with the specification , which is designed to account for cross-categorial particles (Cho & Sells 1995; Yoon 1995), as our focus here is on nominal particles. The juxtaposition of the first two templates yields the following slot assignments for nominal particles in Korean, where left-to-right order reflects the distance from the noun root. (23) Slot Assignments of Nominal Particles: (Cho & Sells 1995: 118)8 Postpositions eykey(se) ‘dative’ hanthey(se) ‘dative’ ey(se) ‘locative’ ey, (u)lo ‘directive’ kkaci ‘goal’ hako, (k)wa ‘comit’ (u)lo ‘instrumental’ kkey ‘hon.dative’ kkeyse ‘hon.nom’

Conjunctives* hako, (k)wa ‘conjunctor’ pota ‘comparator’ (i)na ‘disjunctor’ ‘something like’ pwuthe ‘from’ chelem ‘like’

X-Lim man ‘only’ kkaci ‘even’ mace ‘even’ cocha ‘even’ pakkey ‘only’

Z-Lim (n)un ‘topic/focus’ to ‘also’ (i)lato ‘even’ i/ka ‘nominative’ (l)ul ‘accusative’ uy ‘genitive’ i- ‘copula’

The templatic analysis of particles rests on two crucial claims. One is the claim that particles belong morphologically to designated position classes, so that when they occur within a word, they come in a fixed order as demanded by the positions in the template. The second claim is that the position classes are purely morphological, with no direct correspondence to syntactically motivated distinctions.9 It is predicted therefore that there need not be any syntactic coherence to, say, the particles belonging to the Postposition slot in the nominal template. According to the templatic account, the reason the honorific Nominative particle -kkeyse appears in the Postposition slot is because it is morphologically categorized as a Postposition, and not because it shares any syntactic or semantic properties with the other particles in that slot. This provides the solution to the problem noted in (19). Even though both are Nominative case-markers, one is categorized morphologically as a Postposition while the other is a Z-Lim. Therefore, nothing in the morphology prohibits their co-occurrence. Syntactically, the honorific Nominative case-marker -kkeyse and the plain Nominative -i can co-occur

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.13 (670-740)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean

in a word because at the level of functional structure, they supply the same, nonconflicting, value (=Nominative) for the CASE attribute of the nominal to which they are attached. The same type of explanation extends to the problems surrounding the Copula we saw in (21). Under the templatic approach, the Copula, despite its significant syntactic and semantic differences from other nominal particles occupying the final slot, is categorized morphologically as a Z-Lim. Since the slot is not recursive, the presence of the Copula rules out other Z-Lim particles. In contrast, the negative Copula, being a free form, allows the predicate nominal to carry the full range of nominal particles, including the final slot particles. This is how the problem in (21) is answered in the lexicalist approach.

. Is Korean nominal morphology templatic? Despite the fact that resorting to the template succeeds in providing a descriptive account of the problems raised by (19) and (21), there are several respects in which the lexicalist solution that conceives of Korean morphology as templatic is inadequate. The first problem is that resorting to the template does not constitute an explanation of the morpheme ordering facts. The template simply recapitulates the facts to be explained, as Yoon (1995) points out. It may turn out that a reductionist explanation of the template will be unsuccessful in the end. But to stop prematurely without pursuing a possible reduction of the template to something more explanatory is to stop asking questions that may yield interesting answers. For this reason, Sells (1996, 1997) tries to explicate certain aspects of morpheme ordering described above by utilizing the principles of Optimality Theory.10 The second problem is that Korean morphology, especially the morphology of nominal particles, does not behave in a way that other templatic systems do.11 These reasons were discussed in detail in earlier work (Yoon 1995). A recapitulation of some of the earlier argument is given below. As pointed out in Yoon (1995), in templatic morphology, the absence of marking in a given templatic slot can be just as significant as its presence. That is, templatic systems are characterized by what Stump (2001) aptly dubs significative absence. Significative absence obtains when there is a complementarity of information marking between the absent element (the ‘zero’ affix) and other overt elements competing for a given slot. The situation can be exemplified with Korean verbal inflectional affixation. The null affix in the V1 slot (cf. the verbal template in 22c above) is always interpreted as the absence of Subject Honorification, while the null affix in the V2 slot is always interpreted as Present Tense.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.14 (740-781)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

(24) a.

John-i pap-ul cis-Ø-ess-ta J-nom meal-acc cook-non.honV1-pst-decl ‘John (plain) cooked the meal.’ a . Emeni-ka pap-ul cis-usi-ess-ta Mother-nom meal-acc cook-honV1 -pst-decl ‘Mother (honorific) cooked the meal.’ b. John-i ttokttokha-Ø-ta J-nom smart-prsV2 -decl ‘John is smart.’ b . John-i ttokttokhay-ss-ta J-nom smart-pstV2 -decl ‘John was smart.’

For the null affixes in verbal inflection, it is possible to identify the exact slot that the affix occupies, because the interpretation of the null affixes is always constant, and independent of the syntactic context in which the verb is employed. The information supplied by the null affixes is recovered through paradigmatic opposition in a given slot – e.g., among overt forms of V2 affixes, there is none which expresses Present Tense for stative verbs. Therefore, the absence of an affix in this slot is construed as Present Tense. In other words, the absence of an overt affix in this slot is significative. This situation is typical for templatic morphological systems.12 Compared to the affixes in the verbal inflectional paradigm, the particles in the nominal paradigm are quite different. First, Cho and Sells (1995) assumes that in the nominal template (cf. 22a), every slot is optional. This assumption is necessary since a bare noun root can stand alone without any particle. This is the first respect in which nominal particles, in Korean are unlike typical templatic systems. Most morphologists would find it odd that a system without obligatory slots could be templatic. Secondly, even if one assumes that a bare form nominal is not bare but surfaces with at least one obligatory null particle (an assumption that Cho and Sells 1995 actually make), what we notice is that the interpretation of the null particle is context-dependent. That is, its interpretation is determined syntagmatically, rather than paradigmatically. It is the syntactic context in which the bare root occurs that determines the content of the null particle. This stands in contrast to the null affixes in verbal inflection whose construal cannot be context-dependent. For example, the presence of the honorific Nominative -kkeyse does nothing to alleviate the inappropriateness of the assertion in (25a) as the null V1 affix is always interpreted as Non-honorific. Neither can the presence of a temporal adverb with past reference shift the interpretation of the null V2 affix (Present) to Past in (25b).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.15 (781-848)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(25) a. *Apenim-kkeyse chayk-ul ilk-ØV1 -ess-ta Father-hon.nom book-acc read-non.hon-pst-decl ‘Father (honorific) read (non-honorific) a book.’ b. *John-i ecey-nun ttoktokha-ØV2 -ta J-nom yesterday-top smart-prs-decl ‘John is smart yesterday.’ A null particle/affix whose position is difficult to determine and whose interpretation is not fixed by paradigmatic opposition in morphology but by the syntagmatic context is unlikely to receive serious endorsement from morphologists. In all likelihood, it means that such entities do not exist.13 The context-dependency of putative null nominal particles posited by Cho and Sells (1995) is exemplified in the following data, where in answers to questions, most nominal particles can be omitted. Since the missing information would have to be represented by a null particle in the system proposed in Cho and Sells (1995), we are forced to posit a wide range of null particles whose content is determined syntagmatically. (26) a.

Q: John-i mwues-ulo cong’i-lul callu-ess-ni? J-nom hat-inst paper-acc cut-pst-inter ‘What did John cut the paper with?’ A: Khal-lo/Khal-Ø Knife-inst/Knife-INST ‘(With) a knife’ b. Q: John-i nwukwu-hako nol-ass-ni? J-nom who-comit play-pst-inter ‘Who did John play with?’ A: Mary-hako/Mary-Ø M-comit/M-COMIT ‘(With) Mary.’ c. Q: John-i nwukwu-eykey iyakihay-ss-ni? J-nom who-dat talk-pst-inter ‘Who did John talk to?’ A: Mary-eykey/Mary-Ø M-dat/M-dat ‘(To) Mary.’

Thirdly, the fact that there are no discontinuous dependencies holding among the slots of the template in Korean nominal morphology is another respect in which it differs from typical templatic systems, as discontinuous dependencies are a hallmark of templatic systems (Rice 2000).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.16 (848-907)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Finally, a serious problem for analyses that view Korean nominal inflectional morphology as templatic is that the ordering of nominal inflectional particles is not completely fixed, a fact which is quite damaging to the view that takes the system to be templatic, since templates are characterized by fixed ordering. The first clue that ordering of nominal particles may not be completely fixed comes from the assignment of certain particles to more than one slot in Cho and Sells (1995), as we can see in table (23) introduced earlier. For example, -kkaci (Post and X-Lim), -hako/-(k)wa (Post and Conj) are assigned to more than one slot in (23). To be sure, the particles are categorized differently when they occupy different slots. -hako in the Post slot is claimed to function as a Comitative marker, while when it occupies the Conj slot, it is claimed to function as a Conjunctor. Similarly, -kkaci as Post is categorized as Goal marker, while as -kkaci in the X-Lim slot is a Delimiter meaning ‘even’. The claim here seems to be that these are instances of homophonous particles. However, the particles with dual categorization have too much in common to be accidentally homophonous. Take -(k)wa, for example. It is categorized as either a Conjunctor or a Comitative case-marker. As is well-known, there is cross-linguistic similarity between co-ordinate structures and comitatives, suggesting that it may not be an accident that the morpheme is associated with these two interpretations. Similar remarks apply to -kkaci. As a Post, it marks the endpoint of a physical scale or location. As an X-Lim, it means ‘even’, again marking the endpoint of a scale, though not necessarily a physical one. The meanings are too similar to be an accident. If we do not accept the dual characterization of certain particles, we are led to the conclusion that the order of these particles is not fixed and that the particles may occupy more than one slot. This type of behavior is not found in true templatic systems. In fact, the demonstration that certain nominal particles occur in more than one position can be made even if we accept the dual categorization approach. For example, -hako does not have a fixed morphological position even in contexts where it can only be interpreted one way – as a Comitative case-marker. The relevant examples are found in Martin (1992: 198), who notes that both N-man-hako and N-hako-man are possible for many speakers. (27) a.

?nehi-nun

icey-pwuthe Cheli-man-hako nola-la X-Lim > Post you-top now-from C-only-comit play-imper ‘From now, play with only Cheli.’ b. nehi-nun icey-pwuthe Cheli-hako-man nola-la Post > X-Lim you-top now-from C-comit-only play-imper ‘From now on, play only with Cheli.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.17 (907-989)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

According to the system in Cho and Sells (1995), the former should not be possible since -hako, which occupies the Post slot, follows -man, an X-Lim, in violation of the ordering constraints imposed by the template in (23). The dual categorization of -kkaci is also problematic. Consider the following: (28) a.

Ne-nun kkuth-kkaciPOST nama iss-eya ha-n-ta You-top end-kkaci remain be-comp do-prs-imper → You should remain to the end. (Post reading) b. Ne-nun cip-ey-kkaciXLIM, *POST keleka-ya ha-n-ta You-top home-loc-kkaci walk.go-comp do-prs-decl → You should walk (until you reach) home. (Post-Post) → You should even walk home (as well as to other places). (PostXLim)

-kkaci in (28a) should admit an interpretation as Post but not X-Lim since the verb nama iss-eya ha-n-ta requires a locative-marked PP. In contrast, in (28b), only the delimiting interpretation (‘even’) is predicted to be possible since the morpheme follows a Post affix (-ey). This prediction is not borne out. It is possible to get a nondelimiting, locative interpretation of -kkaci in (28b). This reading can be clearly distinguished from the delimiting reading, as shown in the translations below the sentence. I take this to indicate that the dual categorization of -kkaci as a Post and X-Lim is on the wrong track, since the particle allows an interpretation associated with its Post categorization even when it is clearly positioned in the ‘wrong’ slot. Other nominal particles exhibiting variable positioning can be readily found. Sometimes the alternation in morpheme order yields a contrast in meaning, as indicated in the translations below. The delimiting (X-Lim) particle -man is especially flexible in its positioning possibilities, as has already been illustrated above and as we see below. (29) a.

Sokum-man-ulo kimchi-lul hay-la Salt-only-inst kimchi-acc make-imper ‘Make kimchi using only salt (and no other materials).’ a . Sokum-ulo-man kimchi-lul hay-la salt-inst-only kimchi-acc make-imper ‘Make kimchi only with salt (and not with soy sauce).’ ? b. Cheli-man-poko ola-ko hay-la C-only-dat come-comp do-imper ‘Tell only Cheli to come.’ b . Cheli-poko-man ola-ko hay-la C-dat-only come-comp do-imper ‘Tell only Cheli to come.’

XLim > Post

Post > XLim

XLim > Post

Post > XLim

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.18 (989-1063)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Cheli-chelem-man hay-la C-like-only do-imper ‘Behave only/at least like Cheli.’ c . ?Cheli-man-chelem hay-la C-only-like do-imper ‘Behave like only Cheli.’ d. Ikes-pakkey-man cwu-l swu this-except-only give-adn can ‘Is this all that you can give?’ d . ?Ikes-man-pakkey cwu-l swu this-only-except give-adn can ‘Can you give me only this?’

Conj > XLim

c.

XLim > Conj

eps-eyo? not-decl

XLim > XLim

eps-eyo? not-decl

XLim > XLim

However, -man is not alone in allowing flexible positioning. Flexible positioning is also found in combinations of other particles. (30) a.

a .

b.

b .

c.

c .

d.

d .

Kukes-chelem-pakkey mos hay? That-like-except not do ‘Is that the best you can do?’ Kukes-pakkey-chelem mos hay? That-except-like not do ‘Is that the best you can do?’ Pap-un-khenyeng mwul-to mos masi-ess-ta meal-top-not.to.speak.of water-even not drink-pst-decl ‘I couldn’t even drink water, let alone have a meal.’ Pap-khenyeng-un mwul-to mos masi-ess-ta meal-not.to.speak.of-top water-even not drink-pst-decl ‘I couldn’t even drink water, let alone have a meal.’ Kukes-cocha-to molu-ni? that-even-also not.know-inter ‘Don’t you even know that?’ ?Kukes-to-cocha molu-ni? that-also-even not.know-inter ‘Don’t you even know that?’ Pap-cocha-lul an mek-e? meal-even-acc not eat-inter ‘He doesn’t even eat his meal?’ ?Pap-ul-cocha an mek-e? meal-acc-even not eat-inter ‘He doesn’t even eat his meal?’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.19 (1063-1095)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

e.

e .

b.

f .

g.

g .

g .

?Ne-to-poko

kulay-ss-ni? You-also-dat say.so-pst-inter ‘Did (s/he) say that to you too?’ Ne-poko-to kulay-ss-ni? You-dat-also say.so-pst-inter ‘Did (s/he) say that to you too?’ New York-ccum-ey ka-ss-keyss-ci? NY-about-loc go-pst-mod-inter ‘(They) must now be somewhere near NY, don’t you think?’ New York-ey-ccum ka-ss-keyss-ci? NY-loc-about go-pst-mod-inter ‘(They) must now be somewhere near NY, don’t you think?’ Yeki-eyse-pwuthe-ccum chwulpalhay-ss-keyss-ci? Here-loc-from-about depart-pst-mod-inter ‘They must have left from around here, don’t you think?’ Yeki-eyse-ccum-pwuthe chwulpalhay-ss-keyss-ci? Here-loc-about-from depart-pst-mod-inter ‘They must have left from around here, don’t you think?’ Yeki-ccum-(ey)se-pwuthe chwulpalhay-ss-keyss-ci? Here-about-loc-from depart-pst-mod-inter ‘They must have left from around here, don’t you think?’

Now, it is true that not all nominal particles can be reordered, and speakers differ in their acceptance of variable particle sequences. However, the very existence of alternative orders for so many particles indicates that the view that takes Korean nominal morphology to be templatic is untenable. I take the fact that certain particles can be reordered, sometimes leading to predictable differences in meaning, to imply that what is responsible for ordering the particles is not an idiosyncratic morphological template, but something else. Fixed order is not the prerogative of morphology. It is also found with multiple Prepositional sequences in syntax, where we have no choice but to appeal to syntax and semantics to explain the fixed ordering (Koopman 2000). For example, few would be inclined to posit a template as a theoretical account of the ordering generalizations seen in (31) (repeated from 18 above). (31) a. b. c. d.

From out of the darkness *Out from of the darkness *Of from out the darkness *From of out the darkness

I do not claim to understand all the factors involved in the complexities of nominal particle ordering in Korean, but I take the above considerations to constitute

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.20 (1095-1156)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

sufficient grounds to make us seek alternatives to the non-explanatory device of the morphological template. In the next section, I will attempt to show, through a reanalysis of the second and third arguments presented in Sells (1995), how such an alternative might work.

. Non-morphological accounts of nominal particle ordering . -kkeyse is a Postposition Recall that Sells’s second argument centered on the observation that the honorific Nominative marker -kkeyse, though marking structural Nominative case, occurs in the slot where Postpositions occur (cf. 23). In contrast, all other structural case-markers occupy the Z-Lim slot. This is a prime example of morphological positions/categories being insensitive to syntactically motivated distinctions. Such discrepancy is expected if what arranges the nominal particles is a morphological template, so the argument goes.14 While most grammarians treat -kkeyse as an honorific Nominative (structural) case-marker, Martin (1992) considers it to be an honorific Ablative Postposition attached to a subject denoting socially superior individuals. As in so many other cases, Martin’s intuition seems to be on the right track here. I will argue that we should categorize the morpheme -kkeyse as a Postposition that marks subjects, rather than as a structural Nominative case-marker. If so, there is no discrepancy between its morphological position and its syntactic categorization. It is in the slot for Postpositions because it is morphologically and syntactically a Postposition. It can be doubled by the structural Nominative case-marker because Postpositions can be doubled by case-markers, leading to Case Stacking (Yoon 1996). There are numerous facts that suggest that -kkeyse cannot be taken as the honorific version of the structural Nominative case -ka/-i. First, as Sells (1995) himself notes, -kkeyse has a restricted distribution. For example, it cannot appear on Nominative objects. This is surprising if it is a marker of structural Nominative case. In the examples below, -kkeyse will be glossed as kkeyse, since I do not want to prejudge the identity of the morpheme before the argument is complete. (32) a.

Kim-kyoswunim-i/kkeyse chongcangnim-i toy-si-ess-ta K-professor-nom/kkeyse president-nom become-hon-pst-decl ‘Professor Kim became the (university) president.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.21 (1156-1197)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

b. *Kim-kyoswunim-i/kkeyse chongcangnim-kkeyse K-professor-nom/kkeyse president-kkeyse toy-si-ess-ta become-hon-pst-decl ‘Professor Kim became the president.’ c. Kim-kyoswunim-i/kkeyse chongcangnim-i ani-si-ta K-professor-nom/kkeyse president-nom neg.cop-hon-decl ‘Professor Kim is not the president.’ d. *Kim-kyoswunim-i/kkeyse chongcangnim-kkeyse K-professor-nom/kkeyse president-kkeyse ani-si-ta neg.cop-hon-decl ‘Professor Kim is not the president.’ Sells (1995) attempts to explain away the limited distribution of -kkeyse by claiming that unlike the plain Nominative case-marker -ka/-i, -kkeyse is a ‘pure’ Nominative marker, appearing only on Nominative subjects. The idea of a ‘pure’ Nominative marker is somewhat of a theoretical novelty, especially if -kkeyse is a structural Nominative case-marker as Sells (1995) assumes. Structural cases are assigned blindly to constituents within the case assignment domain irrespective of the grammatical relation of the nominal bearing it. This is certainly true of the markers -ka/-i in Korean as they can mark Nominative objects as well as subjects. Therefore, there is a rather simple explanation for why -kkeyse cannot occur on Nominative objects – it is not a structural Nominative case-marker. If so, the complements in (32) are not sanctioned because they carry the wrong case-marker. This view, though it contradicts long-standing tradition, begins to take on an air of plausibility once we investigate additional contexts where -kkeyse cannot replace the plain Nominative marker. For example, -kkeyse is marginal for many people when it marks Floated Quantifiers (FQs) that agree in case with Nominative subjects, as shown below. (33) Kyoswunimtul-i/kkeyse twu-pwun-i/??-kkeyse Professors-nom/kkeyse two-hon.hum.cl-nom/kkeyse o-si-ess-ta come-hon-pst-decl ‘Two professors came.’ The marginality of -kkeyse on FQs suggests that it behaves more like Postpositions/Inherent case-markers than structural case-markers, since many people find FQs marked with Postpositions/Inherent case-markers marginal.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.22 (1197-1253)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

(34)

??Haksayngtul-eykey

twu-myeng-eykey ton-i manh-ta Students-dat two-hum.cl-dat money-nom a.lot-decl ‘Two (of the) students are rich.’

Thirdly, -kkeyse is marginal when it occurs on more than one nominal in Multiple Nominative Constructions, unlike -ka/-i, which is not subject to such constraints. (35) a.

??Kim-sensayngnim-kkeyse

twulccay atunim-kkeyse second son.hon-kkeyse

K-professor-kkeyse chencay-i-si-ta genius-cop-hon-decl ‘Professor Kim’s second son is a genius.’ b. Kim-sensayngnim-un/i twulccay atunim-kkeyse K-professor-top/nom second son.hon-kkeyse chencay-i-si-ta genius-cop-hon-decl ‘It is Professor Kim whose second son is a genius.’ c. ?Kim-sensayngnim-kkeyse twulccay atunim-i K-professor-kkeyse second son.hon-nom chencay-i-si-ta genius-cop-hon-decl ‘Professor Kim’s second son is a genius.’ c . Kim-sensayngnim-un/i twulccay atunim-i K-professor-top/nom second son.hon-nom chencay-i-si-ta genius-cop-hon-decl ‘Professor Kim’s second son is a genius.’

Another construction where -ka/-i is possible but -kkeyse is not is the Tough Construction. As is well known, a non-subject constituent of an embedded clause (henceforth referred to as the Tough nominal) can appear as a Nominativemarked dependent of the Tough predicate in Tough Constructions. Interestingly, however, the Tough nominal cannot be marked with -kkeyse even when it is an honorific noun. (36) a.

hakpwusayng-eykey-nun [PRO Kim-kyoswunim-ul undergraduates-dat-top K-professor-acc manna-ki]-ka swip-ci anh-ta meet-nml-nom easy-comp neg-decl ‘It is not easy for undergraduates to meet Professor Kim.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.23 (1253-1305)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

b. Kim-kyoswunimi -i (hakpwusayng-eykey-nun) [PRO ei K-professor-nom undergraduates-dat-top manna-ki]-ka swip-ci anh-ta meet-nml-nom easy-comp neg-decl ‘Professor Kim is not easy for undergraduates to meet.’ c. *?Kim-kyoswunimi -kkeyse (hakpwusayng-eykey-nun) [PRO ei K-professor-nom undergraduates-dat-top manna-ki]-ka swip-ci anh-(usi)-ta meet-nml-nom easy-comp neg-HON-decl ‘Professor Kim is not easy for undergraduates to meet.’ Yet another context in which -kkeyse cannot mark constituents that are assigned structural Nominative case is the subject of what I will call the ‘Ablative Subject Construction’. As shown below, there are constructions in Korean where what appears to be the subject is marked with the Ablative Postposition -eyse, while the object is marked Accusative.15 (37) a.

nay-ccok-eyse ceyuy-lul mence hay-ss-ta I-part-abl offer-acc first do-pst-decl ‘I made the offer first.’ a . nay-ccok-i ceyuy-lul mence hay-ss-ta I-part-nom offer-acc first do-pst-decl ‘I made the offer first.’ b. hakkyo-eyse thongcise-lul ponay-ss-ta school-abl notice-acc send-pst-decl ‘The school sent a notice.’ b . hakkyo-ka thongcise-lul ponay-ss-ta school-nom notice-acc send-pst-decl ‘The school (not the government) sent a notice.’

The subject in the Ablative Subject Construction displays a case alternation between -eyse and the structural Nominative case-marker -ka/-i. However, -kkeyse cannot alternate with -eyse, as shown below. This is not predicted if it is a structural Nominative case-marker.16 (38) a. *Apenim-ccok-kkeyse mence ceyuy-lul ha-si-ess-ta Father-part-kkeyse first suggestion-acc do-hon-pst-decl ‘Father (honorific) first made the suggestion.’ b. Apenim-ccok-i mence ceyuy-lul ha-si-ess-ta Father-part-kkeyse first suggestion-acc do-hon-pst-decl ‘Father first made the suggestion.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.24 (1305-1371)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

c.

Apenim-ccok-eyse mence ceyuy-lul ha-si-ess-ta Father-part-abl first suggestion-acc do-hon-pst-decl ‘Father first made the suggestion.’

Finally, as Sells (1995) also points out, -kkeyse-marked subjects allow Case Stacking. In his analysis of Case Stacking constructions, Yoon (1996) shows that structural case-markers cannot stack on top of another structural case-marker but only on a Postpositional, inherent case-marker. If -kkeyse marks structural Nominative, it alone would constitute an exception to this generalization, whereas if it is a Postposition, it falls in line with other Postpositions. (39) Kyoswunimtul-kkeyse-man-i ilen il-ul ha-si-l.swu professors-kkeyse-only-nom this.kind work-acc do-hon-mod iss-ta be-decl ‘Only professors can do this kind of work.’ While the above evidence suggests that -kkeyse has a much more restricted distribution than the plain Nominative particles -ka/-i, there are also respects in which -kkeyse behaves like typical structural Nominative case-markers. For one, -kkeyse can be used on honorific subjects bearing a variety of theta roles, a behavior suggesting that it may be a structural case-marker. For another, subjects of Passive and Subject-to-Subject Raising (SSR) constructions can be marked with -kkeyse, as shown below. If the constructions in question contain derived subjects, -kkeyse must be a structural case-marker, since inherent case cannot be assigned to a derived position. (40) a.

Kim-kyoswunimi -kkeyse ei cap-hi-si-ess-ta K-professor-kkeyse catch-pass-hon-pst-decl ‘Professor Kim was captured.’ kat-(?usi)-ta b. Kim-kyoswunimi -kkeyse [ei tachi-si-nkes] K-professor-kkeyse hurt-hon-comp seem-decl ‘Professor Kim seems to be hurt.’ c. Kim-kyoswunimi -kkeyse [ei cichi-si-e] K-professor-kkeyse tired-hon-comp poi-(?si)-n-ta appear-(?hon)-prs-decl ‘Professor Kim appears to be tired.’ d. Kim-kyoswunimi -kkeyse [ei cichi-si-nkes] katt-a K-professor-kkeyse tired-hon-comp seem-comp poi-(?si)-n-ta appear-(?hon)-prs-decl ‘Professor Kim appears to be tired.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.25 (1371-1423)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

I do not have much to say about the first observation other than to say that since being honorific presupposes being human, the theta roles of subjects marked with -kkeyse are much more restricted than those marked with the plain Nominative. And given that being marked with inherent case does not entail that the nominal so marked must have a single theta role, the fact that -kkeyse-marked subjects can have a number of distinct theta roles does not argue against it being a marker of inherent case (a Postposition).17 I will now address the question of -kkeyse-marking on putative derived subjects. The Passive subject, if it were indeed derived, would constitute unambiguous evidence that -kkeyse can be assigned to a derived position, since the object position from which Passive displaces the subject is not a position where -kkeyse is licensed. However, we have reasons to doubt that the Passive subject is a derived subject in Korean. For example, the classical diagnostics of a derived subject position, such as passivized idiom chunks and expletives, do not work in Korean passives. Korean doesn’t possess expletives, so that we cannot use the expletive test. Verb-object idioms do not retain their idiomatic reading under passive. The idiomatic reading of cwuk-ul sswu-ta (literally, ‘make rice porridge’) is lost under passivization, as we see in (41b) below.18 (41) a.

Swuhak-sihem-eyse Cheli-ka cwuk-ul sswu-ess-ta math-exam-loc C-nom rice.porridge-acc make-pst-decl → ‘During math exam, Cheli made rice porridge.’ → ‘Cheli messed up his math exam.’ b. Swuhak-sihem-eyse cwuk-i (Cheli-eyuyhay) math-exam-loc rice.porridge-nom C-by sswu-eci-ess-ta make-pass-pst-decl → ‘Rice porridge was made by Cheli during math exam.’ = ‘Cheli messed up his math exam.’

Other verb-object idioms behave similarly, as native speaker readers can verify for themselves. What about raised subjects of SSR constructions? -kkeyse can certainly mark such raised subjects, but as the pattern of honorific marking on the predicate (i.e., -(u)si) shows, -kkeyse can also mark the subject in the unraised, base, position.19 Since there are good reasons to take raising in Korean not to be motivated by (lack of) Case (Yoon 1996; Sigurðsson 2001), nothing prevents -kkeyse from being assigned in the unraised position. If we assume that -kkeyse that is assigned in the base position is an inherent case, we expect it to be preserved under NP/Amovement.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.26 (1423-1486)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Therefore, there is no conclusive evidence that -kkeyse must be assigned in a derived position. Thus, we have no reason to believe that it is a structural casemarker, but many reasons to believe that it is a Postposition marking inherent case. It is in the slot for Postpositions because it is a Postposition. Before we move on to the next section, I would like to address the question of why, if -kkeyse is a Postposition marking inherent case (an honorific Ablative, according to Martin 1992), it cannot be used in non-subject positions where other Ablative Postpositions are allowed. Resolving this issue is important, since while taking -kkeyse to be an Ablative Postposition correctly explains why its distribution diverges from that of structural Nominative case-markers, the analysis in turn predicts that -kkeyse should be used instead of, or along with, the animate, nonhonorific Ablative markers -eykeyse and -hantheyse in non-subject positions where Ablatives occur. As we see below, this does not seem to be the case. (42) a.

Phyenci-ka apenim-eykeyse/hantheyse o-ass-ta letter-nom father-plain.abl/plain.abl come-pst-decl ‘The letter came from father.’ b. Phyenci-ka apenim-kkeylopwuthe/??kkeyse o-ass-ta letter-nom father-hon.abl/kkeyse come-pst-decl

The sentence in (42a), while grammatical, has an air of impoliteness, because plain Ablative forms are used where honorific forms should be employed. In (42b), on the other hand, the honorific forms are used. What is surprising is that while the honorific Ablative Postposition -kkeylopwuthe (or -kkeylose, -kkeysepwuthe) is acceptable, -kkeyse, which Martin took to be an honorific Ablative, is marginal (or completely unacceptable for some people). What this suggests, together with the data introduced earlier, is that, as Sells (1995) surmised, -kkeyse marking seems to be restricted to honorific, humandenoting subjects. What could the reason be? Is it because it is a marker of ‘pure’ subjects? We know that there is a historical reason, though it may not constitute a synchronic explanation of the restricted distribution of -kkeyse. The historical reason is that -kkeyse evolved from a structure similar to that found in the subject of the Ablative Subject Construction (Martin 1992; Jieyang Lee, p.c.). As the grammaticalization of the marking of a subject, it is still restricted to subjects.20 A way to account for the restricted distribution of -kkeyse without invoking diachrony or assuming that it is a marker of ‘pure’ subjects may be to capitalize on the fact that -kkeyse-marked constituents trigger obligatory Honorific Agreement on the predicate. That is, while Honorific Agreement on the predicate can be found without -kkeyse marking on the subject, the converse is not true.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.27 (1486-1526)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(43) a.

Apenim-kkeyse mence ka-*(si)-ess-ta father-kkeyse first leave-hon-pst-decl ‘Father left first.’ b. Apenim-i mence ka-si-ess-ta father-plain.nom first leave-hon-pst-decl

Now, since in contemporary Korean, the only constituents that trigger Honorific Agreement are (grammatical) subjects, -kkeyse, because of its obligatory agreement requirement, may be restricted to marking such constituents.21 The analysis of the subject nominal in (39) above, then, is as follows: (44)

KP (=Case Phrase) PP PP NP

K Del

P

kyoswunimtul -kkeyse

-man

-i

Though I have not provided a definite solution to its restricted distribution, on balance, we have many reasons to believe that it is a Postposition marking inherent case, and no definitive reason to take it to be a marker of structural Nominative case like -ka/-i. I therefore conclude that -kkeyse is not a problem for syntactic approaches, because it behaves in a way consistent with its categorization as a Postposition marking inherent (Ablative) case. It is in the slot for Postpositions because it is a Postposition. It can be doubled by a structural Nominative case-marker because other Postpositions also admit such doubling.

. The Copula is not a Z-Lim Sells’s final argument is based on the supposed ban on final slot (Z-Lim) particles in front of the affirmative Copula. The relevant contrasts are reproduced below. (45) a. *Swuni-hanthey-man-un-i-ta S-dat-only-top-cop-decl ‘(It is) to Swuni.’ b. Swuni-hanthey-man-i-ta S-dat-only-cop-decl ‘(It is) to Swuni only.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.28 (1526-1577)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

c.

Swuni-hanthey-man-un ani-ta S-dat-only-top neg.cop-decl ‘(It is) not just to Swuni.’

The argument is that the minimal contrast between the analytic, negative Copula and the particle-like, affirmative Copula is not due to differences in syntax or semantics, but solely due to the fact that the latter is a particle occurring in the final, Z-Lim slot, while the former is an independent word imposing no restrictions on the morphological ‘size’ of its complement. Since this argument was originally aired, it has come under attack from two fronts. On the one hand, Yoon (1995) pointed out that resorting to the template is not a true explanation. In the case of the Copula, the templatic account looks especially ill-suited, as Sells (1997) himself acknowledges. This is so since we have to assume that the Copula, although it is a verb, is in the same slot as nominal particles marking topic, focus, and structural cases.22 The second line of attack against this argument has come from observations (H-S Han 1996, acknowledged in Sells 1997) that there are in fact structures where Z-Lim elements are found before the Copula. This implies that the Copula cannot be occupying the same (non-recursive) slot as the other Z-Lim particles. (46) a.

yeki-eyse-to-i-nya? here-loc-also-cop-inter ‘(Is it) in here also?’ b. ikes-to-i-nka? this-also-cop-inter ‘(Is it) this one too?’ c. Pusan-eyse-nun-i-l-kka? Pusan-loc-top-cop-fut-inter ‘(Is it) perhaps in Pusan?’

.. A revised lexical analysis Sells (1997) responds to the two objections. The central idea of this work is that morphologically, the Copula and the other Z-Lim particles are mutually incompatible. However, when semantics requires it, Z-Lim particles may exceptionally be allowed to come before the Copula. The analysis is couched within the overall assumptions of Optimality Theory. Among the constraints is a morphological constraint that encodes (aspects of) the templates in (22). (47) POSITION: morphemes obey their intrinsic positional constraints. a. X-Lim attaches to X (X=any category). b. Z-Lim attaches to X and is last in its word.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.29 (1577-1657)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

c. Copula attaches to N. d. Genitive attaches to N. The other constraints that make up the OT fragment are those that require faithfulness to the semantics of the input (FAITH-SEM) and the case-marking in the input (FAITH-CASE), and those that penalize words with affixes (*AFFIX) or the periphrastic expression of a given input (*X0 ). The constraint ranking is shown on the top row of (48). The marked structures in (46) arise when a higher-ranking constraint, FAITH-SEM, overrides POSITION. Sells assumes that the semantics of the input for the expressions in (46) requires the Copula to take scope over the Z-Lim particles. The second candidate which violates POSITION is the only one that satisfies this requirement. (48) [[here LOC ALSO] COP Q] FAITH-SEM POSITION FAITH-CASE *AFFIX *X0 yeki-eyse-i-to-nya *! * *** * ?yeki-eyse-to-i-nya * *** * yeki-eyse-i-ki-to ha-nya *! **** **

.. An evaluation A problem with the analysis proposed in (48) is that, the way I see it, it contradicts the claim that there is no non-morphological motivation for the ordering and placement of particles. Neither does the analysis seem consistent with the view that syntax submits to morphology. This is so for the following reasons. Of the constraints in (47), POSITION is the only constraint that is purely morphological. However, the winning candidate in (48) is the one that actually violates this constraint. It seems then that we must allow non-morphological factors to determine the ordering of particles in the winning output in (48). Now, according to the analysis in (48), even though what determines the particle ordering in the winning candidate may not be morphology, it isn’t syntax either, because the higher ranked constraint which overrides the morphological constraint is a semantic constraint named FAITH-SEM. However, when one examines what the ‘semantics’ in question is, it seems that the factor overriding morphology could just as well be syntax, rather than semantics. This is because the semantics that is being preserved in the winning candidate has to do with constituency, shown by the brackets in the input. Constituency is a syntactic notion par excellence, albeit one with semantic consequences. In light of considerations such as these, in Yoon (2003), a syntactic account of the constraints on intervening particles in the Copula construction is proposed. For reasons of space, only a brief summary of the analysis is given below.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.30 (1657-1703)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

The central claim in Yoon (2003) is that there are different types of Copula constructions in Korean, associated with different structures and derivations. It is the difference in the syntactic structures of the Copula constructions that explains when particles may intervene between the predicate nominal and the Copula. Specifically, in the Canonical Copula Construction, the Copula is attached to a predicate nominal carrying at most the Honorific -nim and the Plural -tul particles. This is shown in (49). (49) Canonical Copula Construction: a. *John-un uysa-man-i-ta J-top doctor-only-cop-decl Intended: ‘John is just/only a doctor.’ b. John-un uysa-i-ki-man ha-ta J-top doctor-cop-nml-only do-decl ‘John is only a doctor.’ c. I pwun-tul-un kyoswu-nim-tul-i-si-ta These person-pl-top professor-hon-con.pl-cop-hon-decl ‘These people are professors.’ All structures where the Copula is preceded by any other nominal particle – even Postpositional particles – are obligatorily interpreted as focused, as shown in (50). There are different kinds of Copula constructions that convey constructional focus. One such construction is the Inverse Copula Construction (Moro 1997; S-J. Woo 1999) in (50) where the order of the predicate nominal and the subject are reversed. Interestingly, unlike the Canonical Copula construction in (49a), Delimiters can intervene between the Copula and the nominal in the Inverse (see 50a). (50) Inverse Copula Construction: a. (Cheli, Tongswu, Yenghi cwung-ey) C T Y among-loc (Inverse Copula Construction) Pwuca-nun Cheli-man-i-ta Rich.person-top C-only-cop-decl ‘Among Cheli, Tongswu, and Yenghi, only Cheli is rich.’ (Canonical Copula Construction) b. Cheli-man-i pwuca-i-ta C-only-nom rich-cop-decl ‘same as 50a.’ Postpositions and Delimiters can also come between the Copula and the nominal in the Cleft Construction, which is another type of Copula construction. This is shown below.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.31 (1703-1752)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(51) Cleft Construction: a. Ilen il-ul ha-l swu iss-nun kes-un This work-acc do can be-adn thing-top uysa-tul-man-i-ta doctor-pl-only-cop-decl ‘It is only doctors who can do this kind of work.’ b. Nay-ka senmwul-ul ponay-n kes-un I-nom present-acc send-adn Yenghi-eykey-to-i-ess-ta nml-top Y-dat-also-cop-pst-decl ‘It was also to Yenghi that I sent the present.’ In Yoon (2003), the intuition in Sells (1997) that something like scope is involved in the relevant data is fleshed out in strongly syntactic terms as an account of these observations. However, unlike Sells (1997), the input/underlying structure of both Canonical and Inverse Copula Constructions is constructed in accordance with the syntactic scope of particles. The analysis is summarized below. Following earlier research (Heggie 1988; Moro 1997), Yoon (2003) adopts a structure for Copula constructions where the subject and the predicate nominal are contained in a Small Clause (SC) complement selected by the Copula. From this structure, either the subject (yielding the Canonical Copula Construction, shown in arrow (a) below) or the predicate nominal (yielding the Inverse Copula Construction, shown in arrow (b) below) raises to the Specifier of a higher functional head projected on top of the SC.23 The final surface forms of the two constructions are derived when the Copula attaches to the nominal that is left adjacent to it within the SC after the movement of the phrases. That is, it attaches to the right edge of the predicate nominal in the Canonical Copula Construction and to that of the subject in the Inverse. The relevant aspects of the structure and derivation are shown in (52). (52) Structure and Derivation of Copula constructions: (Yoon 2003) FP ... F’ F

VP SC

Pred Subj (a) (b)

(Spec)F = Nominative Case, Topic, etc. Cop

(a): canonical copula construction (=50b) (b): inverse copula construction (=50a)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.32 (1752-1813)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Assuming this analysis of the Canonical and Inverse Copula Constructions, Yoon (2002) provides an account of nominal particles that can come between the Copula and the nominal to its left in the two types of Copula constructions. Let us begin with the Canonical Copula Construction. The generalization here is that while particles like -nim and -tul are possible before the Copula, the Delimiters (and Postpositions) are not. This generalization can be accounted for using syntax, in the following way. It is reasonable to assume that -nim and -tul are inflectional particles that have DP-level scope.24 If we assume that their syntactic position reflects their scope, they must be attached to the predicate nominal within the SC. Since Korean is a head-final language, they are right-adjoined to the predicate nominal phrase. From this underlying structure, the subject raises to SpecF, while the Copula attaches phonologically to the predicate nominal, as illustrated below. This gives the order “Subject nominal + F + Pred nominal + nim + tul + Copula + . . .”. (53)

(= Topic Phrase)

FP ... Subj

F’ F -un

VP SC

Cop -i-

t

NP-nim-tul

I pwun-tul-un kyoswu-nim-tul-i-(si-ta) These person-pl-top professor-hon-con.pl-cop-(hon-decl) ‘These people are professors (honorific).’ If this analysis is correct, the reason for the ill-formedness of (49a) must be that Delimiters are prohibited from attaching to the projection headed by the predicate nominal which then combines with the Copula. In this the Delimiters are unlike the Honorific and Plural particles. Why should this be so? As the order of relevant morphemes in the well-formed structure in (49b) shows, the Delimiter takes scope higher than the predicate nominal. In fact, (49b) shows that the Delimiter -man takes scope even higher than the Copula.25 Let us assume that Delimiters are adjoined to the constituents they have in their scope, and that the order of morphemes transparently reflects their syntactic and semantic scopes. If so, the structure underlying the sentences in (49) is (54) (where I have added TP, headed by the null Present Tense morpheme):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.33 (1813-1845)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(54)

TP... FP Subj

T F’

F -un

-Ø VP -man

VP SC

Cop -i-

t

uysa

Ungrammatical output: (=49a) *John-un uysa-man-i-ta J-top doctor-only-cop-decl Grammatical output: (=49b) John-un uysa-i-ki-man ha-ta J-top doctor-cop-nml-only do-decl Under the stated assumptions, we can see why (49a), repeated above, cannot be derived. The order of the Delimiter and the Copula are reversed. On the other hand, in (49b), the relative order of the Delimiter and Copula is preserved. However, we see that additional operations are needed to get from (54) to the grammatical output (49b). This role is fulfilled by morphology – in the form of insertions of dummy morphemes (Halle & Marantz 1993). One reason (54) cannot surface without modification is that the Delimiter -man requires its host to be a free form, but the Copula is a bound form verb root. This calls for the insertion of the dummy nominalizer -ki after the Copula root so that a suitable host for the Delimiter can be provided. Assuming additionally that FP in (54) occurs as a structural complement of Tense (along the lines sketched in Yoon 1994 and J-M. Jo 2000, 2003, as shown above), another insertion, this time of a dummy verb ha-, will be required in order to provide a verbal host for the tense affix to attach to. This yields the order Subj + Pred nominal + Copula + ki + man + ha + Tense + . . . as the output.26 Recall that we suggested that the Inverse is derived from the structure in (52) by the raising of the predicate nominal to SpecF. We also suggested that the illformedness of (49a) is due to the fact that the Delimiter -man cannot combine directly with the predicate nominal. The conjunction of these two assumptions

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.34 (1845-1885)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

predicts that the Inverse Copula Construction where the Delimiter is directly attached to the raised predicate nominal should be ill-formed as well. This prediction is confirmed, as we see below. (55) *Uysa-man-un John-i-ta Doctor-only-top J-cop-decl Intended : ‘the one who is only a doctor (and not a doctor and a rich man, for example) is John.’ What is interesting about (55) is that the predicate nominal occurs in subject position, separated from the Copula, and even though there is no morphological reason why the Delimiter -man cannot be followed by the Topic particle, the structure is ill-formed. Why should this be? The reason is that the input structure is interpretively ill-formed. Thus, (55) provides independent confirmation of the reason we gave for the ill-formedness of (49a). Morphology is not implicated at all, since the input structure remains ill-formed even when the particle does not intervene between the predicate nominal and the Copula. As argued in S-J. Woo (1999) and Yoon (2003) for Korean and Matsuda (2000) for Japanese, there is good evidence that an Inverse Copula Construction exists in these languages, unlike languages like English where the existence of an Inverse Copula construction is a matter of some controversy (Heycock & Kroch 1999). We can in fact take facts such as (55) to constitute evidence that the Canonical and Inverse Copula constructions derive from a common source. Let us return to the interaction of the Copula and other particles in the Inverse Copula Construction in more detail. In particular, let us investigate why Delimiters can intervene between the nominal (subject nominal) and the Copula in the Inverse. As Sells (1997) observes, in the Inverse (as well as in the Cleft, which is an Inverse construction), the scope of the Delimiting particles extends only over the pre-Copula constituent, namely, the subject of the SC. Let us assume again that Delimiters are adjoined as right sisters to constituents over which they have scope. If so, the structure and derivation of the Inverse construction in (50) must be as follows:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.35 (1885-1919)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

(56)

FP ... Pred

F’ F -nun

VP SC t

DP DP

Cop -i-

-man

Cheli

Pwuca-nun Cheli-man-i-ta Rich.person-top C-only-cop-decl ‘The only rich person is Cheli.’ As shown above, the predicate nominal raises to the Specifier of the functional head while the subject nominal, with the Delimiter adjoined, stays inside the SC. The Copula attaches to the nominal that is left-adjacent to it in the string, which is the subject nominal. This yields the order “Pred nominal + F + Subject + Delimiter + Copula + . . .”, which is what we get. A similar analysis can be provided for the Cleft construction (cf. 51b above). All we need to assume is that the initial constituent (a nominalized clause with a null Operator binding a gap) in the Cleft is a fronted predicate while the preCopula constituent is the subject that binds the gap within the fronted predicate. That is, the Cleft is another type of Inverse Copula Construction. The analysis is illustrated schematically below: (57)

FP ... [Opi[... ti ...]]j

F’ F

VP SC

XPj Yenghi-eykey-to

Cop -itj

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.36 (1919-1981)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Nay-ka senmwul-ul ponay-n kes-un I-nom present-acc send-adn Yenghi-eykey-to-i-ess-ta nml-top Y-dat-also-cop-pst-decl ‘It was to Yenghi too that I sent the present.’ In summary, the intricate details of nominal particles intervening before the Copula can be accounted for once we recognize that there are different types of Copula constructions. What is notable about the reanalysis is that the details of the syntactic analysis of the Copula constructions, from which the particle intervention generalizations follow, are justified independently. We did not need to adopt a syntactic analysis tailored to the details of particle intervention. Thus the claim that independently needed principles of syntax suffice to account for apparent quirks of morphology in the case at hand is robustly supported.

. Conclusion Despite appearance to the contrary, the attachment of nominal inflectional particles in Korean does not require any special operations in morphology aside from simple merger under adjacency. The reanalysis in this paper of several facts posed as problematic for the syntactic approach in Cho and Sells (1995) and Sells (1995, 1996, 1997) has demonstrated that the intuition that the majority of linguists – traditional and generative – working on Korean have had about nominal particles being syntactically separable from their morphological hosts can be sustained. However, Sells deserves credit in that he was the first to unearth potential problem areas in the otherwise regular and simple agglutinative nominal morphology of Korean. It is also a testament to his analytic skills that he was able to fashion theoretical challenges to the dominant syntactic view out of these problem areas. This is the reason I have taken up the challenge. I hope to have convinced the reader that the challenges have been successfully fended off. In conjunction with work demonstrating the syntactic independence of verbal inflectional affixes in Korean (J-M. Yoon 1990; Yoon 1994; J-M. Jo 2000, 2003), the results of this paper suggest strongly that in a strict agglutinative language like Korean, there is very little ‘pure’ morphology in the realm of morphosyntax. Syntax and phonology go a long way toward accounting for the behavior of morphosyntactically relevant bound elements.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.37 (1981-2025)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

Notes * The ideas reported in this paper were presented in different incarnations as class lectures at the LSA Summer Institute, Cornell University (1997), at the Workshop on the Syntax of East Asian Languages at the University of Southern California (1998), as an invited lecture at the Fall meeting of the Linguistic Association of Korea in Jeonju, Korea (1998), a departmental colloquium at the University of California, Davis (1998), and at the Conference on Perspectives on Clitic and Affix Order, held during the LSA Summer Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1999).Various students and colleagues are to be thanked for their critical comments, feedback, and judgments on crucial data, among whom I would like to mention Karlos Arregi, Abbas Benmamoun, Hagit Borer, Hee-Rahk Chae, Jungmin Jo, Ji-Hye Kim, Il-Hwan Kim, Nam-Kil Kim, the late Steve Lapointe, Jieyang Lee, Chongwon Park, and John Whitman. A special appreciation goes to Peter Sells for starting a serious and fruitful debate on lexical versus syntactic approaches to Korean morphosyntax. Thanks are also due to insightful and encouraging comments from anonymous reviewers and from the series editors on matters substantive as well as editorial. Last but not least, I would like to thank the editors of the volume Lorie Heggie and Paco Ordoñez for organizing a wonderful workshop and following it up with an interesting collection of papers. . The Korean data in this paper are transcribed using the Yale romanization system (Martin 1992). The following is the list of common abbreviations used in morpheme glosses throughout the paper: nom=(plain) nominative; gen=genitive; acc=accusative; dat=(plain) dative; abl=ablative; loc=locative; inst=instrumental; comit=comitative; top=topic; hon=honorific; con.pl= concordial plural; part=locativizing noun meaning ‘on the part of ’; pl=plural; mod=modal; decl=declarative; imper=imperative; inter=interrogative; prs=present; pst=past; fut= future; comp=complementizer; conj=conjunctor; neg=negative; cop=copula; nml= nominalizer; adn=adnominal; hum=human; cl=classifier; pass=passive; anim=animate; inanim=inanimate. . For example, they propose that while a host-affix cluster (e.g., haven’t) can undergo syntactic rules, a host-clitic cluster (you’ve) does not. Under the assumption that cliticization follows syntactic rules while affixation precedes syntax, the differential behavior of the two clusters can be accounted for. Another difference states that clitics follow particles, but not vice versa. Again, the ordering of components where affixation and cliticization respectively take place can account for the generalization. . There is another use of the term phrasal affix. In Anderson (1982), clitics are analyzed as phrasal affixes. Since we are distinguishing simple clitics from phrasal affixes, we are excluding this interpretation. . For verbal affixes in Korean, there have been a number of proposals showing that the template-like ordering of affixes can be explained through an independently motivated hierarchy of verbal functional projections (J-M. Yoon 1990; Yoon 1994; J-M. Jo 2000, 2003, for example). However, there has been no comparable work on nominal particles in the Principles-and-Parameters tradition. This discrepancy is interesting, since traditional and descriptive grammars of Korean have always analyzed nominal particles as syntactically au-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.38 (2025-2091)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

tonomous from their hosts, in contrast to verbal affixes for which a lexical treatment is assumed. . A recent response that comes close to being comprehensive is Koopman (2003). However, it is couched in a highly flexible syntactic framework (antisymmetry theory with massive remnant movement) that has excessive descriptive power. I doubt that lexicalists will be swayed by the counterarguments offered there since the descriptive power of the framework is virtually unlimited. Besides, the thrust of the paper is that syntactic counterarguments can be developed, rather than showing that the arguments in favor of a lexicalist treatment are flawed. The responses and counterarguments offered here go much beyond, as we shall see. . I have labeled the projections headed by -man and -un as XLimP and ZLimP respectively, since what is at issue is not the exact identity of the projections, but the fact that they project additional levels of structure if they are treated as syntactic heads. Even if the particles are not heads but adjuncts syntactically adjoined to PP (Chae & No 1998), the problem of non-local c-selection remains. X-Lim and Z-Lim are terms introduced in I-S. Yang (1972) as descriptive classifications of non-case-marking particles with semantic-pragmatic functions. The variables X and Z designate the templatic position of the delimiting particles. See Table (23) for a representative list of nominal particles. . In this counterargument, I have assumed that -se is a morpheme that is independent from -hanthey. Cho and Sells (1995) assume on the other hand (see Table 23) that -hantheyse is a single morpheme. If they are correct, then the argument based on the contrast shown in (17) loses force, since under this view, locality of c-selection is not at issue in (17), only the choice of the right Postposition. However, I believe that there are reasons to isolate -se as a separate morpheme, and hence to treat hanthey-se as a morphologically (and syntactically) complex Postposition. -se (and also the Directive -lo) can combine with a range of different Postpositions and adds a predictable component of meaning. For example, it is found in the following combinations – ey-se(inanim.loc/dat-se), kkey-se(hon.dat-se), eykey-se (plain.anim.dat-se), hanthey-se(plain.anim.colloq.dat-se). If -se were an idiosyncratic, unanalyzable, part of certain morphemes, we do not expect it to be attached with predictable regularity to the entire class of locative/dative morphemes. As readers can verify, the morpheme -lo behaves in a similar way. . I have added the Copula to the Z-Lim slot, in accordance with the suggestion in Sells (1995). The Conjunctive slot is recursive, as indicated by the ‘*’ operator. . The choice of ‘Postposition’ and ‘Conjunctive’ as labels for the first two classes is unfortunate in this respect, since they suggest that the slots have a syntactic basis. . An anonymous reviewer reminds me that Alsina (1999) rejects the use of templates while adopting lexicalist assumptions. The fact that even lexicalists are weary of adopting templates shows that templates, while they may be needed to account for some morphological systems, should be employed as a last resort. . Rice (2000) summarizes many descriptive characteristics of templatic morphological systems. The goal of Rice (2000), however, is not to endorse templates as theoretical entities, but to attempt to derive templatic aspects of the Athapaskan verb from other (syntactic) principles, a goal that is similar to that pursued in this paper. An anonymous reviewer is to be thanked for bringing the reference to my attention.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.39 (2091-2162)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean  . Does this mean that I am endorsing the template as an account of verbal inflectional affixes? The answer is ‘no’, since there are ways to derive the apparent template-like ordering found in verbal inflectional affixes in syntactic terms (Yoon 1994, for example). . The argument presented above against the templatic analysis of Korean nominal particles does not depend crucially on representing ‘significative absence’ with a zero affix, which some find lacks theoretical motivation (Stump 2001). The point of the argument is that the properties of nominal particles do not resemble those of typical templatic systems. Namely, that there is no ‘significative absence’ at all, since the ‘meaning’ of absence of marking in a given slot is determined syntagmatically rather than paradigmatically. . As we will see shortly, Sells (1996, 1997) gives up the templatic approach, at least with regard to the position of X-Lim and Z-Lim elements. Thus, I may be charged guilty of attacking an outdated analysis. However, since he has not reanalyzed the problematic case of -kkeyse, I assume that his earlier analysis based on templates stills stands. . This construction has several interesting properties we cannot do justice to here. For example, when the subject denotes humans, a locativizing nominal particle such as -ccok, -chuk, or -phyen (all meaning roughly, ‘on the part of X’, ‘in X’s vicinity’) becomes necessary, while non-human subjects that admit a Source interpretation independently (such as “school”, “government”) do not need these locativizing nominals. Some other properties of the Ablative Subject Construction that are not fully understood include, for example, the restriction on the Postposition attached to the subject. The Postposition must be the inanimate Ablative -eyse rather than the animate forms -eykeyse or -hantheyse. This is shown below. (i)

a. *na-eykeyse/hantheyse ceyuy-lul mence hay-ss-ta I-anim.abl/anim.abl offer-acc first do-pst-decl b. *nay-ccok-eykeyse/hanthey-se ceyuy-lul mence hay-ss-ta I-part-anim.abl/anim.abl offer-acc first do-pst-decl

The prohibition seems to be construction-specific. I have no further insights as to why this is the case. . One might think that (38a) is ruled out because -kkeyse is attached to an inanimate (and hence non-honorific) noun ccok. However, the phrase apenim-ccok is not inanimate, since it can figure as a controller in contexts where animate, human controllers are required. (i)

apenim-ccok-eyse [PRO ka-si-lye-ko] sitoha-si-ess-ta father-part-abl go-hon-mod-comp attempt-hon-pst-decl ‘Father attempted to go.’

The example also shows that the phrase can be the target of honorific agreement on the predicate, which is again restricted to animate, human-denoting subjects. Still, some might take (i) not to be decisive since there is an alternative analysis of (i) where what controls PRO is a null Nom-marked pronoun in the matrix clause, as shown below. sitoha-si-ess-ta (ii) apenimi -ccok-eyse proi [PROi ka-si-lye-ko] father-part-abl he.nom go-hon-mod-comp try-hon-pst-decl

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.40 (2162-2229)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

This alternative posits a null (Nominative) pronoun, rather than the Ablative, as the true subject of the Ablative Subject Construction. While space limitations prevent a fuller rebuttal of this alternative, what makes it unworkable is that when the putative pronoun surfaces overtly, it tends to be strongly disjoint from the Ablative phrase, while for (ii) to work as the alternative analysis of the Ablative Subject Construction, the null pronoun and the Ablative must be coreferential. mence o-si-ess-ta (iii) apenimi -ccok-eyse kupwun*i,k -i father-part-abl him(hon)-nom first come-hon-pst-decl For reasons such as this, I take the Ablative Subject Construction to be different from structures like (iii). There is no null pronominal functioning as subject in the Ablative Subject Construction. Instead, the Ablative is the subject. . See, for example, Sigurðsson (2001), who makes this point very clearly. In Icelandic, Dative is an inherent case, but the thematic roles that a Dative-marked nominal possesses can vary. . This idiom is not so opaque as to resist all types of movement. Scrambling/topicalization of the object is permissible under the right discourse context with the idiomatic reading retained. (i)

sihem-eyse cwuk-un Cheli-ka sswu-ess-ta, Tongswu-ka anila exam-loc rice.porridge-top C-nom make-pst-decl T-nom neg ‘As for messing up in the exam, Cheli did, not Tongswu.’

. I am assuming that the presence of honorific marking on the predicate diagnoses raising in SSR. While speakers vary widely in their acceptance of honorific marking in SSR, it seems reasonable to assume that when honorific marking shows up on the matrix, raising, predicate, SSR has taken place, while when it shows up only on the embedded predicate, SSR does not take place. SSR in Korean is optional, as Yoon (1996) argues. . Diachronically, -kkeyse is assumed to have developed from subjects of the form in (i) or (ii): (i)

N + s[genitive] + kung[vicinity] + ey[locative] + se[ablative]

(ii) N + s + kung + eyse The noun kung, is the analogue of the locativizing nominal ccok, chuk, phyen, etc. in the Ablative Subject Construction in modern Korean. . The claim that kkeyse-marked subjects require an agreeing honorific predicate is confirmed by the fact that non-subject Nominative NPs (=Major Subjects) in Multiple Nominative Constructions cannot be marked with -kkeyse: (i)

a.

Cheli-ka apenim-kkeyse pwuca-i-si-ta C-nom father-kkeyse rich-cop-hon-decl ‘As for Cheli/it is Cheli (his/whose) father is rich.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.41 (2229-2293)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

b.

#Apenim-kkeyse caknyen [kyengyengha-si-n hoysa-ka] Father-kkeyse last.year run-hon-adn company-nom mangha-si-ess-ta go.bankrupt-hon-pst-decl ‘As for my father, last year, the company he was running went bankrupt.’

The Major Subject, while it takes on many subject properties (such as binding anaphors and undergoing SOR), cannot control Honorific Agreement. This is the reason why a Major Subject cannot be marked with kkeyse. . In the template-based account, this may actually be a welcome result, since particles/affixes belonging to a given slot need not have any syntactic coherence. One way to bring the Copula in line with other particles putatively occupying the same slot is to consider it to mark a type of case. In traditional grammars of Korean, just such a position was advanced, with some researchers claiming that the Copula is a Predicative case-marker, and others taking it to be the Nominative case-marker. . The higher functional head is responsible for assigning Nominative Case, among others. In Yoon (1998, 2003), it is proposed that the Nominative case-marker is actually in F, and attaches to the phrase that moves to its Spec as a suffix/enclitic. This particular assumption is not critical. What we need is only the assumption that Case-marking takes place outside the SC, a standard assumption made in theoretical approaches similar to that adopted in this paper. . I take these particles to be inflectional, as they trigger agreement (Yoon 1998). By contrast, Chae & No (1998) take them to be derivational (suffixes) since, as H-R Chae (p.c.) informs me, the attachment of -nim is restricted, giving rise to irregular allomorphy, and as such, it makes a poor candidate for an inflectional morpheme. (i)

halape-nim/*halapeci-nim (grandfather) eme-nim/*emeni-nim (mother) elun-nim (adult), *chengnyen-nim (youth)

As to how a derivational affix contributes a [+honorific] feature that figures in agreement, Chae suggests that roots/stems may by inherently [+honorific], or that the affix may carry the feature. The alternative possibility suggested by Chae does not affect the essentials of our analysis. What’s crucial for the account in Yoon (2003) is that -nim and -tul are attached within the DP. If they are derivational suffixes, then, of course, they will be attached to the Head N within the DP. We have not addressed the question of why Postpositions cannot come before the Copula in Canonical Copula constructions. The reason seems to be unrelated to morphology. A different, existential Copula iss-ta is used in such constructions. (ii) *Chayk-i chayksang-wuy-ey-i-ta Book-nom table-top-loc-cop-decl vs. Chayk-i chayksang-wuy-ey iss-ta Book-nom table-top-loc be/exist-decl ‘The book is on the table.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.42 (2293-2385)

 James Hye Suk Yoon . Yoon (2003) gives a semantico-pragmatic reason for why this is so. Yoon (2003) actually argues that since the reasons are not structural, under the right contexts, (49a) can become acceptable. We abstract away from this complication here. . Notice that according to the text analysis, the Copula is a contentful verb present at Dstructure while ha- is a dummy verb inserted in the derivation. This assumption accords well with the fact that unlike Japanese, the Korean Copula is not used as a dummy verbalizer with stative Sino-Korean verbal nouns (COYONG-hata ‘silence-do’ vs. *COYONG-ita ‘silencebe’). The assumption that -ki is/can be a dummy nominalizer inserted during the derivation is defended in detail in J-M. Jo (2000, 2003).

References Alsina, A. 1999. “Where’s the mirror principle?” The Linguistic Review 16(1): 1–42. Anderson, S. 1982. “Where’s morphology?” Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 571–612. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Bresnan, J. and S. Mchombo. 1995. “The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13(2): 181–254. Chae, H.-R. and Y.-K. No. 1998. “A survey of morphological issues in Korean: Focusing on those with syntactic relevance.” Korean Linguistics 9: 65–109. Cho, Y-M. Yu and P. Sells. 1995. “A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(2): 249–174. Choi, K-Y. 1991. A Theory of Syntactic X0 Subcategorization. PhD. Dissertation, University of Washington. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Di Sciullo, A-M. and E. Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20, K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds), 241–176, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Halpern, A. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford CA: CSLI. Han, H-S. 1996. “Syntactic affixation and the structure of Korean.” In Morphosyntax in Generative Grammar – Proceedings of the 1996 Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, H-D. Ahn, M-Y. Kang, Y-S. Kim and S-H. Lee (eds), 23–37. Seoul: Hankuk. Heggie, L. 1988. The Syntax of Copular Sentences. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California. Heycock, C. and A. Kroch. 1999. “Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level.” Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–398. Jo, J.-M. 2000. “Morphosyntax of the dummy verb Ha- in Korean.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 30(2): 77–100.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.43 (2385-2507)

Non-morphological determination of nominal particle ordering in Korean 

Jo, J.–M. 2003. “Variations in predicate cleft constructions in Korean: Epiphenomena at the syntax – PF interface.” Paper presented at the 10th Harvard International Symposium on Korean Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge MA. Koopman, H. 2000. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge. Koopman, H. 2003. “Korean and Japanese morphology from a syntactic perspective.” Ms., UCLA. Lapointe, S. 1980. A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Lapointe, S. 1990. “EDGE features in GPSG.” In Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, K. Deaton et. al. (eds), 221–235, Chicago IL. Lapointe, S. 1996. “Comments on Cho and Sells: “A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean’,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5(1): 73–100. Lim, H-B. 1996. “Kyochakso-wa kyochakpep-uy cenglip-ul wihaye,” (Toward a theory of agglutinating elements and agglutination), Paper presented at the 24th Presentation of Joint Research Projects, Korean Linguistic Society, Seoul. Martin, S. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. Matsuda, Y. 2000. “Asymmetry in Japanese copular sentences,” Talk presented at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Miller, P. 1991. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland. Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nevis, J. 1985. Finnish Particle Clitics and General Clitic Theory. PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University. Nishiyama, K. 1996. “Distributed morphology + Optimality Theory = be/do support.” Ms, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424. Poser, W. 1985. “Cliticization to NP and lexical phonology.” In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 4, J. Goldberg et al. (eds), 262–272. Stanford CA: Stanford Linguistics Association. Rice, K. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sells, P. 1995. “Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective.” Linguistic Inquiry 26(2): 277–325. Sells, P. 1996. “Optimality and economy of expression in Korean and Japanese.” Paper presented at the Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, UCLA. Sells, P. 1997. “Positional constraints and faithfulness in morphology,” In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VII, S. Kuno, Y-S. Kang, I-H. Lee, Y-J. Kim (eds), 488–503. Seoul: Hanshin. Sigurðsson, H. A. 2001. “Case: Abstract vs. morphological” Working Papers in Scandanavian Syntax 67: 103–151. Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woo, S-J. 1999. “Phyoci-kaynyem-ey uy-han ‘-i-ta’ kwumwun-uy pwunsek (An analysis of the ‘i-ta’ construction on the basis of the concept of markers).” Ms., Seoul National University, Seoul.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:32

F: LA7407.tex / p.44 (2507-2564)

 James Hye Suk Yoon

Yang, I-S. 1972. Korean Syntax: Case-marking, delimiters, complementation and relativization. Seoul: Paykhapsa. Yoon, J. 1987. “Reconciling lexical integrity with affixation in syntax.” In Proceedings of Northeastern Linguistic Society 17, J. McDonough and B. Plunkett (eds), 663–684, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Yoon, J. 1991. “Inflectional structures in Korean and headedness.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 21(2): 79–192. Yoon, J. 1994. “Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory.” In The Morphology-Syntax Connection, H. Harley and C. Philips (eds), 61–80. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Yoon, J. 1995. “Nominal, verbal and cross-categorial affixation in Korean.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(4): 17–166. Yoon, J. 1996. “Ambiguity of government and the chain condition.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(1): 105–162. Yoon, J. 1998. “The functional structure of the (ad)nominal phrase in Korean.” Presented at the Workshop on the Syntax of East Asian Languages, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Yoon, J. 2003. “What the Korean copula reveals about the interaction of morphology and syntax.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 11, P. Clancy (ed), 34–50. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Yoon, J-M. 1990. “Verb movement and the structure of IP in Korean.” Language Research 26(2): 343–372. Zwicky, A. 1987. “Suppressing the Z’s.” Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 133–148 Zwicky, A. and G. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language 59(3): 502–513.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.1 (41-114)

Clitic positions within the left periphery Evidence for a phonological buffer* Adam Szczegielniak Harvard University

In this paper I argue that Polish auxiliary clitics provide additional evidence for adopting Rizzi’s (1997) expanded structure of the Left Periphery (LP) by arguing that auxiliary clitics are a phonological manifestation of morphological properties of the Fin0 head. This will be supported by examples of auxiliary clitics demarcating Focus/Topic constructions from material within IP. Further support will come from examples where auxiliary clitics interact with LF operations like reconstruction and reflexive interpretation. Finally, on the basis of my examination of Polish clitics and second position clitics in other Slavic languages, I argue against an OT analysis of cliticization proposed in Anderson (1997), as well as a Prosodic Inversion analysis (Halpern1995). Instead I propose an analysis where syntactic operations over-generate possible outputs; we need to postulate a phonological buffer which filters syntactic output (following Bošković 1995).

.

Introduction

This paper deals with auxiliary clitic phenomena in Polish and second position clitics in Slavic. Polish auxiliary clitics are present in past tense constructions and carry subject number/person/gender agreement (clitics are in bold italics). (1) Ty wczoraj´s poszedł do kina you yesterday+aux-2nd.sg. went to cinema ‘Yesterday you went to a cinema’ Polish has auxiliary and pronominal clitics, but neither group is considered to be second position (Booij & Rubach 1987; Borsley & Rivero 1994). There are differences between pronominal clitics and clitic auxiliaries on one hand, and clitic auxiliaries and affixes on the other. Pronominal clitics in Polish are weak pronouns (following the classification of Cardinaletti & Starke 1999). Thus, for example, they

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.2 (114-163)

 Adam Szczegielniak

do not require a phonological host. Their distribution is also less limited. Hence, unlike auxiliary clitics, they can occur after the verb. (2) a. *Ty poszedł do kina´s wczoraj you went to cinema+aux-2nd.sg. yesterday ‘Yesterday you went to a cinema’ b. Ty zaprowadziłe´s (je)go do kina wczoraj you took him(clitic) to cinema. yesterday ‘Yesterday you took him to a cinema’ Consequently, there is good reason to believe that pronominal weak pronouns can be treated as separate from auxiliary clitics. There is also good reason to believe that auxiliary clitics are not affixes. In contrast to affixes, any type of XP/X0 can host auxiliary clitics. Furthermore, when past tense and subject agreement is present on the verb in the form of an affix, there are no auxiliary clitics present. (3) a. *Ty wczoraj´s poszedłe´s do kina you yesterday+aux-2nd.sg. went+affix-2nd.sg. to cinema ‘Yesterday you went to a cinema’ b. Ty wczoraj poszedłe´s do kina you yesterday went+affix-2nd.sg. to cinema ‘Yesterday you went to a cinema’ The form of the affix is identical to the auxiliary clitic. However, the affix triggers phonological processes that the clitic does not. For a detailed discussion see Embick (1995). In this paper I concentrate on cases when the past tense subject number/gender/person agreement marker is a clitic and not an affix on the verb. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an outline of the proposal and an overview of the data. In Section 3, I will provide an account of Polish auxiliary clitic distribution within Rizzi’s LP. Section 4 contains proposals on the structure of a phonological buffer and arguments why it is needed.

. The proposal and data In this paper I will argue that auxiliary clitics in Polish are generated under a FinP head (as proposed by Rizzi 1997). These clitics will be argued to cliticize only to material that is fronted to, or generated in Spec positions within the Left Periphery. Furthermore, I will examine the predictions my proposal makes as far as the interaction between cliticization and Topicalization and Focus movement. Evidence from cliticization and relative clause formation will be evaluated and argued to sup-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.3 (163-228)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

port the proposal that auxiliary clitics are generated in FinP. However, I will also argue that a purely syntactic account of their behavior is not possible. My proposal is that Polish auxiliary clitics are generated in the syntax, namely in FinP, but are subject to a morpho-phonemic filter that limits their distribution. Thus, I assume that overt syntax over-generates and that a filter has to be applied to its output. I concentrate on the auxiliary clitics since they behave distinctly from pronominal ones, which, following the proposals in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), would be better classified as weak pronouns. For example, clitic pronouns in Polish can receive stress (relevant items highlighted in italics, underlining indicates stress), and can be coordinated, something auxiliary clitics cannot. (4) a.

Ci dałem ksia˙ ˛zk˛e a nie jej you gave book and not her ‘I gave a book to you and not her’ poszli do kina b. *My ´smy we aux-1st.pl. went to cinema ‘We went to the cinema’ c. Mu i jej dałem ksia˙ ˛zk˛e him and her gave book ‘I gave a book to him and her’ i ´smy poszli do kina1 d. *Wczoraj ´scie yesterday aux-1st.pl. and aux-2nd.pl. went to cinema ‘We and you went to the cinema yesterday’

Polish auxiliary clitics on the other hand have a more restricted distribution. They only occur in past tense formation (other tenses use affixes, non-clitic auxiliaries, or no auxiliaries at all) and serve as subject-verb agreement markers. Clitic auxiliaries can attach to the verb (where I assume they are in fact affixes), or to elements preceding the verb. The only other occurrence of the agreement clitic is when we cliticize the copula ‘to be’ as in the examples (5). Examples (5a, b, d, e) show that the clitic copula’s host can undergo movement within a simple clause. The truncated copula encliticizes to hosts within the CP that the copula is generated, hence (5f) is bad. Interestingly, it is much worse when we focus the Adjective madry ˛ but not make it a host as shown in example (5c). Finally, (5g) shows that in subordinate clauses the copula can attach to the complementizer. (5) a.

Ty jeste´s madry ˛ you are+2nd.sg. smart ‘You are smart’ b. Ty´s madry ˛ you+2nd.sg. smart ‘You are smart’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.4 (228-289)

 Adam Szczegielniak

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

??Madry, ˛

ty´s smart you+2nd.sg. ‘You are smart’ Madry´ ˛ s ty smart+2nd.sg. you ‘You are smart’ Ty madry´ ˛ s you smart+2nd.sg. ‘You are smart’ *Ty´s wiesz, ˙ze ty you+2nd.sg. know that you ‘You know that you are smart’ On wie ˙ze´s ty he knows that+2nd.sg. you ‘He knows that you are smart’

madry ˛ smart madry ˛ smart

When not hosted by the verb, auxiliary clitics used in the formation of past tense encliticize to hosts preceding the verb. Their distribution is very similar to that of the identical in form clitic copula. The difference being that there is no full form associated with the clitic auxiliaries, whereas the copula has a non-clitic form. Another difference is that clitic auxiliaries cannot follow the verb, whereas on the surface it seems (example 5c) that the copula clitic can. However, I will argue that example (5c) is not a good test since the adjective functions there like the participle in past tense constructions. Consider the distribution of auxiliaries when not hosted by the verb. Examples in (6) below all involve the same auxiliary clitic, the second person singular SubjectVerb agreement marker. Examples 6(a–e) show that the clitic -´s can be hosted in a simple clause by the verb, the object or the subject, even in cases when the host has undergone movement, or is non-canonically base generated.2 Crucially, when the auxiliary clitic is hosted by an element following the verb, the construction is ungrammatical (6f–g). In unmarked constructions the auxiliaries attach to verbs, however, they may also attach to other constituents that precede the verb. The auxiliary in past tense constructions cannot be clause initial (6d) and is thus classified as an enclitic requiring a phonological host to its left. Booij & Rubach (1987: 34) provide further examples of the clitic being hosted by pronouns, particles, conjunctions, complementizers, adverbs and nouns, provided they precede the verb (the subject ty‘you’ is in brackets to indicate the preference for pro-drop in constructions where it is not hosting the clitic). (6) a.

(Ty) zobaczyła´s Janka you saw+affix-2nd.sg. John ‘You saw John’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.5 (289-334)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

b. Ty´s zobaczyła Janka you+aux-2nd.sg. saw John ‘You saw John’ c. Ty´s Janka zobaczyła you+aux-2nd.sg. John saw ‘You saw John’ d. (Ty) Janka´s zobaczyła you John+aux-2nd.sg. saw ‘You saw John’ e. (Ty) Janka zobaczyła´s you John saw+affix-2nd.sg. ‘You saw John’ f. *Ty zobaczyła Janka´s you saw John+aux-2nd.sg. ‘You saw John’ g. *Zobaczyła ty´s Janka saw you+aux-2nd.sg. John ‘You saw John h. Zobaczyła´s (ty) Janka saw+affix-2nd.sg. you John ‘You saw John’ i. *S´ zobaczyła Janka aux-2nd.sg. saw John ‘You saw John’ Polish auxiliary clitics are not second position clitics and can be preceded by multiple XPs and X0 s. The agreement marker most frequently occurs either on the verb (in which case it is an affix and not a clitic), or on the complementizer either in simple or subordinate clauses. (7) a.

Zobaczyłe´s (ty) Janka saw+affix-2nd.sg. you John ‘You saw John’ ˙ s b. Ze´ (ty) zobaczył Janka that+aux-2nd.sg. you saw John ‘You saw John’ c. On wie ˙ze´s (ty) zobaczył Janka he knows that+aux-2nd.sg. you saw John ‘He knows that you saw John’ d. On wie ˙ze (ty) zobaczyłe´s Janka he knows that you saw+affix-2nd.sg. John ‘He knows that you saw John’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.6 (334-395)

 Adam Szczegielniak

When the agreement marker is an auxiliary clitic it can also break up constituents. However, this only takes place when constituents can be broken up independently by other material (for a discussion about similar facts in Serbo-Croatian, see Wilder ´ & Cavar 1994). This is important since a theory of clitic distribution which claims that clitic placement is part of some special phonological process triggered by their deficiency (say, for example, theories of Prosodic Inversion, Halpern 1995; Marantz 1989) would have a hard time explaining the correlation between the fact that clitics break up constituents that can only be broken up by other, non-clitic elements. This would prove especially significant if we find constructions where the clitic is inserted into a constituent that has been broken up by syntactic operations. For instance, a DP where the clitic is between the D0 and the NP, and the NP has been displaced. Polish provides plenty of such examples (see 8 below). Furthermore, examples like in (8) support the idea that clitic placement is done via syntactic process since it is sensitive to the same constraints that govern the distribution of other elements. The examples listed below show that clitics can break up all sorts of constituents (a-examples) but they also show that this is only possible if these constituents can be broken up by other items (b-examples). Example (8) shows that the auxiliary clitic can attach to the possessive NP breaking up a DP in a way that cannot be usually done in English. However, as example (8b) shows, the clitic is not unique in that respect since overt subject can also be placed in the same position. Furthermore, we can have the overt subject splitting up the DP with the clitic still being hosted by the head D0 (8c) – a construction that would be difficult to account for with theories like PI. (8) a.

Ty Ewy´s ksia˙ ˛zk˛e kupił you Eve’s+aux-2nd.sg. book bought ‘You bought Eve’s book’ b. Ewy ty ksia˙ ˛zk˛e kupiłe´s Eve’s you book bought+affix-2nd.sg. ‘You bought Eve’s book’ c. Ewy´s ty ksia˙ ˛zk˛e kupił Eve’s+aux-2nd.sg. you book bought ‘You bought Eve’s book’

Co-ordination can also be broken up by a clitic auxiliary, however, again this can also happen when you use a reflexive, as shown in (9b).3 (9) a.

Ty Janka´s i Mari˛e widział You John+aux-2nd.sg. and Mary saw ‘You saw John and Mary’ b. Janka si˛e ogladało ˛ w telewizji i Mari˛e John refl. watched in television and Mary ‘We used to watch John and Mary on TV’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.7 (395-435)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

Usually, prepositions in Polish have to be adjacent to the complement DP (10c–d). However, multi-syllabic prepositions can host clitics (10a), and also can be nonadjacent to the complement DP (10b). (10) a.

Wokół´s domu biegał Around+aux-2nd.sg. house ran ‘You ran around the house’ b. Wokół si˛e domu biegało, a nie drzewa Around refl. house ran and not tree ‘We used to run around the house not tree’ c. *Do´s domu pobiegł to+aux-2nd.sg. house ran ‘You ran to the house’ d. *Do ty domu pobiegłe´s to you house ran+affix-2nd.sg. ‘You ran to the house’

The example below shows that negation cannot be separated from the verb by anything, be it the auxiliary clitic, or a reflexive. (11) a. *Ty nie´s zjadł chleba you not+aux-2nd.sg. eat bread ‘You did not eat bread’ b. *Ty nie si˛e zatrułe´s chlebem you not refl. poison bread ‘You did not poison yourself with bread’ Idiom Chunks are another example of a constituent that cannot host clitics, and which, at the same time, is ‘unbreakable’ by other elements. Example (12a) shows that clitics cannot be hosted by material within an Idiom Chunk, but as (12b) shows there seems to be a general prohibition to do that. (12) a.

??Słowa´s

rzucał na wiatr words+aux-2nd.sg. threw at wind ‘Your words did not have any impact’ b. *Słowa ty rzucałe´s na wiatr words you threw+affix-2nd.sg. at wind ‘Your words did not have any impact’

The above examples show that auxiliary clitics can break up constituents but only in cases when these constituents can be broken up by other material.4 Thus, negation (11) and Idiom Chunks (12) cannot be separated by clitics or other material. Interestingly, examples (10c, d) show that prepositions can host clitics but only

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.8 (435-493)

 Adam Szczegielniak

when they can be separated from their complements by other material. This seems to support the idea that clitic placement is a syntactic process in Polish. One last property of auxiliary clitics in Polish is that they normally do not undergo clitic climbing. Thus (13) is bad. However, I will show later that there are exceptions to this. On the basis of examples in relative clauses, I will modify this claim and argue that clitics cannot climb out of a CP unless they reconstruct. However, for now, let us assume that clitics cannot climb out of the CP. (13) *On zawsze´s wiedział [CP ˙ze ty poszedł do kina] he always+aux-2nd.sg. knew that you went to cinema ‘He always knew that you went to the cinema’ The properties of Polish auxiliary clitics can be summarized in the following way: (14) Auxiliary clitics in Polish must: a. encliticize; b. attach to a host positioned linearly in front of the verb of which they are subject-verb agreement markers;5 c. be contained in the clause containing the verb on which they mark agreement; d. not break up elements that cannot be broken up by other elements. Items (14c) and (14d) require some additional explanation. In proposing (14d), I adopt the assumption that broken-up constituents are generated by some syntactic process, either movement or base generation. For our purposes, it is irrelevant what is the nature of this process. What is crucial is that it applies to clitics and non-clitic elements. The claim in (14c) is supported by the fact that Polish auxiliaries cannot undergo clitic climbing out of the clause they were generated in. This is shown in example (13) where the clitic is hosted by an element that is outside the CP in which the clitic marks subject-verb agreement. Hence we are faced with a question as to how best account for the distribution of auxiliary clitics. I will use the data presented above to argue for a certain model of the Left Periphery proposed by Rizzi (1997), and will propose that auxiliary clitics in Polish can be best described as being in Fin.

. The analysis I adopt a model of Left Periphery phrase structure proposed in Rizzi (1997). It presumes that there are two distinct heads that carry features like subject-verb agreement or tense. The traditional one is Tense. However, Rizzi proposes that the phrase structure of a clause has at least two domains: the IP domain, where the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.9 (493-547)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

Tense head is located, and the Left Periphery (LP) domain, where the CP head is located. LP also has a head that can carry tense/agreement features, albeit in a truncated form; Rizzi calls it Finiteness (Fin). I will propose that Polish clitic auxiliaries in constructions where they are not hosted by the verb are generated in Fin. If we assume that there is no separate AGR head, then Fin and Tense are the only natural candidates to host a subject-verb past tense number/person marker. (15) Structure of the Left Periphery (following Rizzi 1997) [CP [TopP] [FocP] [TopP] [FinP] [IP. . .]] Why argue that auxiliary clitics are in Fin and not Tense? After all, they are subjectverb agreement markers and Tense is the locus of agreement features. First of all, let us consider how the auxiliary clitics interact with the CP or IP system.6 Interaction with Focus and Topic would strongly suggest that auxiliary clitics are part of the CP system.7 Consider the following examples (focal stress is indicated by underlining): (16) a.

Ty ˙ze´s kupił ksia˙ ˛zk˛e you that+aux-2nd.sg. bought book ‘You and not Mary bought a book’ b. Ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ˙ze´s kupił a book that+aux-2nd.sg. bought but ‘You bought a book and not a shirt’

a nie Maria but not Mary nie koszul˛e not shirt

Examples (16a, b) show that an XP can occupy a Spec-Focus position and be followed by a complementizer hosting the clitic. I will argue that this complementizer is located in Fin and not C. This is supported by examples like (17) where we see two complementizers present in one clause (followed by a subject in Spec-TP in example (17a)). (17) a.

On wiedział ˙ze ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ˙ze´s ty kupił he knew that book that+aux-2nd.sg. you bought koszul˛e shirt ‘He knew that you bought a book and not a shirt’ b. *On wiedział ˙ze´s ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ˙ze kupił a he knew that+aux-2nd.sg. book that bought but koszul˛e shirt ‘He knew that you bought a book and not a shirt’

a nie but not

nie not

Example (17b) shows that the order of the two complementizers is fixed. I propose that the non-clitic hosting complementizer is in C and the lower one in Fin since it hosts inflectional material. This will imply that Fin can have a structure where

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.10 (547-610)

 Adam Szczegielniak

there are two lexical items. On the other hand, we can argue that what we really have here is a complementizer that is inflected. One argument against the latter hypothesis is that the complementizer is only inflected in past tense constructions and ones involving copulas, exactly the same environment where the auxiliary clitic appears.8 I will not discuss this issue here. Evidence for a Focus and Topic head interacting with the clitic can be found in examples (18–20). Thus, the clitic can be hosted by the subject functioning as a Topic (example 18 vs. 17), but it can also be hosted by the lower complementizer with Topic and Focus above (example 20). (18) Ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ty´s kupił a nie koszul˛e book you+aux-2nd.sg. bought but not shirt ‘You bought a book and not a shirt’ (19) *Ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ty´s kupił a nie Maria book you+aux-2nd.sg. bought but not Mary ‘You bought a book and not Mary’ ˛zk˛e ty ˙ze´s kupił a nie Maria (20) Ksia˙ book you that+aux-2nd.sg. bought but not Mary ‘You bought a book and not Mary’ Furthermore, we have constructions where the clitic can be hosted by a complementizer in Fin. In example (21) Spec-Topic is occupied by the subject, the object is in Spec-Focus and the non-inflected complementizer is in C. (21) On wie ˙ze ksia˙ ˛zk˛e ty ˙ze´s kupił a nie Maria he knows that book you that+aux-2nd.sg. bought but not Mary ‘You bought a book and not Mary’ This distribution can be accounted for if we assume that the clitic is in Fin, where it can be optionally hosted by the complementizer. If there is no complementizer in Fin, the clitic is hosted by the Topic, or if that is not present, by the Focus, or items in Spec-CP, like wh-words.

. Reconstruction effects Another example of interaction between cliticization and Focus/Topic formation can be observed in Polish relative clauses. The head noun can host a clitic from within the clause but only if it receives a Focus interpretation (depicted by underlining).9 (22) Ja odwiedziłem miasto, które (ty) znałe´s I visited city which (you) knew+affix-2nd.sg. ‘I visited a city that you knew’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.11 (610-674)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

(23) ?Ja odwiedziłem miasto´s, które (ty) znał I visited city+aux-2nd.sg. which (you) knew ‘I visited a city that you knew’ (24) *Ja odwiedziłem miasto´s, które (ty) znał I visited city+aux-2nd.sg. which (you) knew ‘I visited a city that you knew’ As I mentioned, the clitic usually cannot raise out of the CP it is generated in. The above examples contradict this. However, I will argue that the generalization has to be only slightly modified, namely the auxiliary clitics can climb, provided they reconstruct. We can find evidence of obligatory reconstruction of clitic hosts that underwent movement. For example, Polish has subject-oriented reflexives. In the example below, the reflexive in bold can only be bound by the most local subject DP Robert. (25) On chciał by Robert kupił zdj˛ecie siebie he wanted that Robert buy picture self ‘He wanted Robert to buy a picture of himself ’. Consider Polish relative clauses, where the reflexive has been relativized. It can host a clitic, provided it receives focus. However, when the reflexive siebie hosts the auxiliary clitic, the reflexive is bound not by the most local subject Janek, but by the one within the relative clause, ty ‘you’. Any other interpretation is impossible. (26) Janek2 zobaczył zdj˛ecie siebie´s1 które ty1 kupił Janek saw picture self+aux-2nd.sg. which you bought ‘Janek saw a picture of *himself/yourself which you bought’ The example below shows that in cases when the clitic is within the relative clause and not hosted by the reflexive, the interpretation is different. The reflexive can only refer to the most local subject Janek and cannot refer to the subject of the relative clause. kupił (27) Janek2 zobaczył zdj˛ecie siebie2 które ty´s1 Janek saw picture self which you+aux-2nd.sg. bought ‘Janek saw a picture of himself/*yourself which you bought’ The above contrast provides further evidence that clitics interact with LF interpretation. First of all, they seem to occur in environments where their XP hosts are in LP. Furthermore, they interact with the LF interpretation of reflexives. Another example of clitic interaction with LF processes involves scope interpretation. We know that clitic climbing forces reconstruction from the following facts (based on Fox 2000):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.12 (674-734)

 Adam Szczegielniak

(28) Jak wiele zdj˛eć Stalina Marek chciał by´s ty how many pictures Stalin Marek wanted that+aux-2nd.sg. you kupił? buy ‘How many pictures of Stalin did Mark want you to buy?’ The above can mean: A. How many concrete pictures of Stalin = wiele ‘many’ < kupił ‘bought’ B. How many pictures of Stalin in general = kupił ‘bought’ < wiele ‘many’ Polish clitics can climb with wh-words. When the clitic is attached to ‘how many’ it disambiguates the reconstruction context.10 (29) [Jak wiele zdj˛eć Stalina´s]1 Marek chciał how many pictures Stalin+aux-2nd.sg. Marek wanted by´s ty kupił t 1 that+aux-2nd.sg. you buy ‘How many pictures of Stalin did Mark want you to buy?’ The above can only have the meaning in B, kupił ‘bought’ < wiele ‘many’. These examples show that LF interpretation is influenced by clitic attachment. How is it possible for the clitic to raise out of the CP it is generated in? I propose that auxiliary clitics can encliticize to hosts that are in LP (Left Periphery) even if these XPs then undergo further cyclic movement. In a sense the clitic is piggybacking on its host. In a multiple Spell-Out system, as in the one proposed by Chomsky (2000), this makes sense. The CP is a phase and Spell-Out takes place at phases; if the clitic does not have a host by the time CP is processed (C being the topmost head of LP) then the derivation crashes at PF. Thus, we have a system where the clitic is generated in the syntax and at Spell-Out it cliticizes to a host in LP. However, since we have a multiple Spell-Out system, the clitic plus host combination can undergo further syntactic operations, like movement. This yields interesting results where PF operations like cliticization interact with LF operations like reflexive, or scope interpretation.11 Although the auxiliary clitic in Fin0 is a marker for the ‘border’ between the domain of IP and Left Periphery domains, it has to be noted that the clitic is not necessary for there to be a Focus/Topic structure. Example (30) is fine without any auxiliary clitic. (30) Ksia˙ ˛zk˛e kupiłe´s a nie koszul˛e book bought+affix-2nd.sg. but not shirt ‘You bought a book and not a shirt’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.13 (734-788)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

Thus, it is not the case that XP movement to LP is some sort of ‘Last Resort’ operation aimed at saving the derivation.12 Furthermore, the clitic can occur without a Topic/Focus host. ˙ s (31) Ze´ poszedł do kina that+aux-2nd.sg. went to cinema ‘You went to the cinema’ However, it remains to be answered whether examples like (31) involve an inflected complementizer and/or whether the complementizer is generated in Fin in order to provide a host. Regardless of this, however, it seems to be correct to claim that the clitic is hosted by elements within LP.

. Phonological filter However, if we propose that the auxiliary clitic is generated in Fin, then the question arises why the clitic cannot be clause initial? A possible answer is that it is an inherent property of Polish auxiliary clitics not to be clause initial. However, I think that we would be missing a certain generalization here. It cannot be that phonologically reduced elements, like clitics, cannot be sentence initial in Polish – pronominals as well as reflexives can occur sentence initially, although the former are truncated forms of full pronouns. (32) a.

Mu kupiłem ksia˙ ˛zk˛e him(cl) bought book ‘I bought him a book’ b. Si˛e zakochałem w niej refl. love in her ‘I fell in love with her’

It could be argued that weak pronouns are not deficient enough and thus can occur sentence initially. Interestingly enough, however, they are deficient enough not to occur at the end of clauses: (33) ??Kupiłem ksia˙ ˛zk˛e mu bought book him(cl) ‘I bought him a book’ I will propose an alternate account of why auxiliary clitics cannot be clause initial. I propose that syntactic operations are later filtered by phonological constraints that, as is the case of Polish auxiliaries, prohibit clitics from being clause initial.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.14 (788-834)

 Adam Szczegielniak

In closely related languages, like Slovak or Czech, the same auxiliary clitic is a second position one – it also cannot be clause initial, and, moreover, it can only be proceeded by one XP or X0 , unless X0 is also a clitic. In second position languages a prosodic argument might be applicable (see Prosodic Inversion). That claim would be harder to maintain for Polish since we would have to argue that PI applies selectively to some clitic positions but not to others. Moreover, I have mentioned that Polish auxiliaries can only be hosted by an XP when there is a Topic/Focus reading of some sort imposed on that XP. A phonological operation like PI (Halpern 1995; Marantz 1989) cannot have such semantic consequences, even in a multiple Spell-Out system. An OT account proposed by Anderson (1997) also has its problems. For one, I have shown that auxiliary clitics interact with syntactic operations and LF interpretation. In Anderson’s model there is no room for such interactions. Furthermore, Anderson (1997) has some inherent problems pointed out by Bader (1998). One example is the problem with prohibiting second position clitics from piling up at the end of a clause (CP). This piling up would ensure that no Integrity constraint is violated, Non-Initial would also be not violated, and Edge-Most would be preserved since clitics would follow one XP, namely the entire CP itself. Thus, none of the constraints would be violated and this would be the most optimal derivation. Although Polish auxiliaries are not second position, it is evident that there are restrictions on their distribution. There seem to be three major facts that have to be accounted for: (i) auxiliary clitics cannot be clause initial, (ii) auxiliary clitics cannot attach to hosts that linearly follow the verb, (iii) auxiliary clitics have XP hosts that are Focused or Topicalized. The Focus/Topic facts can be accounted for by assuming that auxiliaries are generated in Fin and that XP material hosting the clitic is raised to Spec-Top or Spec-Foc. We can also account for (ii). Even if we assume that verbs in Polish can raise to head positions in the Left Periphery, then we can still argue that, according to the Head Movement Constraint, the verb has to pass through Fin and incorporate the clitic. Thus, there is no possible derivation where the verb is above the clitic. What remains to be accounted for is why clitics cannot be clause initial. I propose that clause initial clitics can be generated in the syntax and what rules out these structures is a morphological filter of the type proposed in Bošković (1995). (34) PF Filter: Clitic . . . The above filter reflects one important generalization Anderson (1997) tried to capture – clitics ‘conspire’ to be as close to the edge of a clause without being actually initial.13 I propose that this is the interplay of two effects – the syntax generating them high up in LP and a phonological filter excluding derivations when clitics

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.15 (834-894)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

occur first. In essence, I assume that syntax over-generates and a filter rules out structures that do not conform to PF restrictions.

Notes * I would like to thank Noam Chomsky, Lorie Heggie, Alec Marantz and David Pesetsky, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. I would also like to thank the participants of the LSA Summer Institute Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement Affix Combinations workshop at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. However, all errors remain mine. . It has to be noted that with clitics hosted the example is perfectly fine: (i)

Wczoraj my´smy i wy´scie poszli do kina yesterday we+aux-1st-pl and you+aux-2nd.pl. went to cinema ‘Yesterday we and you went to the cinema’

. I am not claiming here that there is a canonical word order in Polish, or whether noncanonical word orders are generated by movement or base generated. It has to be noted that in most cases the clitic has the same freedom to attach to a host regardless whether the clause is simple or not. . Even triple co-ordination seems to work like this, although it must be noted that the clitic seems to have more freedom in dividing up constituents than the reflexive. I have no idea how to account for this. Jankiem si˛e i Mari˛e i Adamem spotkałe´s (i) ?Ty z you with John refl. and Mary and Adam met+aux-2nd.sg. (ii) Ty z Jankiem´s i Maria˛ i Adamem si˛e spotkał you with John+aux-2nd.sg. and Mary and Adam refl. met ‘You met with John, Mark and Adam’ . A reviewer has pointed out that the level of cohesion of idioms here is unusual. There are idioms where the degree of cohesion is less pronounced, however, these are not the interesting cases. However, even in the case of the idiom discussed there are elements that can intervene, for example, negation. This can be easily accounted for, however, if we assume that negation is generated above the vP, whereas in order to have a subject intervene between the verb and the object you have to have some sort of movement. I will argue that this is also why the clitic cannot be hosted by the object since it would have to move above Fin. . They can also attach to the verb itself. I will not discuss cases of the verb hosting the clitic since, following Embick (1995), I assume that these cases are really instances of the verb being fully inflected and there are no clitics present. As I have already pointed out, this is supported by the fact that, when on the verb, the auxiliaries behave phonologically like affixes (see also Booij & Rubach 1987). Similarly to Polish affixes, they trigger lexical phonological rules. However, this only happens when the verb is their host. Consequently, I

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.16 (894-963)

 Adam Szczegielniak

assume that Polish can have two types of past tense: using a fully inflected verb, and using auxiliary clitics hosted by items other than the verb. . I am going to use the notion Left Periphery and CP domain interchangeably. . I only discuss contrastive focus since the position for non-contrastive focus is below the verb and auxiliaries cannot be hosted by elements following the verb. For Rizzi (1997) the Focus position in LP is a contrastive focus one. . Conversely, if we propose that the complementizer is inflected, like the verb when it hosts the clitic, it would make it similar to subjunctive complementizers, which obligatorily host the clitic. Polish non-subjunctive complementizers would then be argued to have the option to either occur inflected or bare, like verbs. When inflected, they would occur in Fin, when uninflected the complementizer would be located in C. . Examples where the clitic is on the head noun are marginal at best, and for some speakers are outright unacceptable. . It has to be noted that there is a clitic doubling phenomenon occurring. I am not certain why examples with clitic doubles are preferred here, aside from the fact that the subjunctive complementizer has to host the clitic when present, which might be an indication that the subjunctive complementizer is actually inflected for person/number/gender and the agreement morpheme is not a clitic, but an affix (as in cases when agreement is on the verb). . A separate question is why reconstruction is optional in cases when a moved XP is not a clitic host. One possible account is that wh-constructions as well as relative clauses in Polish can be generated via move or Merger. Since the clitic has to be ‘picked up’ by the XP, these constructions inherently have to involve movement. Hence when there is no movement, there is no reconstruction. ´ and Franks (1998) for an account of Polish auxiliary clitics where ‘Last Resort’ . See Banski is utilized. . A reviewer has pointed out that the inability to have initial clitics can also be connected to ECP effects. This is an interesting possibility worth further research, however, because of space limitations, it is beyond the scope of this paper.

References Anderson, S. R. 1997. “Towards an optimal account of second position phenomena.” In Yale A-Morphous Linguistics Essays: Studies in the morphology of clitics. L. Kaiser, (ed). New Haven: Yale University. ´ Banski, P. and S. Franks. 1998. “Approaches to ‘schizophrenic’ Polish person-number markers.” In FASL 7 Proceedings, K. Dziwirek, et. al. (eds), 123–145. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials. Bader, C. 1998. “The syntax and phonology of Serbo-Croatian clitic placement.” Ms, MIT. Booij, G., and J. Rubach. 1987. “Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 11–44.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:34

F: LA7408.tex / p.17 (963-1007)

Clitic positions within the left periphery 

Borsley, R. and M-L. Rivero. 1994. “Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 373–423. Bošković, Ž. 1995. “Participle movement and second position cliticization in SerboCroatian.” Lingua 96: 245–266. Cardinaletti, A. and M. Starke. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, H. van Riemskijk (ed.), 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnick, R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds) Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Embick, D. 1995. “Mobile inflections in Polish.” NELS 25 Proceedings. Fox, D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Halpern, A. L. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Marantz, A. 1989. “Clitics and phrase structure.” In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, M. R. Baltin and A. S. Kroch (eds), Chigaco: University of Chicago Press. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. ´ Wilder, C and D.Cavar. 1994. “Long head movement? Verb movement and cliticization in Croatian.” Lingua 93: 1–58.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.1 (41-124)

The Wh/Clitic Connection* Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović Harvard University / West Virginia University

This paper attempts to provide an explanation for a previously unnoticed, but puzzling, symmetry in the behavior of clitics and wh-phrases in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, namely that both wh-phrases and clitics form a syntactic cluster in Bulgarian, but not in Serbo-Croatian (SC). We argue that this parallelism between clitics and wh-phrases in the two languages is not accidental, but that it is caused by both clitics and wh-phrases occupying the same Agr projection(s) in syntax. Furthermore, we explain the difference between Bulgarian and SC with respect to the split/unsplit character of wh-phrases and clitics in syntax in terms of the unsplit and split nature of Agr in these languages. In particular, SC allows multiple Agr projections, while Bulgarian does not. We relate this difference between SC and Bulgarian to a macroparameter distinguishing the two languages, namely that SC is a strongly discourse configurational language, while Bulgarian is not. We also explore the theoretical implications of this wh/clitic parallelism. In particular, we show that it favors the treatment of clitics defended in Uriagereka (1995a, b), Chomsky’s (1995) interpretation of Move in terms of Attract/Suicidal Greed, and Bošković’s (1999b) treatment of multiple wh-fronting in terms of Attract All-F.

.

Outline

This paper points out an interesting parallelism in the behavior of wh-phrases and clitics in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian (SC). Rudin (1988) claims that in Bulgarian, wh-phrases are not separable in syntax, while in SC they are. In other words, wh-phrases in Bulgarian must form a unit in syntax, while in SC they need not to. Bošković (2001) shows that clitics in Bulgarian form a cluster in syntax, but not in SC. However, what, to the best of our knowledge, nobody has noticed so far is that in both Bulgarian and SC wh-phrases and clitics abstractly pattern the same way, nor has anyone tried to uncover implications of such patterning.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.2 (124-181)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

This parallelism (which we refer to here as the Wh/Clitic Connection) between phenomenologically distinct elements like clitics that represent old-information (related to “topics”) and wh-phrases that represent new information (“foci”) will be at the core of our discussion. We will argue that it is not accidental, and our purpose will be to shed light on the nature of this connection, as well as to uncover its theoretical implications. In particular, we will propose that the wh/clitic connection is caused by the fact that both clitics and wh-phrases occupy the same projections in syntax. Furthermore, we will argue that, as such, the wh/clitic connection favors the treatment of clitics defended in Uriagereka (1995a, b), where clitics are said to occupy a specific functional projection (“FP”) associated with such notions as theme and rheme (“point of view”). We will also argue that the wh/clitic connection favors Chomsky’s (1995) interpretation of Move in terms of Attract/Suicidal Greed, and, in particular, Bošković’s (1999b) treatment of multiple wh-fronting in terms of Attract-All (see also Brown 1999, where the Attract All-F mechanism is extended to multiple neg-fronting (“Neg(ative)-concord”)). The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we outline our assumptions concerning multiple wh-fronting. In Section 3 we do the same for clitic placement. In Section 4 we provide an account for the wh/clitic-connection. Section 5 is a summary.

. Multiple Wh-Fronting: Some Refinements Rudin (1988) shows that despite sharing the property of multiple wh-fronting, Bulgarian (BG) and Serbo-Croatian (SC) are nevertheless distinct: whereas in Bulgarian all wh-phrases form a unit, wh-phrases can be split in Serbo-Croatian. The difference is illustrated in (1) by means of adverb placement. (1) a. ?*Koj, spored tebe, kakvo e kazal? who according to you what is said ‘Who, according to you, said what?’ b. Ko, po tebi, šta pije. who according to you what drinks ‘Who, according to you, drinks what?’

[BG]

[SC]

Another indication that wh-phrases form a cluster in Bulgarian, but not in SerboCroatian, comes from their behavior under long-distance movement. As can be seen in (2), while all wh-phrases must move long-distance in Bulgarian, they need not in Serbo-Croatian. (2) a.

Koj1 kogo2 misliš, ˇce t 1 e celunal t 2 who whom think-you that has kissed ‘Who do you think kissed who?’

[BG]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.3 (181-242)

The Wh/Clitic Connection 

b. *Koj1 misliš, ˇce kogo t1 e celunal who think-you that whom has kissed ‘Who do you think kissed who?’ c. Ko koga misliš, da je poljubio who whom think-you that has kissed ‘Who do you think kissed whom?’ d. Ko misliš da je koga poljubio who think-you that has whom kissed ‘Who do you think kissed whom?’

[SC]

As far as multiple wh-fronting (henceforth, MWF) is concerned, we follow Bošković (1996, 1997a, 1998a, 1999a, b, 2000, see also Stjepanović 1995, 1999) in taking MWF to be an epiphenomenon, decomposable into more familiar whmovement for one wh-phrase, and independently motivated focus movement for the remaining wh-items. Despite his previous arguments to the contrary (see Bošković1996, 1998a), Bošković (1998b, 1999b) provides some evidence that all types of fronting might be analyzable in terms of Attract (property/ies of the target(s)), and not necessarily by an Attract/Move combination. In his earliest attempts to capture multiple wh-fronting, Bošković argued that pure wh-movement takes place to satisfy a property of the target (Attract), while all other wh-phrases move to satisfy their own needs. In 1998b, 1999b, he argues that pure wh-movement is the result of Attract-1-wh, while subsequent wh-fronting is the result of a property of the target that demands that all wh-phrases move for focus reasons (“Attract All Wh,” an extension of Chomsky’s 1995 multiple spec hypothesis). Bošković proposes that wh-movement is subject to the Attract Closest principle, which in the realm of whmovement captures Chomsky’s (1973) Superiority Condition (see Bošković 1998a on that point). By contrast, the Attract-all property responsible for focus-fronting essentially amounts to saying that the attracted elements can move in any random order, provided they all move. What we might call the ‘Selective/Unselective Attraction hypothesis’ provides an elegant account of the superiority/antisuperiority effects in Bulgarian first reported in Bošković (1997a). He observes that although Bulgarian requires the highest wh-phrase to move first, no such requirement is imposed on subsequent wh-frontings. As shown in (3a), when only two wh-phrases are used, superiority holds; kogo must be higher than kak, but when three whphrases are used, the very same wh-phrases, now in the second and third positions, are freely ordered (3c–d). (3) a.

Kogo kak e celunal Ivan? whom how is kissed Ivan ‘Whom did Ivan kiss how?’

[BG]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.4 (242-298)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

b. *Kak kogo e celunal Ivan? how whom is kissed Ivan ‘Whom did Ivan kiss how?’ c. Koj kogo kak e celunal? who whom how is kissed ‘Who kissed whom how?’ d. Koj kak kogo e celunal? who how whom is kissed ‘Who kissed whom how?’ As Bošković (1998a, 1999b) shows, the facts in (3) follow if we assume that the first instance of wh-fronting is a case of wh-movement, subject to superiority/Attract Closest, whereas the subsequent frontings are cases of focus movement. To account for the impenetrability of the wh-sequence in Bulgarian, Bošković proposes that the language uses the same target for wh-, and focus movements (namely, CP). This account works nicely for Bulgarian. For Serbo-Croatian, Superiority effects are subtler, detectable only in several contexts including long-distance whmovement, correlatives/embedded clauses, root clauses with an overt C0 (given in (4)).1 In contexts where superiority effects are absent (root clauses with a null C0 , e.g. (5)), Bošković capitalizes on Bošković (1998b, 2000), and argues that CP is absent, thus tying superiority effects to the presence of C0 . (4) Long-distance questions: a. Ko si koga tvrdio da je istukao? who are whom claim.2.sg that is beaten ‘Who do you claim beat who?’ b. ?*Koga si ko tvrdio da je istukao? whom are who claim.2sg that is beaten Embedded contexts: c. Ko koga voli, taj o njemu i govori. who whom loves, that-one about him even talks ‘Everyone talks about the person they love.’ d. ?*Koga ko voli, taj o njemu/o njemu taj whom who loves, that-one about him /about him that-one i govori. even talks e. Ima ko šta da ti proda. has who what that you sells ‘There is someone who can sell you something.’ f. *Ima šta ko da ti proda. has what who that you sells

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.5 (298-366)

The Wh/Clitic Connection 

Root questions with overt C: g. Ko li šta kupuje? who C what buys ‘Who on earth buys what? h. *šta li ko kupuje? what C who buys (5) Short distance matrix questions with a null C: a. Ko koga voli? who whom loves ‘Who loves whom?’ b. Koga ko voli? whom who loves ‘Who loves whom?” In cases like (5) (when C0 is absent), the target of wh-movement is assumed to be some focus projection F. The latter has an Attract-all property, which allows wh-phrases to move in random order (crucially, it lacks the Attract-1-wh property, confined to C0 ). To account for the separability of wh-phrases in the language, more than one projection must be involved in the case of Serbo-Croatian (moving to the same projection yields the Bulgarian pattern: a wh-cluster). Bošković argues that two AGR-projections can assume the role ‘F’ (see also Stjepanović 1995, 1999). Bošković’s analysis in terms of selective/unselective attraction is consistent with the most recent tenets of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), in particular, with the emphasis on the Attract perspective. Bošković’s account has recently been challenged on empirical grounds. It has indeed been argued that the inseparability of wh-phrases in Bulgarian does not hold in all cases. Since our wh/clitic connection crucially relies on the wh-clustering contrast between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croation, it is important to examine the arguments that have been provided against the syntactic clustering analysis of whphrases in Bulgarian. Rudin (1994), Mišeska-Tomić (1996), Kim (1998), Stateva (1998), Bošković’s (2001) have provided some evidence against Rudin’s original characterization of the contrast in (1). They observe that wh-phrases in Bulgarian can be separated by the arguably second-position clitic li. (6) Koj li kakvo na kogo e dal? who interr.cl. what to whom is given ‘Who gave what to whom, I wonder?’

[BG]

Lambova (1999) furthermore shows that even parentheticals and adverbs of various kinds can intervene, as documented in (7).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.6 (366-414)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

(7) a.

Koj sigurno kakvo e kupil? who probably what aux.pres.3.sg. bought ‘Who has probably bought what?’ b. Koj pravilno kakvo e rešil? who correctly what aux.pres.3p.sg. solved ‘Who has correctly solved what?’ c. Koj prˇuv kogo e udaril? who first whom is hit ‘Who hit whom first?’ d. Koj, kazva´s, kakvo šte donese? who say-pres.2p.sg. what will bring ‘Who, you are saying, will bring what?’

[BG]

With respect to the examples in (7), there seems to be considerable disagreement among native speakers concerning these data. Following the majority of speakers, who do not allow adverbs to intervene between wh-words in Bulgarian, we will treat the data in (7) as highly idiolectal, and disregard them here. (They may reflect that some speakers of Bulgarian have the Serbo-Croatian parameter setting.) The data in (6), which native speakers uniformly judge as grammatical, cannot be so easily dismissed, and as such threaten the connection we are trying to establish since, as we will see below, separability is unavailable for clitics in Bulgarian. Here the connection we are trying to highlight seems to break down. Assuming that not all wh-phrases target the same position in Bulgarian (e.g., projecting a distinct Focus projection immediately below CP, as argued for by Kim (1998), and Stateva (1998)) may account for (6), but would lose the robust superiority facts in (3). This is so because given that, by assumption, all wh-phrases must be focused in the language, hence must at the very least pass through SpecFocP, nothing forces the highest wh-phrase to move first to SpecFocP since Foc0 would have an Attract-all property. Therefore nothing ensures that the wh-phrase attracted by the +wh feature in C will be the highest one. To retain Rudin’s generalization that wh-phrases in Bulgarian are inseparable, we would like to follow Bošković’s (2001) suggestion that li is a focus affix in Bulgarian (unlike in Serbo-Croatian, where it is a complementizer), and as such does not mark the head of a phrase, but attaches to a word. In other words, due to the nature of li as a PF-affix, the li-placement data in (6) are not a conclusive test for the separability of wh-phrases in Bulgarian. The ultimate placement of li is a PFphenomenon, not a structural one. (See Bošković 2001 for arguments in favor of such an analysis.) The focus-marker treatment of li enables us to explain away the facts in (6) and maintain that all wh-phrases must move to the same projection in Bulgarian,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.7 (414-478)

The Wh/Clitic Connection 

but not in Serbo-Croatian (more on which immediately below). Put differently, we need not assume any wh/clitic-connection breakdown. The issue to be addressed at this point is the separability of wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. As noted above, the solution is that more than one projection must be involved for focus in Serbo-Croatian. Bošković (1997b) and Stjepanović (1999) have argued independently that at least two projections are needed to license wh-phrases and account for their separability. Bošković (1998a) claims that the simplest solution is that the two projections involved are AGRs and AGRo, and equates AGRP (split IP) with FocP.2 Here, a parallel could be drawn with many studies which take FocP to be identical to IP (see the papers in Kiss 1995). We therefore see the separability of wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian as a consequence of the split nature of INFL (more precisely, the presence of several AGR projections, each hosting a wh-phrase).3 (On the presence of a FocP at the VP-edge, in addition to one at the CP-edge, see Rizzi 1997; Belletti 1999, and especially Jayaseelan 2001.) Summing up, Bulgarian wh-phrases form a cluster by targeting a unique projection, while in Serbo-Croatian, the possibility exists of targeting distinct, featurally equivalent projections. In Section 4, we will suggest that the difference between Serbo-Croatian (multiple FocPs) and Bulgarian (one FocP) is the result of a macroparameter distinguishing the two languages. The macroparameter we have in mind is Discourse Configurationality. As is well-known, SerboCroatian, but not Bulgarian, has (massive, long-distance) scrambling, a hallmark of discourse-configurationality. We will suggest that the multiplicity of focus projections hosting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian is another way of exhibiting this discourse-configurational character.

. Clitic placement Having established how wh-phrases are licensed in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, we can now turn to clitics, where we will show a situation similar to the one found for wh-phrases. One difference between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian clitics is that in SerboCroatian clitics do not form a cluster in overt syntax, while in Bulgarian, they do.4 This can be shown by means of the ellipsis test by Stjepanović (1998b) in (8a), ´ the VP fronting test by Wilder and Cavar (1997), in (8b), and the possibility of parenthetical insertion between the clitics by Bošković (2001), in (8c). The three of them show that Serbo-Croatian clitics can be split in overt syntax. (8) a.

Mi smo mu ih predstavili, a i vi we are him.dat them.acc introduced and also you

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.8 (478-531)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

ste mu ih.predstavili (takodje) are him.dat them.acc, introduced too ‘We introduced them to him, and you did, too.’ b. Dali ga Mariji su Ivan i Stipe given it.acc Marija.dat are Ivan and Stipe ‘Give it to Marija, Ivan and Stipe did.’ c. ?Oni su, kao ´sto sam vam rekla, predstavili se Petru. they are, as am you told introduced self Petar ‘They, as I told you, introduced themselves to Petar’ Bulgarian fails all of these tests, as shown by Bošković (2001), and illustrated in (9). We take this to mean that clitics in Bulgarian cannot be split in overt syntax: (9) a. ?*Te sa ja celunali, i nie sˇušto sme. they are her kissed and we too are ‘They kissed her, and we did too.’ b. *Celunala go Maria e. kissed him Maria is ‘Maria kissed him.’ c. *Te sa, kakto ti kazax, predstavili go na Peter. they are, as you I-told introduced him to Peter ‘They, as I told you, introduced him to Peter.’ Having shown the separability of clitics in Serbo-Croatian, we now turn to their locations. As far as auxiliary clitics are concerned, Stjepanović (1998a) and Bošković (2001) argue that they occur in AgrS in overt syntax in Serbo-Croatian, based on the following facts: (10) Oni su navodno istukli Petra. they are allegedly beaten Petar ‘They allegedly beat Peter.’ In (10), the auxiliary clitic su ‘are’ precedes the sentential adverb navodno ‘allegedly’. As shown by Watanabe (1993) and Bošković (1995, 1997b), sentential adverbs are adjoined to TP. This means that the clitic auxiliary in (10) precedes TP. Stjepanović (1998a) and Bošković (1995, 1997b) take the auxiliary to be in AgrS, where it moves in overt syntax. As far as pronominal clitics are concerned, based on the ellipsis facts in (11), Stjepanović concludes that they are base-generated as arguments of the verb within its VP, and that they move overtly out of VP to AgrIO and AgrDO (which accounts for why the dative clitic mu can survive VP-ellipsis of a portion of the clause containing the accusative clitic ga).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.9 (531-591)

The Wh/Clitic Connection 

(11) Oni su mu ga predstavili, a vi mu niste. they are him.dat him.acc introduced and you him.dat aren’t ‘They introduced him to him, but you didn’t.’ Bošković (2001) also comes to a similar conclusion with respect to pronominal clitics based on the following data with adverb placement: (12) Oni su joj pravilno odgovorili. they are her correctly answered ‘*They did the right thing in answering her.’ ‘They gave Milena a correct answer.’ In (12), the pronominal clitic joj precedes the adverb pravilno ‘correctly’. This adverb is normally ambiguous between a sentential and manner reading. Note, however, that in (12), where a pronominal clitic precedes it, the adverb cannot have a sentential reading. It only has a manner reading. Now, as mentioned above, on the sentential reading, the adverb is adjoined to TP. Manner adverbs, however, are standardly assumed to be adjoined to VP. Based on this, Bošković concludes that pronominal clitics in Serbo-Croatian occur in a functional projection lower than TP, but higher than VP, i.e. in AgrOPs. So, Serbo-Croatian clitics are located in AgrPs in overt syntax. Such a state of affairs, however, appears to be untenable if we are right in Section 2 that that wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian occupy AgrPs in overt syntax and that AgrPs can be equated with FocPs. Clitics being topics, i.e., the opposite of focused phrases, would not be expected to occupy the same projection in which focused phrases (in this case wh-phrases) are licensed. At the moment, we just note that problem, for which a solution will be offered in Section 4. As far as Bulgarian clitics are concerned, we have seen in (9) that they must form a cluster in overt syntax. Thus, clitics in Bulgarian pattern like wh-phrases in forming a syntactic cluster.

. Accounting for the Wh/Clitic-Connection Having spelled-out our assumptions about clitics and wh-phrases, we are now ready to account for the nature of wh/clitic-connection. We would like to propose that the parallelism in the behavior of wh-phrases and clitics exhibited in both languages is caused by both wh-phrases and clitics occupying the same type of projection in syntax. The difference between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian is that SC allows multiple such phrases, while Bulgarian does not. As discussed above, both clitics and wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian are licensed in AgrP. The licensor of wh-phrases is focus. Clitics, however, seem to have con-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.10 (591-657)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

flicting properties with wh-phrases in this respect, i.e., they are old information. The question is how they can coexist in the same projections in which focused elements are licensed. To resolve this problem, we suggest that in SC AgrP is not strictly a Focus Phrase but a discourse related projection capable of hosting both focus and topic elements irrespective of their conflicting nature. It is not strange to assume that wh-phrases are licensed in discourse related projections. Many researchers have made this claim (see the papers in Kiss 1995). Also, the idea that clitics are licensed in a discourse-related phrase has already been put forward by Uriagereka (1995a, b) on independent grounds. Uriagereka argues that clitics in Western Romance are hosted by a specific functional projection called FP. The term FP is rather unfortunate, because FP is often used in the literature to identify ‘some’ projection which seems to be needed, but for which we do not have any name yet. Uriagereka’s FP is very different:5 It is a specific functional projection, related to concepts like theme and rheme (discourse properties in general; in his terms, “point of view”). To the extent that our wh/clitic-connection is genuine, it lands credence to Uriagereka’s theory of clitic-licensing. How about Bulgarian? Recall that in Bulgarian, neither wh-phrases nor clitics are separable. If, just like in SC, both types of elements occupy the same projection, we will be able to account for the wh/clitic connection in Bulgarian. In SC, we provided evidence that both wh-phrases and clitics occupy AgrP (or rather, multiple AgrPs), and have proposed that in SC AgrP is discourse related. In Bulgarian, many researchers have argued that clitics also occupy AgrP (Rudin 1997; Rudin et al. 1999, among others). Given our proposal, which tries to account for the wh/clitic connection, in terms of both of these types of elements occupying the same discourse projection, then wh-phrases in Bulgarian should also occupy AgrP. Unlike SC, however, the AgrP in Bulgarian crucially cannot be split.6 The question is what brings about the difference between SC and Bulgarian with respect to the possibility of having a split AgrP? We would like to relate this difference between the two languages to the fact that SC is a strongly discourse configurational language, while Bulgarian is not (discourse relatedness would thus entail multiplicity of discourse related projections). The split/unsplit Infl parameter has been argued on independent grounds (having to do not with discourse configurationality, but morphology) by Bobaljik and Thrainsoon (1998); so we take it to be an option of Universal Grammar. Much like Bobaljik and Thrainsson argue that their split/unsplit Infl parameter cuts across morphology, we would like to propose that the split/unsplit Infl parameter can also cut across discourse configurationality. Thus, as already noted above, the number of discourse-related phrases differentiating Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian is the manifestation of a macroparameter. We consider it an advantage of our analysis that we have been able to reduce the wh/clitic connection to a larger manifestation, in accordance with the Principles-and-Parameters approach to cross-linguistic variation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.11 (657-705)

The Wh/Clitic Connection

The final point we would like to make is that the wh/clitic-connection as analyzed in this paper bears on the issue of Attract vs. Move (i.e., where the driving force of movement should be located). If Move (the original notion of Greed defended in Chomsky 1993) were correct; that is, if elements moved to satisfy their own needs, we would expect clitics and wh-phrases to target different landing sites,7 given their different nature. In other words, from a Move perspective, the wh/clitic-connection understood in terms of a common landing site, would be entirely unexpected. With the notion Attract/Suicidal Greed, it becomes possible to establish a landing-site-based connection between clitics and wh-phrases. All we have to do is assume the existence of a discourse-related phrase whose head is capable of attracting elements with conflicting needs.

. Conclusion This paper has tried to provide an explanation for the puzzling symmetry of behavior of clitics and wh-words in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. Armed with adequate licensing mechanisms for both clitics and wh-phrases, we accounted for the wh/clitic connection in terms of their occupying the same discourse related projections, which are split in Serbo-Croatian, but not in Bulgarian, hence the separability of wh-phrases and clitics in the former language, but not in the latter. We suggested that the discourse-configurational character of Serbo-Croatian might be the determining factor for the multiplicity of discourse-related positions.8 It goes without saying that we have not tried to deny all the (all too obvious) differences between clitics and wh-phrases by establishing a wh/clitic-connection. What we have tried to do is relate those elements with conflicting demands in terms of licensing, which allowed us to reach interesting theoretical conclusions like the licensing of clitics in FP, in Uriagereka’s (1995a, b) terms, the superiority of the Suicidal Greed/Attract conception of movement, and the correctness of the macroparametric view of cross-linguistic variation. The idea behind the Wh/Cliticconnection is that there are highly abstract properties uniting disparate elements, differences among which (locality, say) result from independent factors (e.g., XPvs. X0 –movement).

Notes * We would like to thank the editors of this volume for their interest in the present contribution, an anonymous reviewer for thorough commentary, and especially željko Bošković for constant inspiration and encouragement.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.12 (705-769)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović . Bošković (1996, 1997a, 1998a) avoids giving indirect questions as examples of embedded questions because such questions involve an interfering factor. As Bošković notes, indirect questions formally do not differ at all from matrix questions in Serbo-Croatian. As a result, there is always a danger that they might be analyzed as matrix questions, with the superficial matrix clause treated as an adsentential. Instead, Bošković gives examples of correlative and existential constructions which, as shown by Izvorski (1996, 1998), also contain embedded questions. Bošković (1997a) does show that when this interfering factor in indirect questions is controlled for, true indirect questions in SC also exhibit Superiority effects. . In work in progress, we examine the idea that the number of focus-related projections is not an accident, and that they correspond rather closely to Chomsky’s 2000 notion of phase. Thus, we would like to claim that AGRs and AGRo in Serbo-Croatian must be reanalyzed as the edges of the CP and VP phases, respectively. . The Split Agr hypothesis does not prevent all wh-phrases from forming a cluster in overt syntax, as in (i): (i)

šta kome Marija daje? what whom Marija gives ‘What is Marija giving to whom?’

In this case we assume that the topmost AGRP in Serbo-Croatian acts as an Attract-All Projection, i.e., in this case, the topmost AGRP should be seen as equivalent to Richards’s (1997) Agr∀P. . As discussed in Bošković 2001, Serbo-Croatian clitics must also form a group at PF. But this can be achieved without having the clitics form a group in the syntax. . The term ‘FP’ was introduced in Uriagereka (1988), with the idea of ‘Further’ (Projection), at the time when Pollock was advocating the existence of AGRsP. . Under Bošković’s analysis of multiple wh-fronting that we adopted here, we have to assume that Agr in Bulgarian is assigned Attract-one wh-feature, as well as Attract-All Focus feature. . Or, at least, we would not expect them to move to a common projection. . For extensive discussion of the discourse-configurational character of Serbo-Croatian, see Stjepanović (1999).

References Belletti, A. 1999. “Inversion as focalization.” Ms., University of Siena. Bobaljik, J., and H. Thráinsson. 1998. “Two heads aren’t always better than one.” Syntax 1: 37–71. Bošković, Ž. 1995. Principles of Economy in Non-Finite Complementation. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Bošković, Ž. 1996. “Fronting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 1996. The Indiana Meeting, S. Franks and M. Lindseth (eds), 86–107. Ann Arbor MI.: Slavic Publications.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.13 (769-873)

The Wh/Clitic Connection

Bošković, Ž. 1997a. “Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian.” Lingua 102: 1–20. Bošković, Ž. 1997b. The Syntax of Non-Finite Complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. 1998a. “Multiple wh-fronting and economy of derivation.” In Proceedings of the 16th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, E. Curtis, J. Lyle and G. Webster (eds), 49–63. Stanford CA: CSLI. Bošković, Ž. 1998b. “LF-movement and the minimalist program.” In Proceedings of NELS 28, P. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, 43–57. Amherst MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Bošković, Ž. 1999a. “What is special about multiple wh-fronting.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Bošković, Ž. 1999b. “On multiple feature checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple headmovement.” In Working Minimalism, S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds), 159–187. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. 2000. “Sometimes in situ, sometimes in SpecCP.” In, Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 53–87. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. 2001. On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. London: Elsevier. Brown, S. 1999. Negative concord and Attract-All. Ms., Harvard University. Chomsky, N. 1973. “Conditions on transformations.” In A festshrift for Morris Halle, S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New-York NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Chomsky, N. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory.” In The view from Building 20, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. (Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, N. Chomsky, 167–217. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1995.) Chomsky, N. 1995. “Categories and transformations.” In The Minimalist Program, N. Chomsky, 219–394. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Izvorski, R. 1996. “The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms.” In Proceedings of NELS 26, K. Kusumoto (ed.), 133–147. Amherst MA: GLSA, University of Masssachusetts. Izvorski, R. 1998. “Non-indicative wh-complements of possessive and existential constructions.” In Proceedings of NELS 28, P. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, 159–173. Amherst: GLSA, University of Masssachusetts. Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. “IP-internal topic and focus phrases.” Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75. Kidwai, A. 1999. “The topic interpretation in Universal Grammar.” Ms., Jawaharlal Nehru University. Kim, J.-S. 1998. “Superiority effects in multiple wh-fronting.” Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer IN. Kiss, K. E. (ed.). 1995. Discourse-Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambova, M. 1999. “On multiple wh-fronting languages in Slavic: New evidence from Bulgarian.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Mišeska-Tomić, O. 1996. “The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811–872. Richards, N. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD Dissertation, MIT.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2004; 15:55

F: LA7409.tex / p.14 (873-945)

 Cedric Boeckx and Sandra Stjepanović

Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rudin, C. 1988. “On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445–501. Rudin, C. 1994. “On focus position and focus marking in Bulgarian questions.” In Papers from the 4th Annual Meeting of Formal Linguistics of MidAmerica, A. Davison et al. (eds), 252–265. Rudin, C. 1997. “AgrO and Bulgarian pronominal clitics.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting, 1996, M. Lindseth and S. Franks (eds), 224–252. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Rudin, C., C. Kramer, L. Billings, and M. Baerman. 1999. “Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 541–586. Stateva, P. 1998. “On focus features and movement in Bulgarian.” Paper presented at ConSOLE 7, Bergen. Stjepanović, S. 1995. “Short distance movement of wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian matrix clauses.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. (Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer IN, 1998.) Stjepanović, S. 1998a. “VP ellipsis in a verb raising language: Implications for verbal morphology.” In Proceedings of ESCOL 14, T. Austin and A. Lawson (eds), 192–203. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Stjepanović, S. 1998b. “On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: Evidence from VPellipsis. “Linguistic Inquiry 29: 527–537. Stjepanović, S. 1999. What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling and Multiple WHFronting Have in Common? PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Uriagereka, J. 1988. On Government. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Uriagereka, J. 1995a. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123. Uriagereka, J. 1995b. “An F-position in Western Romance.” In Discourse-Configurational Languages, K.E. Kiss (ed.), 153–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watanabe, A. 1993. AGR-based Case theory and its Interaction with the A-Bar System. PhD Dissertation, MIT. ´ Wilder, C., and D. Cavar. 1997. “Verb movement, cliticization, and coordination.” Ms., ZAS Berlin, and University of Hamburg.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.1 (41-107)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms* Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology / University of Chicago

Turkish exhibits two different sets of subject ‘agreement markers’ which show different morphosyntactic behavior from each other. It is argued here that one set of these markers are morphological suffixes while the other set are enclitics. This synchronic analysis is supported by diachronic facts which indicate that the agreement markers analyzed as suffixes have been suffixes throughout the reconstructible history of Turkic, while the agreement markers analyzed as clitics are more recent developments from reduced pronouns. A formal analysis of how these two sets of agreement markers are employed on Turkish verbs is developed within Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG).

Introduction Significant research has been done on the syntax and semantics of tense, mood, and aspect morphology in Turkish (see Sezer 2001 and references therein) but less has been done on the syntax of agreement. However, recent work reveals that Turkish agreement morphology is not as mundane as often assumed (cf. e.g., Orgun 1995; Good & Yu 2000; Öztürk 2001). The present study provides an in-depth investigation on the divergent morphosyntactic behavior of two sets of subject markers in Turkish and is intended to further our understanding of the morphology and syntax of agreement in the language. This paper begins with a presentation of a split in the morphosyntactic behavior of these two sets of subject markers in Section 1. In Section 2, we argue that this split results from that fact that one set of subject markers consists of post-lexical clitics while the other consists of lexical suffixes. In order to support our synchronic analysis, we will present a brief overview of the his-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.2 (107-181)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

torical development of each set of subject markers in Section 3. We will then present an account of verbal subject marking in Turkish in a lexicalist framework, namely Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), in Section 4. Some theoretical assumptions are clarified in Section 5. A discussion of some of the implications of this study is given in Section 6, and a brief conclusion appears in Section 7.

.

Pronominal subject endings in Turkish

The data used in this study is based on judgments of speakers of the Istanbul dialect of Turkish. The form and behavior of subject-marking paradigms can vary across dialects. . The basics Turkish subject pronominal inflectional morphology employs four distinct suffixal paradigms. In this paper, we will concentrate on only two of these paradigms, leaving the imperative and the optative paradigms aside.1 The two paradigms that we will focus on are given in (1).2 (1)

a. 1st 2nd 3rd

k-paradigm singular plural -m -k -n -nIz -Ø -Ø

b.

z-paradigm singular plural -(y)Im -(y)Iz -sIn -sInIz -Ø -Ø

The paradigm in (1a) (henceforth the k-paradigm after its first person plural from) only applies to verbal predicates that end with either the simple past suffix -(y)DI, shown in (2a), or the conditional suffix -(y)sE, shown in (2b). (2) a.

dön-dü-m dön-dü-n dön-dü-k dön-dü-nüz turn-past-psn

b.

dön-se-m dön-se-n dön-se-k dön-se-niz turn-cond-psn

The paradigm in (1b) (henceforth the z-paradigm after its first person plural form) applies to all other predicates, both verbal and non-verbal (with the exception of the optative and imperative predicates mentioned above).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.3 (181-244)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

(3) a. b. c. d.

gid-iyor-uz adam-ız iyi-yiz *git-ti-yiz

‘we are going’ ‘we are men’ ‘we are good ‘we went’

*gid-iyor-k *adam-k *iyi-k git-ti-k

The examples in (3a–c) show the types of predicates the z-paradigm can attach to. The corresponding ungrammatical forms with the k-paradigm endings are shown after each example. Example (3d) demonstrates that z-paradigm endings cannot affix to a verb in the simple past tense – the simple past suffix, like the conditional, can only take a k-paradigm ending. What has been presented so far are the most straightforward differences between the two paradigms. However, there are actually a number of idiosyncrasies in their behavior that demonstrate the existence of a major morphosyntactic distinction between them. We shall examine these in the immediately following sections. . Ending order variation In all the examples above, subject pronominal markers were the final ending on the predicate. This reflects their most common position throughout Turkish grammar. However, Sezer (1998) observes that when the predicate contains two or more tense, mood, and aspect (TMA) markers, k-paradigm endings need not necessarily surface at the end of the predicate. For example, in (4), we show a partial paradigm of the verb görmek ‘to see’, illustrating that ordering variability can occur with k-paradigm personal endings without producing any difference in meaning. Specifically, the k-paradigm endings can appear predicate finally or between the two TMA markers. Such variability is not possible for the z-paradigm endings. (4) a.

gör-dü-yse-m gör-dü-m-se see-past-cond-1sg see-past-1sg-cond ‘If I saw...’ b. gör-dü-yse-n gör-dü-n-se see-past-cond-2sg see-past-2sg-cond ‘If you saw...’ c. gör-dü-yse-k gör-dü-k-se see-past-cond-1pl see-past-1pl-cond ‘If we saw...’ d. gör-dü-yse-niz gör-dü-nüz-se see-past-cond-2pl see-past-2pl-cond ‘If you (plural) saw...’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.4 (244-296)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

Variable ordering of the pronominal endings is not completely unconstrained however. The data in (5) shows that a pronominal ending must surface in verbfinal position when the last two TMA markers employ conflicting pronominal paradigms. In this case, we have a combination of the conditional marker, which licenses only the k-paradigm endings, and the evidential marker, which licenses only the z-paradigm endings. Subject marking must be final, as seen in the grammatical (5a), but not the ungrammatical (5b). (5) a.

oyna -sa -ymı¸s -ız play cond evid 1pl b. *oyna -sa -k -mı¸s play cond 1pl evid ‘We were playing’

Judging from the data so far, one might assume that the reason that (5b) is ill-formed is merely due to the fact that the two TMA markers make use of different pronominal paradigms. However, as the data in (6) illustrates, even when both of the TMA markers are z-paradigm licensers, z-paradigm endings must still surface at the end of the predicate. (6) a.

bul -uyor -sun find prog 2sg ‘You are finding’ b. bul -uyor -mu¸s -sun find prog evid 2sg c. *bul -uyor -sun -mu¸s find prog 2sg evid ‘You are apparently finding’

This inability of the z-paradigm endings to surface between TMA markers suggests that the distinction between the k- and the z-paradigms is more systematic than one might at first assume and goes beyond the relatively superficial differences of phonological shape and preceding TMA suffix. It turns out that these two paradigms differ across a range of linguistic parameters which allows for a more principled explanation than merely attributing such morphological idiosyncrasies to chance. In the remainder of this paper, we will explicate the nature of this bipartite behavior on both synchronic and historical grounds. We will also present a formal account that attempts to succinctly capture the different behavior of each paradigm.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.5 (296-344)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

. Clitics vs. lexical affix-hood of the Turkish subject pronominal endings The difference between the k- and the z-paradigms, as we shall argue, is a matter of their formal status in the lexicon. That is, we claim that the k-paradigm endings are lexical suffixes but the z-paradigm endings are post-lexical clitics. To support this claim, we rely on the diagnostic conditions that were provided in Zwicky and Pullum (1983). Their criteria are reproduced in (7A–F). (7) A. Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems. B. Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. C. Morphological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. D. Semantic idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups. E. Syntactic rules can affect affixed words, but cannot affect clitic groups. F. Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot.

Not all of these conditions can be applied to our data. However, three of the seven do, and each of those three indicates that k-paradigm endings are suffixes and z-paradigm endings are clitics. We have already seen the data that has bearing on (7A). The k-endings only follow two verbal suffixes while the z-endings follow all other verbal suffixes as well as non-verbal predicates. The variable ordering of k-paradigm endings is fairly idiosyncratic in Turkish grammar as it is the only case where subject marking is not at the very end of the sentence. We know of no comparable idiosyncratic behavior for z-endings. So, criterion (7C) also favors our claim. A conjunction reduction process in Turkish, known as suspended affixation, to be illustrated below in Section 2.2, treats verbs plus k-endings as whole constituents whereas it does not treat the combination of verb + z-paradigm ending as a constituent. Thus, also by criterion (7E), k-endings behave like suffixes and z-endings like clitics. . Phonological evidence Zwicky and Pullum also point out that clitics are generally accentually dependent – that is, they are not usually stressed. Default Turkish stress is word-final.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.6 (344-404)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

The one syllabic k-paradigm ending, -nIz ‘2pl’, is stressed when it is wordfinal, whereas z-paradigm endings are never stressed, as exemplified in (8). Thus, word-final k-paradigm endings behave as though they are truly part of the word they suffix to, with respect to stress assignment, while z-paradigm endings do not, taking on an additional common property of clitics. (8) z-paradigm ending unut -aÁcak -sınız forget fut 2pl ‘you will forget’

k-paradigm ending unut -tu -Ánuz forget past 2pl ‘you forgot’

Looking at the data from Turkish in light of the criteria set forth by Zwicky and Pullum is part of the justification of our claim. However, as pointed out by Miller (1992), the most definitive test for clitichood is the ability of the clitic to participate in coordination – that is, the possibility of its having wide scope over a conjunction of hosts. This, as we shall show, is allowed for by the zparadigm endings, but not the k-paradigm endings. . Suspended affixation The evidence for the coordination facts mentioned above can be found in what linguists who work on Turkic languages refer to as suspended affixation (Lewis 1967; Orgun 1995). This is a phenomenon in Turkish where endings are optionally omitted from all conjuncts in a coordinated structure except for the last one. The endings on the last conjunct then have semantic scope over all the conjuncts. Some examples are given in (9). We should be quick to point out that the facts of suspended affixation are much broader than can be adequately discussed and accounted for here. We will only concentrate here on the data that is relevant to the morphosyntactic distribution of the subject pronominal endings. (9) a.

[genç ve büyüˇg ]-üm [young and big]-1sg b. [genç]-im ve [büyüˇg ]-üm [young]-1sg and [big]-1sg ‘I am young and big’ c. [hastane-ye gid-iyor, o-nu gör-üyor]-sunuz [hospital-dat go-prog 3sg-acc see-prog]-2PL d. [hastane-ye gid-iyor]-sunuz, [o-nu gör-üyor]-sunuz [hospital-dat go-prog]-2PL [3sg-acc see-prog]-2PL ‘You all are going to the hospital and seeing him/her.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.7 (404-453)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

The example in (9a) illustrates that the first person singular ending -(y)Im can have semantic scope over both the predicate ‘young’ and the predicate ‘big’. The unsuspended counterpart of (9a) is given in (9b). The first person plural ending -(y)Iz in (9c) has scope over both gidiyor ‘go’ and görüyor ‘see’. The unsuspended version of (9c) is given in (9d). These examples illustrate that suspended affixation can operate for z-paradigm endings in both verbal and non-verbal predicates. The application of this suspended affixation construction, however, is not totally unrestricted. Endings from the k-paradigm are prohibited from participating in the construction, as illustrated in (10). (10) a.

[ev-e gel-ir, sana yardım ed-er]-iz [home-dat come-aor you-dat help do-aor]-1PL ‘We’ll come home and then we’ll help you.’ b. *[ev-e gel-di, sana yardım et-ti]-k [home-dat come-past you-dat help do-past]-1PL ‘We came home and then we helped you.’ c. [[ev-e gel-di-k], [sana yardım et-ti-k]] [[home-dat come-past-1PL] [you-dat help do-past-1PL]] ‘We came home and then we helped you.’

Suspended affixation is observed in (10a) since the subject ending required is from the z-paradigm. The sentence in (10b), on the other hand, is ill-formed since the subject pronominal ending suspended is from the k-paradigm. The kparadigm ending is required there since the simple past tense suffix -(y)DI only takes endings from this paradigm. The well-formed equivalent of (10b) is given in (10c). The fact that suspended affixation is impossible for the k-paradigm endings suggests there is strong lexical affinity of the k-paradigm endings to the simple verbs ending with the past tense suffix -(y)DI, which would be expected of true suffixes. These same basic facts for suspended affixation are true for the conditional suffix -(y)sE, the other suffix taking the k-paradigm. . Conclusion Using primarily atheoretical criteria as our diagnostics, the claim has been made that the k-paradigm endings in Turkish are lexical affixes while the zparadigm endings are post-lexical clitics. Given that the terms affix and clitic are often used in subtly, but importantly, different ways by various theories, it would be worthwhile for us to summarize the basic argument being put forth

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.8 (453-502)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

here in light of potential confusion caused by the different possible senses of these terms. It is clear that k-paradigm endings and z-paradigm endings in Turkish behave systematically different. On the one hand, k-paradigm endings can be stressed, show positional variability (and, thereby, can appear internally in the Turkish verb complex), only appear after two verbal suffixes, and cannot have scope over multiple, conjoined verbs. On the other hand, z-paradigm endings are never stressed, always occur at the right-edge of their host, can appear after verbal suffixes and non-verbal predicates, and can have scope over multiple conjoined verbs. These differences in the two paradigms point to an analysis across phonological, morphological, and syntactic dimensions where the k-paradigm endings should be treated as affixes and the z-paradigm endings as clitics, as the terms have been traditionally understood – that is, where affixes are taken to be morphological entities and clitics are taken to be phonologically-dependent syntactic entities. We do not take this to mean that these two sets of endings will necessarily fall on different sides of the divide between the labels ‘affix’ and ‘clitic’ in every linguistic theory, however. For example, work like that of Halpern (1995: 101) proposes the existence of a category between affixes and clitics – lexical clitics. We are unaware of any data from Turkish which indicates the existence of such morphemes in the language. So, we have not addressed the possibility that either the k-paradigm or z-paradigm endings in Turkish are of this class. It is not inconceivable that another researcher would want to use the label ‘lexical clitic’ for either the k- or z-paradigm endings. However, no matter what formal theory one chooses to adopt, all the data uncovered so far unambiguously shows a two-way split where k-paradigm endings are basically ‘affixal’ and z-paradigm endings are basically ‘clitic-like’. We take this to mean that the most straightforward analysis of the split between the two paradigms is one where the k-paradigm endings are treated as morphological elements and the z-paradigm endings are treated as syntactic elements, and this will be clearly reflected in our formal analysis in Section 4. Furthermore, because the data demonstrates such a ‘clean’ split in the behavior of the two paradigms, we suspect any successful analysis of the Turkish facts seen here will have to make use of some sort of morphology/syntax distinction along the lines of the one we make here.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.9 (502-558)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

. Historical perspective So far, we have seen ample synchronic evidence that points to a morphological dichotomy between the k- and the z-paradigms. In this section, we shall further examine this clitic vs. suffix distinction by discussing the apparent historical origin of these two paradigms. Old Turkic, the oldest attested Turkic language, did not have suffixing subject agreement markers. Sentences with pronominal subjects were formed by putting a pronoun at the end of the predicate, as seen in (11a) and (11b). The contrasting example in (11c) does not have a pronominal subject. (11) a.

kel-ür ben come-aor 1PL ‘I’m coming.’ b. sen kisi sen 2sg man 2PL ‘You are a man.’ c. altun sari gold yellow ‘Gold is yellow.’

(Adamović 1985: 27)

Cliticized forms of the predicate-final pronouns appear in thirteenth century texts. A typical paradigm from that period is given in (12). As can be seen in (12), third-person subjects did not make use of cliticized pronouns. Rather they used a different morphological suffix, which did not develop into a subject-marking suffix. (12) Singular (ben) bay-van ‘I am rich.’ (Adamović 1985: 27) (sen) bay-sin ‘You are rich.’ (ol) bay-durur ‘He/she/it is rich.’ Plural (biz) bay-uz ‘We are rich.’ (siz) bay-siz ‘You (PL) are rich.’ (anlar) bay-durur(lar) ‘They are rich.’

After several sound changes and morphological shifts, the cliticized versions of the pronouns seen in Old Turkic evolved into the z-paradigm in Modern Turkish. Although the historical development of the z-paradigm is rather transparent, the historical origin of the k-paradigm is still somewhat obscure. Shaw (1877) points out that the Old Turkic preterite was formed via the possessive construction as in (13).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.10 (558-629)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

(13) qil-d-um do-nom-1sg.poss ‘My action of doing (exists)’

(Adamović 1985: 184)

The morpheme -d- in (13) serves as a nominalizing suffix while the -um suffix is the first person singular possessive suffix. According to Adamović (1985), a reference in Ka¸sgarli (1939: 60–63) mentions that the preterite was in mutually exchangeable relations with the periphrastic formed by the deverbal nominal suffix -duq/-dük in Oghus, Suwar and probably Kipchak in the eleventh century, giving us further insight into the nominal nature of the preterite form. This is exemplified in (14). ben baq-duq ∼ baq-d-um 1sg look-nom look-nom-1sg.poss b. sen baq-duq ∼ baq-d-u] 2sg look-nom look-nom-2sg.poss c. ol baq-duq ∼ baq-d-i 3sg look-nom look-nom-3sg.poss d. biz baq-duq ∼ baq-d-umuz 1pl look-nom look-nom-1pl.poss e. siz baq-duq ∼ baq-d-u]uz 2pl look-nom look-nom-2pl.poss f. anlar baq-duq ∼ baq-d-iler 3sg look-nom look-nom-3pl.poss

(14) a.

(Adamović 1985: 185)

The -dV- found in the possessed forms in (14) appears to have been later reanalyzed as a past tense marker and the former possessive suffixes of the non-periphrastic preterite construction were treated as the subject-marking suffixes for predicates that ended in the new past tense morpheme. This change is schematized in (15).3 (15)

Before reinterpretation a. baq-d-um look-nom-1sg.poss b. baq-d-u] look-nom-2sg.poss c. baq-d-i look-nom-3sg.poss d. baq-d-umuz look-nom-1pl.poss e. baq-d-u]uz look-nom-2pl.poss

After reinterpretation > baq-du-m look-past-1sg > baq-du-] look-past-2sg > baq-di-Ø look-past-3sg > baq-du-muz look-past-1pl > baq-du-]uz look-past-2pl

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.11 (629-690)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

f. baq-d-iler look-nom-3pl.poss

> baq-di-ler look-past-3pl

Assuming the historical development of the k-paradigm from the preterite is valid, the application of the k-paradigm to the predicates marked with the conditional -(y)sE appears to be a case of analogical extension at a later stage in Turkic. This leveling would presumably have been motivated by the fact that the conditional suffix, like the past suffix, ends in a vowel. What this historical scenario illustrates is that the k-paradigm endings appear to never have been independent lexical items at any stage of the traceable history of the Turkish language, as opposed to the z-paradigm endings, which originate from full independent words that were reduced, in several stages. This separate historical development offers an account of why the split of the kparadigm endings as suffixes and the z-paradigm endings as clitics exists in today’s language. While we now understand the origins of the two paradigms, we have yet to understand how variable affix ordering developed for endings in the kparadigm, which is of potential interest since it is one of the more idiosyncratic properties of that paradigm. To understand the most likely historical source of this variable ordering, it is useful to look at certain periphrastic tense constructions in Turkish which we exemplify using the pluperfect in (16). Historically, the pluperfect tense was formed by the past tense of a verb followed by the past tense of the verb i ‘to be’, and this construction is still available today. As illustrated in (16), such periphrastic constructions allow the personal endings to be marked on either the matrix verb or the verb ‘to be’. (The third-person plural forms seen in (16f) and (17f) make use of the plural suffix, as opposed to a true person suffix. We discuss the ordering properties of this suffix in Modern Turkish Section 4.4.) (16) Two possible ways of realizing the periphrastic pluperfect (Lewis 1953: 92) a. git-ti i-di-m git-ti-m i-di ‘I had gone’ b. git-ti i-di-n git-ti-n i-di ‘You had gone’ c. git-ti i-di-Ø git-ti-Ø i-di ‘He had gone’ d. git-ti i-di-k git-ti-k i-di ‘We had gone’ e. git-ti i-di-niz git-ti-niz i-di ‘You had gone’ f. git-ti i-di-ler git-ti-ler i-di ‘They had gone’

The person-marking variation in (16) is presumably attributable to several factors. First, both the main verb and the i auxiliary verb end in a k-paradigm taking suffix. So, there is no conflict in realizing the k-paradigm affixes on

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.12 (690-753)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

either verb with respect to morphological subcategorization. The past-tense form of the matrix verb, also, exists independently as a possible inflected past tense verb in the language. Thus, all of the person-marked verbs in (16) would be found elsewhere in the language. Moreover, as Haiman (1977) observed for Turkish, the null third-person marker creates an ambiguous context where the marker could be interpreted as either marked on the first or the second verb for instances of the construction, like those in (16c), with third-person subjects. In accordance with Watkins’ Law (Haiman 1977), such ambiguity could have contributed to the rise of the variability in the forms where subject marking on the verb is overt. The Turkish verb forms with multiple TMA suffixes taking k-paradigm endings resulted from the reduction of the auxiliary verb i seen in (16). To explain the affix ordering variability in forms like those in (4), then, we simply need to assume that this reduction was not accompanied by a loss in the multiple possibilities for the position of person marking. Thus, forms like those given in (17) can be understood as the expected development from the reduction of the auxiliary seen in the forms in (16). (17) Grammaticalized pluperfect formation (Lewis 1953: 92) a. git-ti-ydi-m git-ti-m-di ‘I had gone’ b. git-ti-ydi-n git-ti-n-di ‘You had gone’ c. git-ti-ydi-Ø git-ti-Ø -ydi ‘He had gone’ d. git-ti-ydi-k git-ti-k-ti ‘We had gone’ e. git-ti-ydi-niz git-ti-niz-di ‘You had gone’ f. git-ti-ydi-ler git-ti-ler-di ‘They had gone’

Essentially the same scenario can account for ordering variability involving the conditional suffix, which also historically entered into periphrastic verb construction with the verb i ‘to be’.

. Analysis In the remainder of this paper, we will briefly sketch out a formal account of the data. However, before we move into the discussion, we shall review the generalizations that we intend to capture in formal terms. They are summarized in (18). (18) i.

Stress assignment: unlike k-paradigm endings, z-paradigm endings cannot receive stress.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.13 (753-793)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

ii. Morphological selectivity: k-paradigm endings can only suffix to verbal predicates of certain TMA categories while z-paradigm endings can also suffix to non-verbal predicates. iii. Variable ordering: z-paradigm endings can only occur word-finally while k-paradigm endings can also occur word-internally without a change in meaning. iv. Wide scope in coordination: z-paradigm endings can have wide scope over more than one conjunct in coordination, while k-paradigm endings cannot.

We will use the lexicalist framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) in formalizing the data. We follow the conventions of Sag and Wasow (2000) when defining syntactic constructions and adapt ideas found in Koenig (1999) when defining morphological ones. . Morphological realization of the k-paradigm endings The critical elements we adopt from Koenig (1999) are online morphological type constructions (1999: 51–83) and complex morphological signs (1999: 88– 134). We diverge from certain formal details found in Koenig (1999) in the interests of exposition. The tree in (19) illustrates the hierarchy of the lexical types we will need to assume for Turkish in our analysis. (19)

verb-stem

finite

lexeme

verb

TMA-suffix

non-finite k-TMA

clitic-pro(noun) subj(ect)-suffix

z-TMA

The type hierarchy in (15) states the existence of five different major types of lexemes which will be used in the analysis: verb-stem, verb, TMA-suffix, cliticpro, and subj-suffix. These lexeme types are roughly analogous to the traditional idea of part of speech. However, Koenig’s framework allows for a much more richly articulated set of lexical categories than simply using the traditional categories of noun, verb, etc. The five major types of lexemes posited in (19) are not

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.14 (793-841)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

intended to be exhaustive for Turkish. They simply represent the types which will be referred to in the analysis to be presented below. The first of the five types is verb-stem. This is simply the class of lexical items in Turkish which can take verbal TMA suffixes. It includes both verb roots (which can serve as verb stems on their own) and verb roots which have been suffixed with various derivational morphemes. The TMA suffixes which can attach to verb-stems are of the type TMA-suffix, and this type is subdivided into k-TMA suffixes (which take k-paradigm endings) and z-TMA suffixes (which take z-paradigm endings). A third type of lexeme is the verb. We will formalize lexemes of this type as consisting of a verb-stem with one or more TMA suffixes attached to it as in (20). The final two types of lexemes are the subject markers, of which there are two types: the clitic z-paradigm markers (clitic-pro) and the suffixal k-paradigm markers (subj-suffix) (both of which are discussed in more detail below). (20)

verb 

ë 2 Å 1ë -

µ- -- ë

ë

TMA-suffix ë 1

ë

verb-stem | verb ë  2

ë

ëë

As mentioned above, the matrix in (20) represents the morphological construction for the type verb. The basic intuition behind (20) is that a verb in Turkish consists of a verb stem plus at least one verbal TMA suffix. (The only instance where verb stems can surface without some suffix in Turkish is the second person singular imperative which we take to require a separate, unformalized construction.) There are several dimensions to the formalization in (20) worth pointing out in more detail. First, it states that a lexeme of type verb has a morphological structure (µ-STRUC in (20)) consisting of a verb or a verb-stem to which a lexeme of the type TMA-suffix is attached. The TMA-suffix is viewed as the head of this morphological construction since it is what determines the overall morphosyntactic behavior of the verb (for example, whether it is a k-paradigmtaking or a z-paradigm-taking verb). The morphological constituent the TMAsuffix attaches to is taken to be a morphological daughter in the construction. Such a formalization can be understood as corresponding to the idea that the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.15 (841-879)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

TMA-suffix subcategorizes for its host. The TMA-suffix is specified as allowing its daughter to be either of type verb-stem or of type verb (the “|” symbol is used to represent the logical operator “or”). This straightforwardly allows multiple suffixes to appear on the same verb, which is seen in, for example, the data in (4) and (5a). (In (21) the structure of a verb with multiple verbal suffixes is elaborated.) The first TMA suffix attaches to an element of type verb-stem to create an element of type verb which itself can then appear with further TMA suffixes. Another important aspect of the formalization in (20) further relates to the fact that the complex morphological structure is specified as being of type verb. While the category of verb-stem is a purely morphological category, the category of verb is taken to be both morphological and syntactic. This will be important in later discussion. We should make it clear, at this point, however, that, just because some constituent is of type verb, this does not necessarily mean it can be a surfacing syntactic constituent – the syntax might impose requirements on verbs beyond simple lexical category specification. The final aspect of (20) which needs to be discussed is the PHON attribute. This is a formalization of the phonological realization of the construction. Specifically, it states that the phonology of the morphologically complex constituent consists of the phonology of the verb or verb stem (represented by the boxed “2”) concatenated with the phonology of the suffix (represented by the boxed “1”). This aspect of (20) simply reflects the fact that elements of type TMA-suffix are phonologically suffixing. Since the label for the category of TMA-suffix is simply a mnemonic for its actual use, the fact that it is suffixing needs to be explicitly formalized. An example of the application of (20) is given in (21) which is based on the stem of the verb gördüysem ‘If I saw’, seen in (4a). This example does not include the subject marking since that is taken care of by constructions developed below in (22) and (23). The construction in (20) is instantiated twice in (21) since the verb contains two affixes of the type TMA-suffix – for this particular verb the particular TMA-suffixes are both k-TMA suffixes. The construction in (20) states that the head of the morphological construction must be of some element of the general type TMA-suffix. So, for any one particular instantiation of the construction, the head will be either one of the two subtypes of TMA suffixes, a k-TMA or a z-TMA suffix.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.16 (879-924)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

(21)

verb 

ë4 Å 1ë -

ë 1 ëyse ‘’ë ë verb 

µ-

ë

k-TMA

4 ë 3 Å 2ë -

-

µ-

ë

ë

-ë

k-TMA ë 2 ëdü ‘ë’ ë verb-stem ë 3 ëgör ‘’ë ë ë ë ë ë

In (21) we see that the verb gördüysem is formalized at the top level as an instantiation of (20) with its two morphological components being the daughter verb gördü and the verbal suffix yse. Furthermore, the daughter verb gördü is itself an embedded instantiation of (20) with morphological components consisting of the verb stem gör and the verbal suffix dü. Returning to the type hierarchy in (19), it further defines two types of verbs, finite and non-finite. The former are verbs which take k-paradigm endings, and, therefore, show morphological subject markers. The latter are those verbs which take the z-paradigm clitic endings. Since z-paradigm endings are taken, here, to be added in the syntax, these verbs have been labeled non-finite to indicate that, morphologically, they do not take subject markers. Whether a verb is of lexical type finite or non-finite is determined by its outermost verbal suffix. Within the present formalization, this is the suffix added by the outermost instantiation of the construction in (20) in forming a particular verb. For example, the outermost instantiation of the construction defined in (20) for the verb formalized in (21) is the one where the k-TMA suffix yse is added to the verb, making it finite. We formalize this aspect of the analysis with the two constructions given in (22). The construction in (22a) simply states that any morphological constituent whose head is of type k-TMA (a kparadigm-taking suffix) will be of type finite. The construction in (22b) states that any constituent ending in a z-TMA (a z-paradigm-taking suffix) will be of type non-finite. In addition, (22b) stipulates that a z-TMA suffix must have as its morphological daughter a verb or verb stem which has an unfilled SUBJ element (indicated by the empty square brackets within the angled brackets) – that is, it can only suffix to verbs which are not already specified for the subject. We will see shortly why this is necessary for the broader analysis.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.17 (924-960)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms

(22) a.

finite - ë

µ- ë

b.

ëk-TMAë ë

ë

non-finite

á



á -

z-TMA ë ë

µ- ë

verb-stem | verb

-- ë

á

ë 

á ë ëë

We further give the construction in (23) in order to formalize the fact that finite verbs (that is, those that end in a k-paradigm-taking suffix) can be marked for subject agreement. (23)

finite 

ë1 Å 2ë

 finite -

ë

µ-

ë

 1

-- ë

3

3

ë

subj-suffix ë 2

ë ëë

The construction in (23) has both important morphological and syntactic dimensions. Morphologically, it says that finite verbs can have an element of type subj-suffix (a suffix from the k-paradigm) as a daughter. Syntactically, the construction says that an element of type subj-suffix can fill a verb’s SUBJ slot – that is, it can act as the subject of the verb. When this is the case, the SUBJ slot of the verb becomes empty (as indicated by the empty angle brackets at the top of the construction). The addition of a subj-suffix to a finite verb is not taken to affect the morphological category of a verb. Thus, the constituent defined by the construction in (23) is still of type finite. This is important for the analysis, given data like that in (4), since it means that nothing prevents the addition of another kTMA marker on a verb which already shows subject agreement. The fact that this construction causes the SUBJ slot of the verb to be filled, however, means that, once it is instantiated, no z-TMA marker can attach to the verb because, as seen in (22b), these suffixes are stipulated as only appearing on verbs or



JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.18 (960-1019)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

verb stems where the SUBJ slot is not filled. This makes this analysis consistent with facts reported in Good and Yu (1999). It is also consistent with the ungrammaticality of the verb in (5b). To complete the analysis, we will need to ensure that one additional requirement is met for verbs of type finite. Morphologically, they can be allowed to have a non-filled subject (i.e. SUBJ) slot – this is, of course, necessary in order for them to be constructed in the first place, via a series of multiple suffixations, only one of which can actually add a subject suffix. However, the construction in (23) must be instantiated at some point in the construction of a verb of type finite in order for it to be syntactically well-formed. This will force (sometimes null) subject agreement to be found on finite verbs before they enter into any syntactic constructions. We take this restriction to be one which the syntax, but not the morphology, imposes on verbs of type finite. Verbs of type finite are both possible morphological and syntactic constituents, but nothing prevents the morphology and the syntax from each putting different stipulations on their form. In addition to capturing the basic morphosyntactic facts of verbs marked with k-paradigm endings, this formulation of the nature of the subject agreement found on them has two important other consequences. First, it prohibits the possibility that these endings could participate in suspended affixation, discussed in Section 2.2, since it implies that every finite verb will appear with subject agreement before it can enter into any phrasal construction, making it impossible for the subject suffix of one verb to also have scope over another verb requiring a subject suffix. Thus, (23) correctly formalizes the data seen in (10b). Second, by formalizing elements of type subj-suffix (i.e., k-paradigm endings) as fully morphologically integrated into their verbs, this analysis correctly predicts they should take stress when they are the word-final syllable, following the general pattern of word-final stress in Turkish. . Syntactic realization of the z-paradigm Regarding the treatment for the z-paradigm endings, recall that we take the data we have found to indicate that z-paradigm endings are realized phrasally. To formalize this, we propose to treat the z-enclitics as independent signs that are combined with verbal or non-verbal predicates through mechanisms in the syntax. The signs that characterize the z-enclitics are taken to be exemplified by (19), which gives the specific features of the first person plural z-paradigm ending -(y)Iz. This pronominal enclitic sign has three crucial specifications: Its phonological form, its person features, and its number feature.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.19 (1019-1048)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

At this point in the analysis, we are dealing with syntactic, not morphological, generalizations. Therefore, our formal conventions, though largely the same as above, are taken not from Koenig (1999), but, rather, are adapted from Sag and Wasow (2000). The two works can be straightforwardly used together as they are formal treatments of different aspects of grammar (morphology and syntax, respectively) within comparable lexicalist models. (24)

clitic-pro 

(y)Iz ë ë





ë

ë

 ë



1

ë pl ë ë ë ë

Not formalized here is the fact the elements of the type clitic-pro cannot be phonologically stressed. Doing so would require working out formal details of phonological representations in Turkish which are outside the scope of this paper. The construction below in (25) will formalize the fact that the clitic follows the verb. The terms SYNSEM and HEAD in (24) have particular interpretations within HPSG. Here, all that is critical about them is the fact that person and number information is stored within them as part of the feature AGR (agreement). A sign like the one in (24) can combine with any predicate that requires a subject – thus, it can apply to verbs which are of type non-finite. In order to demonstrate how such a combination works, it is necessary to formalize how a given predicate can specify restrictions on its subject in the syntax. Recall that the construction in (23) specifies how certain predicates can fulfill their subject requirements morphologically. In (25) we give a construction which states restrictions on how non-finite predicates can fulfill their subject requirements syntactically. (25)

phrase 

ë2 Å 3ë

 non-finite-pred -

-- ë

 2 ë 1 ë clitic-pro 1 ë 3 ë ë

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.20 (1048-1091)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

The constraint in (20) states that the SUBJ value (i.e. subject) of a phrase headed by an element of type non-finite-pred(icate) must be of type cliticpro(noun). In addition, it states that the phonology of the clitic pronoun will appear after the phonology of the non-finite predicate. The type non-finite-pred does not appear in the type hierarchy in (19) because it is not a morphological type. Rather, it is a syntactic type which we define as a phrase with a word of type non-finite as its head. In the context of this paper, we are mostly concerned with non-finite predicates headed by verbs taking z-paradigm endings. However, such predicates would also need to include those headed by predicate nominals and predicate adjectives, as indicated by the data in (3), where z-paradigm endings are seen to attach to each of those two types. An important, and potentially controversial aspect, of the analysis encoded by (20) is that the clitic pronouns in Turkish sentences are taken to be the true syntactic subjects, while the NP’s identified as subjects in the traditional ‘SOV’ descriptions of the Turkish sentences are merely NP’s which are coreferential with the subject – we will come back to this issue in section 6. With (25) in mind, we can now understand how the unification of a predicate and a subject pronominal enclitic works. To illustrate this we give the partially specified structure in (26) where the predicate is a non-finite verb phrase taking a clitic pronoun subject. (26) Analysis of okula gidiyoruz ‘we are going to school’. okula gidiyoruz ‘we are going to school’  ë okula gidiyor ‘going to school’  1 ë

2 okul-a ‘school-’

2 ë -uz 1pl 1 [clitic-pro]

2 ë gid-iyor ‘go-’  1 ë

2 ë

Starting from the top node in (26), the left branch of this tree is the sign for the verb phrase ‘going to school’. Crucially, its SUBJ list is not empty, which means that, to construct a full sentence, the element on the SUBJ list must be matched by an element of the type it specifies for – this must be an element of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.21 (1091-1153)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

type clitic-pro via the construction given in (25) – which will result in the SUBJ requirement of the verb phrase being fulfilled. Less formally, we can restate this by saying that the verb phrase okula gidiyor requires a clitic pronoun subject. The right branch of (26) is the sign for the first person plural pronominal clitic. As this sign combines with the okula gidiyor sign, the resulting sign, the top node of the tree, has both an empty SUBJ list and an empty complement (COMPS) list, which means it is a legitimate sentential sign. Again, less formally, we can restate this idea as: At the level of the sentence, all of the verb’s arguments must be specified. Finally, we have also drawn out the structure of the verb phrase okula gidiyor in (26). However, its internal shape is not critical here. The analysis exemplified by (26) that we posit for the z-paradigm clitics can directly account for the suspended affixation facts seen in (9) and (10). Recall that the z-endings are capable of taking wide scope over two or more conjuncts in a coordinated structure. This fact falls out naturally here since we are treating the z-paradigm endings as independent signs that are combined with phrases according to canonical syntactic principles. Since coordinated structures are phrases themselves, the possibility that a z-paradigm ending can attach to a coordinated structure is straightforwardly predicted. . The behavior of the plural suffix -lEr The analysis we have proposed in the previous sections can be simply extended to account for another important and interesting area of variable affix ordering in Turkish morphology. Good and Yu (2000) observe that the behavior of the plural suffix -lEr exhibits an ordering variability similar to what was described for the k-paradigm markers in Section 1.2. This suffix optionally marks plurality on nouns and verbs with third-person plural subjects. When used on a verb with multiple TMA markers, it can follow any of them, but cannot immediately follow the verb stem, as the data in (27) shows. (27) a.

ko¸s -uyor -du -ysa -lar run prog past cond PL b. ko¸s -uyor -du -lar -ysa run prog past PL cond c. ko¸s -uyor -lar -dı -ysa run prog PL past cond d. *ko¸s -lar -uyor -du -ysa run PL prog past cond ‘If they were running. . .’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.22 (1153-1191)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

Using essentially the same type of construction which accounted for the distribution of verbal TMA suffixes in (20), we can account for the distribution of the plural suffix. The only difference is that, whereas TMA suffixes were formalized as being able to have either elements of type verb-stem or verb as their daughter, an element of type plural-suffix will only be allowed to have a verb as its daughter – thus correctly predicting the grammaticality of (27a–c) and the ungrammaticality of (27d). (28)

verb 

ë 2 Å 1ë -

µ- ë

-- ë

plural-suffix ë 1

ë

verb ë  2 ë ë ë

We take the fact that the basic pieces of our formalization can be straightforwardly extended to plural ordering variability to lend general support to our analysis.

. Notes on the morphology-syntax interface in the analysis Since this analysis is somewhat novel in its combination of the formal devices of Koenig (1999) to describe morphological facts and Sag and Wasow (2000) to describe syntactic facts, a few brief comments should help clarify the sort of interaction between the morphology and syntax we are assuming. Implicit, but not formalized, in the analysis is the commonly-held idea that the syntax and morphology interact at the level of the word. Thus, morphological constructions create syntactic words which can then enter into syntactic constructions. An example of a ‘word-creating’ construction is the one in (20) which can be instantiated to create verbs from other verbs or from morphological stems which are inaccessible to the syntax. The two sets of constructions, one morphological and one syntactic, are justified, we feel, by the strikingly different behavior of the two verbal paradigms which can be formalized simply if we assume that morphological constructions govern the use of the k-paradigm and syntactic constructions govern the use of the z-paradigm.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.23 (1191-1242)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

Our treatment of the Turkish facts presented here markedly departs from more traditional HPSG analyses of the division between morphology and syntax (see, e.g., Sag & Wasow 2000) in that it does not invoke lexical rules to deal with ‘morphological’ facts and constructions to deal with ‘syntactic’ facts. Rather, it uses the same basic construction-based architecture to formalize both types of generalizations.

. Discussion In our analysis, we have argued that the z-paradigm endings should be treated as clitics. A consequence of this is that sentences like (26), whose matrix verbs take these endings, are unambiguously formalized as being OVS. However, Turkish is generally described as being SOV. For example, it is possible in Turkish to have emphatic sentence-initial personal pronouns forming apparent SOV sentences, as in (29a). Furthermore, non-pronominal subjects also generally surface in SOV order, as in (29b). (29) a.

Biz okul-a gid-iyor-uz. 1PL school-dat go-prog-1pl ‘We are going to school’ b. Can okul-a gid-iyor. John school-dat go-prog ‘John is going to school’

Even when emphatic pronouns are present, like in (29a), pronominal subject marking is required on the verb. Our analysis of Turkish pronominal subject markers combined with the data in (29) suggests that Turkish resembles both an SOV and an OVS language on the surface. The overall implications this conclusion has for the grammar of Turkish are an important matter, and we shall briefly discuss some of them here. Our formalization implicitly adopts an incorporation-style analysis (cf. Bresnan and Mchombo 1987). That is, we are treating the pronominal clitics as though they are a sort of incorporated subject pronoun. Given this understanding of the Turkish pronominal morphemes, the problem of ‘clitic doubling’ naturally presents itself in cases where the overt pronoun surfaces with the pronominal clitics simultaneously, such as the contrastive case given below. (30) Ben i¸s-e gid-iyor-um, halbuki o maç-a gid-iyor-Ø. 1sg work-dat go-prog-1sg however 3SG match-dat go-prog-3sg ‘I am going to work, however he is going to the game.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.24 (1242-1294)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

The crucial problem presented by clitic doubling cases is: If the incorporated pronoun is already serving as the subject of the sentence, what role does the overt pronoun have? If we assume some principle along the lines of the Functional Uniqueness Condition (Bresnan & Mchombo 1987), the overt pronoun cannot be treated as a subject per se, since each semantic role can only be associated with one argument (in other words, there cannot be two things functioning as subject at the same time). One possible way to deal with this issue would be to suggest that the Functional Uniqueness Condition is violable. If this were the case, the problem of clitic-doubling would vanish naturally. One could just stipulate that Turkish allows two arguments satisfying the same semantic role. The claim that the Functional Uniqueness Condition is violable would not be a particularly drastic move in light of the recent advance of Optimality Theory, which strongly advocates the violability of constraints in grammar generally. Another possible solution to the clitic-doubling problem might be to treat the overt pronoun as a nominal adjunct licensed by certain discourse functions, such as emphasis and contrast. Such a claim is not without support and would seem to be the most natural analysis in standard Generativist approaches to grammar. A discourse-oriented description of the pronominal system of Turkish is succinctly provided in Erguvanlı-Taylan (1986): Turkish marks subject agreement on the verbal element by means of a person suffix; the use of an independent subject pronoun is, then, optional unless the subject has an emphatic or contrastive function, in which case a pronominal form becomes obligatory. (Erguvanlı-Taylan 1986: 210)

Free personal pronouns are, otherwise, rarely obligatory. According to Kornfilt (1997), this is due to the fact that the agreement morphemes on predicates make it possible to recover the features of the subject pronoun. Thus, if every time the subject pronoun is omitted, one must ‘recover’ the features of the subject from the ‘agreement morphemes’ on the predicates and the head nouns, might it not be simpler to claim that the so-called agreement morphemes are the subject arguments themselves? However one chooses to deal with this issue, particularly interesting, in the Turkish case, is that, even though k-paradigm endings and z-paradigm endings systematically differ in many ways, our analysis points in a direction where both are treated as the true subjects of their verbs. Finally, it would be worthwhile to point out here, that Özturk (2001) has come to some very similar conclusions to the ones we have, with respect to what the ‘subject’ of the Turkish sentence

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.25 (1294-1346)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

is, focusing on data unrelated to the data which has been the focus of this paper. Özturk’s analysis explicitly treats sentence-initial ‘subjects’ in Turkish as topics and agreement markers as subjects.

. Conclusion In this paper, we have demonstrated that the two subject pronominal paradigms in Turkish display strikingly different morphosyntactic behavior. Providing evidence from morphological selectivity, stress assignment, variable ordering, and suspended affixation, we have illustrated that the k-paradigm endings in Turkish can be usefully treated as lexical suffixes, whereas the z-paradigm endings are usefully treated as post-lexical clitics. We have also outlined the historical development of the two paradigms, showing that the z-paradigm arose from cliticization historically while the k-paradigm appears to have developed from the reanalysis of preexisting suffixes – thus demonstrating that our synchronic analysis closely matches the diachronic facts. Furthermore, we have attempted to sketch out an HPSG account of the data, suggesting that the k-paradigm endings can be treated as constrained by a morphological construction in the lexicon while the z-paradigm endings can be treated syntactically. The formal analysis is novel within HPSG in using two sets of constructions, a morphological set and syntactic set, in describing the data and, thereby, not making use of lexical rules to handle the morphological facts which were relevant to the syntax. Our analysis further questions some of the standard assumptions regarding the treatment of subjects in Turkish. Specifically, it runs counter to the idea that Turkish is a straightforward SOV language. Minimally, our analysis indicates that the syntax of word order in Turkish is more complex than is traditionally assumed. More broadly, if our analysis is correct in the details, then it will be an important area of research to establish how precisely one should describe the element of the Turkish sentence typically thought of as being the subject. It will also be interesting to see what implications our analysis of Turkish could have for other ‘pro-drop’ languages with rich, suffixal agreement morphology which could, in principle, be amenable to an analysis similar to our OVS analysis of Turkish.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.26 (1346-1430)

 Jeff Good and Alan C. L. Yu

Notes * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Workshop on the Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement Affix Combinations, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, July, 1999 and NELS 30 at Rutgers University, October 1999. We are grateful to the participants at these venues for valuable comments. We would also like to thank Andreas Kathol, Ivan Sag, Paul Kay, Sharon Inkelas, Larry Hyman, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful discussion and comments. The names of the authors appear alphabetically. . More information on the imperative agreement paradigm can be found in Lewis (1967: 137–8) and more on the optative can be found in Lewis (1967: 132–3). The use of these agreement paradigms is much more restricted than the other two, and their properties were not investigated for this paper. . Turkish examples given in the text are presented in Turkish orthography. An ¸s represents an [¸s], a ç represents a [tw], an ı represents an [Y], and a gˇ has no phonetic realization. . While this historical account can explain the origin of the past maker and the k-paradigm endings generally, it does not explain yet why the first person plural ending of the kparadigm is ends in a k as opposed to some sequence like mIz. Further research is needed to understand the origin of this part of the paradigm.

References Adamović, M. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Bresnan, J. and S. A. Mchombo. 1987. “Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa.” In Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure: Interactions of morphology, syntax, and discourse, M. Iida, S. Wechsler, and D. Zec (eds), 1–59. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1986. “Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish.” In Studies in Turkish linguistics, D. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds), 209–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Good, J. and A. C. Yu. 2000. “Affix-placement variation in Turkish.” In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, J. Good and A. Yu (eds), 63–74. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Haiman, J. 1977. “Reinterpretation.” Language 53: 312–328. Halpern, A. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford CA: CSLI. Ka¸sgarli M. 1939–1943. Divanü Lûgat-it-Türk. B. Atalay (ed.), I–V. Ankara. Koenig, J.-P. 1998. Lexical Relations. Stanford CA: CSLI. Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge. Lewis, G. L. 1953. Turkish. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, P. H. 1992. “Post-lexical cliticization vs. affixation: Coordination criteria.” In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, J. M. Denton et al. (eds), 382–396. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:36

F: LA7410.tex / p.27 (1430-1460)

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms 

Orgun, O. 1995. “Flat versus branching morphological structures: The case of suspended affixation.” In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, L. Bilmes, et al. (eds), 252–261. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Öztürk, B. 2001. “Turkish as a non-pro-drop language.” In The Verb in Turkish, E. Taylan, (ed.), 239–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sag I. and T. Wasow. 2000. Syntactic Theory: A formal introduction. Stanford CA: CSLI. Sezer, E. 1998. Ya¸sayan Türkçe. Ms. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard. Sezer, E. 2001. “Finite inflection in Turkish.” In The Verb in Turkish, E. Taylan, (ed.), 1–45. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shaw, R. B. 1877. “A grammar of the language of Eastern Turkistán.” Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal 46. Zwicky, A. and G. K. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language 59: 502–513.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.1 (41-112)

On the syntax of doubling Juan Uriagereka University of Maryland / University of the Basque Country

The puzzling properties of clitic doubling can be related, syntactically and semantically, to those of inalienable possession. This is done here by arguing that a determiner clitic has as its restriction a complex argument, expressing an integral relation between the ‘double’ and what amounts to a null classifier. This article then concentrates on why the syntax of doubling surfaces, unlike that in inalienable possession, as accusative. This is achieved by way of an incorporation process that, it is proposed, does not take place in dative constructions. That in turn correlates with whether the relevant D is complete (in which case it can incorporate) or merely partial in terms of phi-feature specifications (in which case it does not).

Introduction Clitic doubling can be argued to have some central properties of ‘inalienable possession’. That notion has a long tradition in several fields, and I must clarify that I use it pre-theoretically. The research project I sketched in Uriagereka (2002: Part II) attempted to show how various integral possessive expressions (ranging from family relations to measure and degree qualifications, and including part-whole relations) can be characterized in non-standard predicative terms of the sort discussed in Hornstein, et al. (1995). In turn Uriagereka (2002: Chapter 15) suggests that although the basic syntax and lexical semantics of all integral expressions is the same, obvious differences in interpretation correspond to different dimensions in the analysis, which keep the overall patterns constant while changing semantic types. It is in this context that I presented in Uriagereka (2001) the claim that clitic doubling is another integral expression, arguing that the Spanish la vi a Isabel (literally: ‘I saw her to Isabel’) has the semantic import of I saw Isabel’s persona, or I saw her persona of/from Isabel. This raises a syntactic question pertaining to the nature of the abstract persona element and why the syntax of doubling is not entirely like that of standard (inalienable) possession. The present paper addresses this specific question. Its first section separates inalienable relations from the contextual grounding

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.2 (112-156)

 Juan Uriagereka

of a sub-event on another, this being what, in my view, clitic placement brings to the picture. Sections 2 and 3 present the basic theoretical assumptions behind my general approach, including an explicit statement of the main conjecture in the paper; Section 4 raises in detail the correlated question alluded to. The proposed solution, which has various consequences for the minimalist system, is discussed in Section 5.

.

Inalienability and context confinement

Consider first some basic facts about ‘inalienable possession’: (1) a.

Vi el cordón de ella. Saw-I the cord of her ‘I saw her cord.’ b. le vi el cordón a ella. her saw-I the cord to her ‘I saw her cord.’ c. vi su cordón de ella. Saw-I her cord of her ‘I saw her (own) cord.’

A neutral way of saying in Spanish that I saw my daughter’s umbilical cord is (1a). That sentence comes out true both if the cord is inalienably hers or if it is a cord that she owns, alienably, e.g. for a science experiment. The alienable reading directly disappears when clitic doubling is involved (1b). Here the possessor comes out in dative guise, and resembles Possessor Raising in many languages (see Landau (1999) for related discussion and references). However, what codes ‘inalienably possessive’ syntax cannot be the presence of the clitic, in itself: (1c) exhibits an inalienable interpretation crucially without clitic placement. I won’t provide an analysis of this – I just want to show that the clitic per se in (1b) cannot be what’s contributing the inalienability. Interestingly, (1c) involves no commitment with regard to the attachment of the cord to the child. This might seem surprising, given a semantic tradition that equates inalienability to being within an organism. However, inalienably possessed items certainly can abandon their host; an umbilical cord typically does, but it does not cease, for that, to be inalienably possessed – or there would not be blood banks to keep cords, for the specific use of their inalienable owner. Remarkably, the grammar of Romance languages quite generally is capable of expressing that. Thus, (1c) could be used to describe a situation where a child’s unattached cord

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.3 (156-211)

On the syntax of doubling 

is observed, whereas (1b) must be used to describe a situation where the cord is still attached. Traditional treatments of these sorts of observations are in terms of lexicoconceptual relations. I find that insufficient. In my view, the very same lexicoconceptual notion may end up denoting differently depending on intentional cues that express how, in particular, the syntactic realization of referential specifications is affected by explicit contextual information. For instance, it is not the same to speak of the existence of a given event with no contextual cues to it, than it is to speak of an event which is, in some sense to be made concrete, determined by la, ‘her’ (or any other contextual specification). If at that event, call it e, there has to be the participation of an inalienably possessed cord, and quantification over e is confined to contexts ‘of her’, the sentence would come out false if the cord in question were not, in fact, ‘at her’. Do clitics have such a power? They do, regardless of possession matters. Consider (2): (2) Pertenezco a la raza de fumadores que quieren dejarlo... sin quererlo dejar. (Terenci Moix) ‘I belong to the race of smokers who want to quit it... without wanting it to quit.’ This sentence eloquently expresses the heavy smoker’s tension between wanting to quit and executing the wanting. It is not contradictory; it would be if the clitics were placed identically in both halves (note there has been a clitic climbing in the sin ‘without’ clause). The first sentence is non-committal: although it speaks of an event of ‘quitting smoking’, it does so in decontextualized terms.1 In contrast, the second sentence commits: the raised clitic confines the wanting quantification: this is no ordinary wanting, but one relevant to the smoking. It is the second sentence that matters now. Although the first, irrelevant wanting is presented affirmatively, the second, relevantly confined wanting, is negative instead. So the sentence has the import of ‘I want to do it, but without it being at a given time or in a given place’. As far as I can see, event relevance has to be rather fine-grained, as shown by the following scenario. Imagine that the discarded heart of a transplant patient is placed in a location which happens to be the target of a missile attack. A terrorist activates the missile ten minutes before the heart is removed from the patient. The missile travels for twenty minutes, and strikes the target as the old heart is being discarded. Thus the terrorist destroyed the patient’s (old) heart (with the missile). Now observe the Spanish data in (3), speaking of the terrorist: (3) a.

Destrozó el corazón del paciente. Destroyed-he the heart of-the patient ‘He destroyed the patient’s heart.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.4 (211-271)

 Juan Uriagereka

b. Le destrozó el corazón al paciente. him destroyed the heart to-the patient ‘He destroyed the heart in the patient.’ (3a) is true and proper, not (3b): the sentence comes out true only if the heart that the missile destroys is attached to the patient. If the (clitic, double) pair were related to the entire event, (3b) should come out true, for at the time of the missile’s launching the heart which ends up being hit was still attached to the patient’s body. But speakers interpret (3b) as true only if a newly attached heart -unattached, and this is important, at the launching time- is destroyed. Inalienability has little to do with this; in fact, the inalienable expression in (4) (note, again, with no clitic) is true under the circumstances just assumed (speaking of the old, inalienable heart):2 (4) El terrorista destrozó su corazón del paciente. the terrorist destroyed poss heart of-the patient ‘The terrorist destroyed the patient’s own heart.’ Inalienability must be expressible regardless of cliticization, and clitic placement affects the context confinement of the sub-event it is in construction with. To describe this, we need a syntax which meets three desiderata: A) it has access to the internal make-up of events, B) it can use a placed clitic to confine the range of a sub-event quantification to some context determined by this clitic, and C) it is sensitive to inalienable possession irrespective of a) or b). The first of these ideas has been argued for by many in the neo-Davidsonian tradition (e.g. Parsons (1990)). That context can be syntactically determined has also been argued by some; Raposo and Uriagereka (1995) provide a specific mechanism in terms of, in essence, topic positions: it is only if a category X has moved to some topic site Y associated to event e that e s quantification context can be confined by speakers in terms of X. For instance, in As for professional sports, I like bike races, the range of the existential quantifying over events of bike-race liking is confined by the speaker to professional sports. Let’s say that under those circumstances X at Y grounds e. Finally, Szabolcsi (1983) initiated a trend that has culminated in Kayne (1994), whereby inalienable possession can be expressed in terms of some constituent whose dependents are possessor and possessum. Hornstein et al. (1995) suggests that this is best interpretable as a small clause, and the dependency among its terms as an ‘integral’ predication. This is different from standard predication: one is not, but rather has, an arm. The idea is similar to the ‘constitution’ notion in Burge (1974), devised to understand the ring has gold as a sort of predication: ‘the ring is constituted of gold’. Part-whole and other integral relations can be thought of as abstractly constitutional, also involving predications where the predicate has referential import (gold or an arm are both constitutive characteristics of entities and entities in and of themselves).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.5 (271-320)

On the syntax of doubling 

. A separation of conceptual and intentional relations Uriagereka (2002: Ch. 10) proposes a concrete syntax that addresses these desiderata. It has, first of all, a conceptual layer with the small-clause in Hornstein et al. (1995) (5a): (5) a.

SC SPACE she

PRESENTATION cord

b. Ex SPACE (x, her) & PRESENTATION (x, cord) The terms ‘space’ and ‘presentation’ are technical, and designed to range over various sorts of integral predications. A ‘whole’ for instance is a kind of mental space, and the ‘part’ presents the whole in a given guise. Since both space and presentation are entities of some sort, it is appropriate to think of integral predications as involving some neo-Davidsonian structure, as in (5b). In other words: there is an eventuality x such that its mental space is her and its presentation is (in terms of) cord. Importantly, the representation just discussed is neutral as to what the lexicoconceptual details of the notions ‘space’ or ‘presentation’ are, although relevant components of grammar surely will have to tell us what kinds of things are mental spaces, how they can be presented in this or that guise, and even what implicational relations exist among various presentations, matters which are beyond the scope of the present paper. Notice that in (5b) her and cord are actually the respective arguments of the two-place predicates SPACE and PRESENTATION, whose other argument is the eventuality variable bound by the existential. Strictly, then, the representation in (5b) doesn’t capture the fact that we intend some kind of predication, whereby she is a subject and cord is an (integral) predicate (5a). Nonetheless, the predication exists in the lexico-conceptual component, and it is precisely that predication that prevents wild combinations, for example inversely having the cord (or a similar part) be the space where her (or a similar whole) acts as a particular presentation. Which is to say that, in lexico-conceptual terms, what look like primitive roles SPACE and PRESENTATION are to be thought in predicative guise PRESENTATION (SPACE), where the presentation is a predicate of certain notions, and not others (I have nothing to say about this here).3 What we have just seen creates a duality: in lexico-conceptual terms, the presentation is a single-place (abstract) predicate, and the space is an argument. Yet in intentional, neo-Davidsonian terms, both presentation and space are two-place predicates.4 This corresponds both to a division of labor in language and to speakers’ intuitions. A part is a thing, yet it is a property of its whole (see Fn. 4).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.6 (320-369)

 Juan Uriagereka

Grammars allow us to express that within the syntax so long as we have two separate components: one to capture lexico-conceptual relations (e.g. the PRESENTATION(SPACE) dependency) and one to capture intentional relations (e.g. that each presentation and space have the character of roles within an eventuality). The syntax just described meets desideratum C above: it addresses integral relations (thus inalienable possession more generally) without any mention of event decomposition or clitic placement. Above the lexico-conceptual layer in (5a), Uriagereka (2002: Ch. 10) introduces functional categories assumed by Kayne (1994) and Szabolcsi (1983), now reinterpreted in intentional terms pertinent to the semantics in (5b). SC in (5a) is complement to a referential head X, in turn complement to a quantificational head D: (6)

D’ D

RP R

SC

Thus reference is not a property of items in the lexicon, but the consequence of a syntactic transformation: movement to the checking domain of R. This is important, because of the intrinsic duality of integral dependents: they can be both properties (e.g. of their wholes) and entities in their own right. The intentional syntax in (6) is designed to capture this fact, making the system recognize only the referential properties of items that move to (or through) the designated site that the grammar has for coding reference, namely R. To see this at work, consider a paradigm discussed in Uriagereka (2002: Ch. 10). Three of the following four noun-phrases are possible part-whole expressions: (7) a. b. c. d.

A neighborhood of a city. A city’s neighborhood. A city of neighborhoods. *A neighborhoods’ city.

In all of these, the integral relation is kept constant: the city is the whole and the neighborhood(s) is/are the part(s). Nonetheless, (7a) and (7b) refer to neighborhoods, whereas (7c) (and (7d) if it were grammatical) refers to cities. It is customary, but I think unreasonable, to treat these expressions as simply different projections (of neighborhood in (7a) and (7b) or of city in the other examples). If we do that, we miss the integral relation constant to all four expressions. I also find it unreasonable to consider that relation merely ‘lexical’, because literally all (concrete) nouns stand in some part-whole relation with something else, hence the lexicon would massively increase in size to code both standard referential uses of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.7 (369-414)

On the syntax of doubling 

concrete nouns and their corresponding relational use (or uses, since most things are parts to various other things: e.g. a desk can be part of an office, an inventory, the output of a given furniture factory, one’s nightmares, and so on). Moreover, it is unclear to me how the ungrammaticality of (7d) could be accounted for in purely lexical terms; I certainly cannot think of a lexical theory that bears that as a prediction.5 In contrast, if the structure in all these instances is of the assumed sort, we find: (8)

DP D

RP R

SC city

neighborhood

The small-clause codes the lexico-conceptual relation between the two lexical terms. The rest of the structure determines intentional relations. If neighborhood raises to R, then the whole DP refers to that; in contrast, reference to a city is assumed if city raises to R. Those expressions in (7) that start with a genitive must involve raising of the other lexical term, not to R (where reference is coded) but to the D specifier. What prevents (7d) is the fact that the movement of neighborhood over the specifier of R occupied by city would not be local (the paths ‘nest’); in contrast, in (7b) the movement of city over the specifier of R occupied by neighborhood is perfectly local (the paths overlap). In some instances it is possible to avoid that locality effect by collapsing relevant domains (in the sense of Chomsky 1995: Ch. 3)). Uriagereka (2002: Ch. 10) argues that this is what allows instances of either term of the integral relation promoting to subject position, as in (9): (9) a.

Michelangelo could tell whether a statue had some Carrara marble (in it). b. Michelangelo could tell whether some Carrara marble had a statue (in it).

Under the assumption, which goes back to Benveniste (1971), that have is be + P, and that the relevant P corresponds (as per Kayne’s (1994) suggestion, adapted from Freeze (1992)) to D in (8), lexical formation of have entails the displacement of the DP head. In turn, given that R in (8) corresponds to Kayne’s Agr head in (1994),6 and that R and D form a unit when R is not lexicalized, via incorporation, formation of have also entails the displacement of the R head in relevant instances. In other words, the structure in (8) is headless when have is involved,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.8 (414-486)

 Juan Uriagereka

which determines the domain collapse alluded to, thus allowing both terms of the small-clause to raise. By hypothesis, also, whichever element moves to (or through) the specifier of D allows speakers to contextually confine the range of D’s quantification, or ground it, and in that sense acts as a kind of DP-internal topic site. For example, the element that ends up as subject of have in (9) must have moved through the DP spec, hence must have an effect in contextual determination. This is what gives the ‘figure/ground’ flavor to the examples in (9). In (9a) we take the marble to be inside the statue, perhaps together with something else; the statue is the ground and the marble is the figure. In contrast in (9b) we take the marble to be some kind of lump, which nonetheless has – by way of Michaelangelo’s hand and genius – a statue within it; the marble is the ground and the statue is the figure. This can have nothing to do with integral relations, constant in both examples: the statue is a presentation of the marble space. But it is explained if the element that moves through the DP Spec is used by the speaker to ground the (integral) eventuality quantification: one confined to some marble will have the marble as ground for that eventuality; and conversely for one contextually confined to a statue. We can witness context effects even internal to nominal expressions, without the sort of raising implicit in (9). For example, (10a) is taken to be subtly different from its variant in (10b), precisely in that the former limits the speaker’s reference in ways that the second one does not. Also, the fact that John‘s is a kind of (contextual) topic in (10b) accounts for the oddity of (10c) vis-à-vis (10d): (10) a. b. c. d. e.

Every attempt at winning by John. John’s every attempt at winning. Every attempt at winning by whom did you witness? #Whose every attempt at winning did you witness? John, whose every attempt at winning I witnessed, is a sour looser.

(10e) is fine, showing that a pre-quantificational genitive can have a Wh- guise. However, when the Wh-element has a question (thus focus) import, it is odd. This is consistent with questions/focus being semantically incompatible with topics, a status which the present system assigns to whose in (10d). The mechanism of context-confinement is central in determining the behavior of clitics witnessed above. What we saw, in present terms, is this: a clitic which gets to be in construction with some sub-event somehow grounds this sub-event. Suppose each sub-event comes associated with some ‘inner topic’ site, expressed via the small v elements proposed by Hale and Kayser (1993), called ‘voices’ by Kratzer (1996). These domains have been suggested to relate to object shift and scrambling, which can also be seen as instances of clause-internal topicalization, inasmuch as they affect information structure (Diesing 1992). A clitic associated to one such voice has the same effect as the genitive in (10b) or the subjects of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.9 (486-546)

On the syntax of doubling

have in each example in (9), except the relevant topic in the clitic instances is no D projection, as above, but a v site. In (3b), for instance, clitic le moves through the v site of destrozó ‘destroyed’ (as in Sportiche (1996), setting aside where the clitic is base-generated). This voice hosts the internal sub-event of the verb, which as we saw is what we want the clitic to ground. Then all we need to assume is a semantics along the lines of Higginbotham (1988), whereby second-order free variables coding context confinement are added to intentional representations, so that speakers provide values for them in their acts of speech. The only condition added to Higginbotham’s proposal is the idea in Raposo and Uriagereka (1995) that syntactic conditions on (inner) topics impose limitations on speaker-hearer interactions. Thus, for instance, the fact that le in (3b) is in construction with v cannot be overridden, and allows speakers to distinguish its interpretation from that of (3a), whereby no such clitic is in construction with v, and thus the sub-event interpretation is neutral. A semantic representation follows (with destroy decomposed as CAUSE + BREAK):7 (11) a.

(Ee: X(e)) [ (Ee’: Y(e’)) [CAUSE(e) & Subject (el misil, e) & Object (e’, e) [ (Dx: Z(x)) BREAK(e’) & corazón(x) & Subject (x, e’) & Part (el corazón, x) & Whole (el paciente, x)]]] b. There is a sub-event e of CAUSING, a sub-event e’ of BREAKING, a relation x such that el misil ‘the missile’ is the subject at e and e’ is the object at e, and x is the subject at e’ and el corazón ‘the heart’ is a part at x for el paciente ‘the patient’ a whole at x, where the speaker confines the range of the quantification over e’ to contexts Y defined over le ‘him’ (the patient).

This now meets the other two desiderata we set for ourselves. We are (A) appropriately decomposing sub-events (however we achieve that) and (B) the clitic has the semantic effect that we wanted for it, determining the ground of a relevant subevent. The conceptual/intentional duality seen throughout is still present in (11a). Thus observe that qua-part, el corazón is an argument; yet it is also what glues together the quantification headed by D, thus a predicate corazón. Now we can turn to our main concern: How inalienable possession relates to doubling.

. The Inalienable Double Hypothesis As we saw, inalienable relations need not involve cliticization; curiously, however, when a possessive clitic is used, the relevant interpretation must be inalienable. A difficult question, which I will not address here, is why (mere) contextual grounding via a possessive clitic implies an integral relation between the clitic



JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.10 (546-583)

 Juan Uriagereka

and some other element. The main point of Uriagereka (2001) was to show that, phenomenology-wise, that sort of situation arises more generally: a sort of inalienable possession is implied in any instance of clitic doubling, not just possessive examples. This idea was called The Inalienable Double Hypothesis (IDH): The denotation of a double stands in an inalienable relation with respect to the denotation of its clitic. The proposal was intended to pertain to three apparently different facts: (i)The semantics of doubling is referential; (ii) explicit attributions in possessive guise may have a referential import; (iii) individual classifiers have both an integral syntax and referential import. (i) can be illustrated by way of comparing sentences with and without doubling, and showing how only the former force purely referential readings of the relevant arguments. At first, (ii) seems at right angles with that first fact; it makes reference to colloquial expressions such as that jackass of a man, which in Romance are productive, and shows how they must be referential. (iii) also appears different from either of those two, and is based on the analysis of classifiers proposed in Muromatsu (1998). The key to the hypothesis is that, disparate though they seem, these facts are ultimately one and the same. Referentiality can be tested by using a context that precludes, or makes odd, the referential reading of an expression. Consider (12) in its normal reading, meaning you resemble your father in the way you stare; the sentence can also oddly mean that I literally see your father reflected on your eyes: (12) I can see your father in your eyes. a. Veo a tu padre en tus See-I to your father in your b. Veo al burro de tu See-I to-the donkey of your c. Veo a la persona de tu see-I to the person of your d. Le/lo veo a tu padre en him see-I to your father in

ojos. eyes padre en tus father in your padre en tus father in your tus ojos. your eyes

ojos. eyes ojos eyes

The Spanish (12a) is as ambiguous as its English translation heading (12), with the preferred reading being the resemblance one. But let’s consider some variations to this theme. (12b) is also ambiguous: here the (literally) possessed attribute is metaphorical: under normal circumstances, your father could not literally be a donkey; in the relevant (preferred) reading, the intended meaning is something akin to ‘in your eyes, you resemble your father, who is/was a jack ass’. Things start being different in (12c), which also employs a possessive attribution, though this time through a literal presentation (in the sense of (5)): your father has a persona; in this instance only the odd referential reading is possible. The same is the case for (12d), which involves clitic doubling: the resemblance reading is gone here as well.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.11 (583-653)

On the syntax of doubling 

We conclude from (12) that clitic doubling is referential, thus impossible when a non-referential reading is invoked. Integral syntax proper need not be referential; when the possessed attribute, or presentation, is metaphorical or non-canonical (a donkey tinge, for instance) a non-referential reading is appropriate; however when the presentation is canonical (assuming a standard personal interpretation), the referential reading is the only one possible.8 Reference in most accounts I am familiar with is a property of items in the lexicon, not something that depends on syntactic context or its canonicity (e.g. whether someone is taken to be donkeylike or a regular person). But that somewhat naive idea is questioned by the integral relations alluded to in Section 2: reference cannot be a property of lexicon items, but rather is acquired in the syntactic derivation, in principle by either term in an integral relation.9 Once that is accepted, it becomes possible to obtain a non-referential reading for an expression, given appropriate syntactic circumstances. This, I take it, is what we do in examples like (12a). Adding an integral relation, though, can have referential consequences; not necessarily, given (12b), but possibly: if the possessed attribute is canonical (and see Fn. 8). This must mean that the grammar has the possibility of using some conceptual relations as intentional marks, as in (12c). Finally, (12d) shows that clitic doubling aligns with the latter sort of example, so plausibly also involves canonical intentional relations to code its intentional import. If true, this relates facts (ii) and (i). The connection between (i) and (iii) is intended to seek a plausible canonical presentation in instances of clitic doubling. There are two properties of noun classifiers that are relevant for us here. First, they come in integral guise, as Muromatsu (1998) shows.10 Second, they have a unary/referential character to them, as in the Chinese na ge ren ’that classifier man’; binary quantifiers cannot go with classifiers, as Muromatsu also shows. Assuming all languages are uniform at LF, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Spanish doubling involves a null individual classifier, analogous to the Chinese ge. If this element has the desired canonicity, we would obtain with it the same referentiality witnessed for (12c). The integral syntax hypothesized for doubling would then correlate with the integral syntax of classifiers. Notice that certain part-whole relations can be used to express referentiality in English: (13) a. b. c. d.

I’m following him/his footsteps. I can see her/her hand behind the proposal. He rarely puts himself/his head at this. She gave herself/her all to the project.

Clitic doubling can be interpreted analogously: the Spanish (14a), below, has the import of ‘I don’t see her persona’. Notice how close this is to the idiomatic expres-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.12 (653-695)

 Juan Uriagereka

sion in (14b), where ‘hair’ is used as the relevant, here explicit, part that makes the expression referential: (14) a.

Yo no la veo a ella. I not her see-I to her ‘I do not see her.’ b. Yo no le veo el pelo a ella. I not her see-I the hair to her Lit.: ‘I do not see her hair’; Idiom.: ‘I do not see her.’

If clitic doubling involves a canonical, null classifier, the relevant structure should be: (15)

DP D Clitic

RP R

SC Double

pro

This of course is identical to (6), a typical integral relation. By equating doubling with integral relations we begin to unearth some of its bizarre properties. To start with, the relevant semantics would be of the sort seen in (10). For example (16), for (14a) (with ver ‘see’ decomposed as EXPERIENCE+VIEW merely for concreteness): (Ee: X(e)) [ (Ee : Y(e )) [EXPERIENCE(e) & Subject (yo, e) & Object (e , e) [ (la x: Z(x)) VIEW(e ) & pro(x) & Subject (x, e ) & Part (pro, x) & Whole (ella, x)]]] b. There is a sub-event e of EXPERIENCING, a sub-event e of VIEWING, a relation x such that yo is the subject at e and e is the object at e, and x is the subject at e , and pro is a part at x for ella ‘she’ a whole at x, where the speaker confines the range of the quantification over e’ to contexts Y defined over la.

(16) a.

In addition to capturing the referential properties of doubling (12d), the present approach predicts aspectual properties of doubling that directly align with what we saw before for possessive clitics and how they ground particular contexts. Consider (17), a fact discovered by Marcela Depiante in her Cordoba (Argentina) dialect, and reported in Schmitt (1995):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.13 (695-724)

On the syntax of doubling 

(17) a.

Yo toqué esa sonata hasta las 7–diez veces durante horas! I played that sonata until the 7–ten times during hours ‘I played that sonata (TYPE) until 7–ten times for hours!.’ b. Yo la toqué a esa sonata hasta las 7–#diez veces durante I it played to that sonata until the 7–ten times for horas! hours ‘I played that sonata (TOKEN) until 7–#ten times for hours!’

In (17a) the speaker is assumed to have practiced playing the sonata for several hours, every time a different token performance. In (17b), in contrast, the speaker is assumed to have been playing a single token performance of an unreasonably long sonata for several hours. It is when doubling takes place that the iterative reading disappears which we normally associate to an achievement stretched over time. This follows from the IDH if we assume that a sonata concept/sense can be referentially instantiated as an individual (canonical) performance, and the latter is associated to clitic doubling. Clitic doubling as in (17b) introduces a silent element that is equivalent to the individual persona of the father in the previous examples; here, the performance of the sonata. Esa sonata expresses a mental space, which becomes individuated by pro; the referent of the relational DP in (18) below is assigned to pro, so the expression refers to an individuated sonata. Sonata itself moves to a DP-internal grounding site, an operation that precedes the crucial movement of the whole DP into the voice position. When an inner topic is thus created, the speaker grounds the sub-event introduced by the voice to events of this particular sonata token. Thus there cannot be multiple tokens in this instance:11 (18) a.

b.

v’ v

D’ D

esa sonata

R’ R

... DP

D

SC

DP esa sonata

D’

NP pro

RP pro

R’ R

SC t

t

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.14 (724-777)

 Juan Uriagereka

. Syntactic questions faced by the IDH The IDH raises at the very least two syntactic issues. Compare (18b) (a relevant chunk of which is repeated as (19b)), and a structure involving a possessive clitic, of the sort in (1b)/(5), analyzed as in (19a):12 (19) a. Clitic: le; possessor ‘double’: DP ellai

DP esa sonatai

D’ D

b. Clitic: la; standard double:

D

RP

el cordónj

D’

proj

R’

R

RP

R

SC ti

R’

tj

SC ti

tj

First, in the possessive instance the D head of the relational expression is arguably overt, whereas we must assume that, in the doubling instance, the D head is null for some reason. Second, the possessive relation obviously involves a dative clitic, whereas the doubling instance does not. Thus for instance (20), which involves dative syntax (through the clitic te ‘you’), cannot invoke a purely referential reading for a ti ‘to you’, by way of a canonical interpretation of la meaning ‘persona’: (20) Yo no te la veo a ti. I not her it see-I to her ‘I do not see it on you.’ Observe also another important fact. We saw in Section 1 that expressions of the sort in (19a) induce a characteristic contextual grounding for the sub-event related to v. Similarly for expressions of the sort in (19b), as discussed in the previous section: the delimitedness of the relevant sub-event of the sonata’s happening follows if the context of this sub-event is grounded in terms of a sonata token. Importantly, it is not just the conceptual space sonata that does the interpretive job; rather, it has to be that space presented in the form of a sonata token (by way of a pro classifier). In other words, what delimits the sub-event is not an abstract sonata, but its instantiation. That is actually different from what is needed for the possessive expressions. For the grounding of relevant sub-events we do not want a relation between her and her cord (abstractly, her presented as a cord), but simply her. In fact, if what grounded the relevant sub-event were her cord, as opposed to her, the sub-event of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.15 (777-821)

On the syntax of doubling 

sight in (1) would be confined to that particular cord, in which case nothing would express its attachment to her body. Then on semantic grounds we conclude that ella should move in representations of the type in (19a) (possession), but the entire relational DP must in representations of the type in (19b) (doubling). Although this is not obvious at first, I will propose that the massive movement in the second instance invokes a dative layer of structure, represented in (21) in terms of vdat as opposed to vacc : (21) a. Possession:

b. Doubling: íP

íP

í’ í’

ellai í

ídat

DPk VP

V

esa sonatai DP

ti

D D’

D

íP íacc

D’

tk

RP projjR’ R

V

RP

el cordónj

VP

SC R’

R

ti

tj

SC ti

tj

I hasten to add that the situation (21) seems very different from what we want: I am using a dative layer in the structure that comes out ‘accusative’. Nonetheless, I show in the next section that (21a) does involve a dative layer, albeit what moves there is different from what moves to the same site in (21b). Needless to say, we would like to understand why different elements move in each instance, and precisely why this results in different Case realizations. One way to relate the difficulties we have posed in this section would be as in (22): (22) If and only if DP X is headed by a null D does X move to vdat . We also saw that if and only if DP X is headed by a null D does it license the null pro-NP that instantiates the mental concept as a canonical individual. The real question is what this null D is.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.16 (821-872)

 Juan Uriagereka

Chomsky (2001) separates complete and partial featural specifications for the T system, thus addressing the phenomenology of finite vs. infinitival Tense, and in the latter instance, control vs. raising properties. Suppose the complete/partial distinctions also extend to the D system, and in fact we find partial D (Dpart ) and complete D (Dcomp ). More concretely, suppose partial D is not compatible with personal specifications, whereas complete D is,13 and this has various consequences, as follows: (23) a. Dcomp : [ number, gender, person] (i) Forces strong agreement. (ii) Licenses pro. (iii) May undergo incorporation to v. (iv) Induces indefiniteness effect. b. Dpart : [ number, gender] Does not force strong agreement. Does not license pro. May not undergo incorporation to v. Does not induce indefiniteness effect. The intuition is that Dpart is in some sense incomplete, morphologically, syntactically, and semantically. Our paradigm above will follow if we assume that Dpart heads the possessive construction, whereas it is Dcomp that heads the doubling relation: (24) a. Possessive structure:

b. Standard double:

DP ellai

DP esa sonatai

D’

Dpart

Dcomp

RP

el cordónj

D’

proj

R’

R

R’ R

SC ti

RP

tj

SC ti

tj

Dcomp may incorporate to v (23a (iii)), which would immediately explain why the D head is null in the doubling construction: it is a trace. It would also explain why (25c) is ungrammatical:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.17 (872-922)

On the syntax of doubling 

(25) a.

Tu padre te vio el cordón a your father you saw the cord to ‘Your father saw your cord on you.’ b. Tu padre te lo vio a ti. your father you it saw to you ‘Your father saw it on you.’ c. *Tu padre te lo vio el cordón Your fater you it saw the cordon

ti. you

a ti. to you.

Note that it is not immediately obvious why (25c) should be out, if the other two examples are good: why shouldn’t we be able to have doubling of ‘direct objects’ co-exist with doubling of ‘indirect objects’? However, given the IDH – which essentially equates doubling and possessive clitic structures – that should create a conflict. Very specifically: Dpart in (24a) has not incorporated, thus it still is where we see it, associated to its ‘direct object’ nominal; the ‘accusative’ clitic is nothing but the D head of the relational expression, which obviously cannot be both in situ and placed higher. Agreement facts (23i) are as expected. Compare the relation between the D head (whether complete or partial) and what rests in its specifier (pronouns are used to show relevant morphology):14 (26) a.

Lo /la / los/ las D-masc/fem/masc.pl/fem.pl ‘I saw him/her/them.’ b. Le(s) vi el cordón a D(-pl.) saw the cord to ‘I saw their cord on them.’

vi a él/-la /-los /-las saw to him/her/them.masc/them.fem él/-la /-los /-las him/her/them.masc/them.fem

In the doubling construction (26a) strict agreement holds between the clitic (which can come out in various forms, depending on gender and number) and the double; combinations that do not match in relevant features are ungrammatical. In contrast, in the possessive construction (26b), first, there is no coding of gender agreement in the clitic. Second, coding of number is optional. Strong agreement in Dcomp licenses pro (23a (ii)), which goes well with the fact that the presentation, in the technical sense above, in doubling constructions is pro. Dpart also licenses a null category, though more limited in range:15 (27) a.

Padre lo / la / los / las / me / te /nos/os vio pro. Father him/her/them.masc/them.fem/me/you/us/you.pl saw ‘Father saw him/her/them/me/you/us/you guys.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.18 (922-985)

 Juan Uriagereka

b. Padre se/le lo / la / los / las / *me/*te/*nos/*os Father her him/her/them.masc/them.fem/me/you / us / you.pl vio pro (a Madre). saw to Mother ‘Father saw him/her/them/*me/*you/*us/*you guys in(side) Mother.’ Clearly, it is as sound to imagine one’s father seeing him, her, or them, inside one’s mother as it is to imagine this happening to me, you, us, and similar first and second persons. But we cannot express that thought by way of clitic possession (27b). This follows directly if Dcomp licenses the full range of pro elements implicit in (27a), and in contrast Dpart only licenses null categories with the import of English one in the one from Italy, which in Spanish comes out as el pro de Italia; this is a default third-person pro licensed by any kind of Spanish determiner. Consider also some obvious semantic restrictions (cf. (23iv) and see Suñer (1988) on this general issue): (28) (i) a.

b.

(ii) a.

b.

(iii) a.

b.

(iv) a.

b.

Yo no (*lo) vi a nadie. I not him saw to nobody ‘I didn’t see anybody.’ Yo no *(le) vi el cordón a nadie. I not him saw the cord to nobody ‘I didn’t see anybody’s cord.’ Yo (*lo) vi a todo el mundo. I him saw to everyone ‘I saw everyone.’ Yo *(le) vi el cordón a todo el mundo I him saw the cord to everyone ‘I saw everyone’s cord.’ Yo (*lo) vi a uno nacido hoy. I him saw to one just today ‘I saw one (baby) born today.’ Yo *(le) vi el cordón a uno nacido hoy. I him saw the cord to one born today ‘I saw one (baby) born today’s cord.’ A quién (*lo) vio él? to whom him saw he ‘Who did he see?’ A quién *(le) vio el cordón él? to whom (him) saw the cord he ‘Whose cord did he see?’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.19 (985-1039)

On the syntax of doubling 

Doubling and clitic possession fare rather differently with regards to negative polarity items (28i), quantifiers (28ii), pure indefinites (28iii), or Wh-questions (28iv): whereas the clitic cannot co-occur with a double, it must co-occur with the possessor. In other words, Dcomp poses an indefiniteness effect (disallowing association to an individual variable) which Dpart does not. Observe also (29), to complete the paradigm of observations:16 (29) a.

Hablando de los gemelos, Padre le vio (*a) uno de los Speaking of the twins Father her saw to one of the chicos/?ellos/?*vosotros a Madre. boys /them /you guys to Mother ‘Speaking of the twins, Father saw one of the boys/them/you guys in(side) Mother.’ b. Hablando de los gemelos, Padre los/os vio *(a) uno de los Speaking of the twins Father him/you saw to one of the chicos/ellos / vosotros boys/them/ you guys ‘Speaking of the twins, Father saw one of the boys/them/you guys.’

The nominal that Dpart introduces is personless (typically an inanimate, but also other third person elements, especially inside indefinite partitive expressions); notice also that it cannot be introduced by ‘personal’ a. In contrast, the nominal introduced by Dcomp is necessarily introduced by ‘personal’ a and is compatible with any kind of personal expression, even those inside partitives. So although the IDH proposes a common source for doubling and possession, all in all we have sound reasons to separate the phenomenology of each kind of construction, and furthermore to blame it on the featural makeup of the D element heading each. Ideally, we should be able to hang on this also the variations on Case that we have already noted. This is the last point I will be discussing, in the next section.

. Consequences of D incorporation I have assumed that Dcomp incorporates to v, where it in effect becomes part of the personal agreement system of the inflectional clausal skeleton. What consequences does this operation have vis-à-vis the representation whereby the less rich D element does not incorporate? To address that issue, let’s begin by considering the Case properties of any possessive structure, starting with the simple instances in (7), repeated now: (30) a. A neighborhood of a city. b. A city’s neighborhood.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.20 (1039-1095)

 Juan Uriagereka

c. A city of neighborhoods. d. *A neighborhoods’ city. When lexical material remains inside the integral small clause (as opposed to traces) preposition of surfaces (30a, c). This would follow if the small clause can be introduced by the preposition, as a sort of complementizer, and furthermore it licenses (exceptional) Case inside the small clause via agreement (31).17 One immediate prediction this makes is that only one lexical element can be left inside the small clause, where there is no internal source of Case (32): (31)

CP [de] C SPACE

SC PRESENTATION

(32) *[A/the (of) [city [poor neighborhoods]]] DP SC This description is adequate, and may determine also why elements move to the higher, intentional sites, without having to postulate specific features to carry them there; basically, something has to move out of the small clause, or there will not be a grammatical output.18 Note also that once an element that moves out of the small clause lands on the referential site (where it establishes the contents of the main predicate for the quantificational expression) this element cannot move any further. Thus the following are ungrammatical: (33)

In traditional terms these expressions are out because they are headless DPs. But this is not obviously a problem in the present system, where the reference of the entire relational DP depends on what has moved through the R site -and something has moved in both (33a) and (33b). Therefore it must be the case that an element that visits R is stuck in that position. There is a way of expressing that idea in the terms of Chomsky (2001): some Case must be checked in the R site, thereby making elements that land there inactive for further computation. This theoretical

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.21 (1095-1138)

On the syntax of doubling 

analysis is compatible with a fact noted by Szabolcsi (1983) for Hungarian nominals: they manifest overt nominative Case in precisely the site that we are now discussing. Therefore we conclude that Case checking, and subsequent freezing, of the nominal element that associates to the R site limits further movements to the genitive, higher site (and from there to the rest of the clause) to whatever element does not determine the reference of the relational nominal. Also, since movement of the presentation to the genitive site would be, in normal circumstances, ‘too far away’ (recall from (7) in Section 2), we will normally obtain possessor, but not possessum raising to the main clause, through the genitive site.19 In sum, for the instances involving clitics that concern us here, where we do not invoke the lower CP structure (basically in analogy with S’ deletion), the only abstract possibility is: (34)

DP D’ D

RP R’ R SPACE

SC PRESENTATION

Again, D can be partial or complete, in the later case licensing a canonical pro presentation (24). Dcomp incorporates to v, becoming part of the inflectional skeleton of the clause. Suppose that this movement targets vacc , the first layer of functional structure above V.20 Suppose, further, that incorporation involves Case checking, which thus deactivates Case-valuation possibilities for the vacc head while checking Case features of the incorporated Dcomp , valuating them in the accusative. If any other element within the structure requires Case, it will not be able to target vacc , and will instead need to involve the vdat layer. This is what happens with the space element in DP Spec. Note, first, that unlike Germanic, Romance does not systematically license genitive checking in DP Spec; thus if an element for some reason moves to the DP periphery it will have to seek dependencies further up in the phrase-marker, where it can check its Case -the phenomenon of ‘Possessor Raising’. In the present instance, an element like sonata in (21b) cannot remain inside the DP and get genitive in Spanish; so it has to relate to the vdat layer. Still, why does it not move to this site by itself, and must involve the entire DP it is a part of (21b)?

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.22 (1138-1174)

 Juan Uriagereka

Before answering that, consider the logic of the situation by comparing the instance where the element that seeks Case in vdat is a double (21b) with that in which the element that presumably also seeks Case in this layer is a possessor (21a). In the latter the head of the relational expression is Dpart , not an element that incorporates. The entire DP, then, must relate to the vacc layer in the normal fashion, achieving accusative Case checking in the appropriate site. But how does the possessor relate to the vdat layer, if the configuration is as follows? (35)

íP ídat

íP íacc

VP V

DP POSS.

...

In particular, shouldn’t vacc create an intervention effect for vdat , which is obviously further up in the phrase-marker? Suppose it does. Then the natural alternative is as in (36), where the entire DP, which checks accusative case in vacc , legitimately moves to this intermediate site: íP

(36) ídat

íP í’

DP POSS.

...

íacc

VP V

DP t

At this point vacc is no longer an obstacle for the agreement between POSS and vdat . Still, a fair question would be why POSS in (36) is what relates to vdat , as opposed to the DP that dominates it, which is closer to vdat than POSS is.21 Of course, if that were the case we would obtain a crashed derivation, as it is POSS, and not DP, that requires checking at the vdat layer. Note that we cannot pretend that DP in (36) is invisible after Case checking, for although it is certainly inactive (Case checking freezes it in place) we still want nominals in this sort of situation to induce blocking effects for elements that are further away.22 We can, however, resolve this impasse if we separate locality for the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.23 (1174-1227)

On the syntax of doubling 

purposes of the Agree relation (which checks Case and agreement features) from locality for the purposes of Movement. For some reason, in the examples we are concerned with we need both, agreement and movement, the latter being what determines context grounding. Now suppose that whereas locality for Agree is a convergence condition, locality for Move is a ranking criterion instead.23 All other things being equal, we chose the shortest move. In (36) all other things are not equal: if we take the ‘most economical’ route from the point of view of Move we crash; so after all this wasn’t the most economical, anymore than cheating in chess could involve an optimal move. Therefore we go with the best alternative among the ones that converge -that is moving POSS. We should keep this in mind, since immediately below we are going to see an instance where movement of the entire DP, as opposed to POSS, is convergent, and hence optimal. We do not want the equivalent of possessor raising to the vdat site for the doubling instance, where it is the entire relational DP that must move to vdat . But recall that in the doubling construction Dcomp has incorporated to vacc . What would happen if the DP, ‘decapitated’ after the incorporation of its head, were to move to vdat site? Arguably the double in its specifier would be able to check dative Case, as the partial structure in the DP skeleton would not count as a blocker of the appropriate relation.24 If this is the case, the route of moving the top DP, as opposed to one of its parts, would be legitimately the most economical, and thus the only grammatical one. íP

(37)

í’

DPi DOUBLE Dat. Case D tj

ídat

D’ ...

íP í’

ti íacc

Dcompj íacc V

VP DP ti

So in effect it is the crucial incorporation of Dcomp that triggers the different Case realization for the doubling and the possession construction. The incorporated D is a clitic with the form of a regular determiner and accusative morphology; the projected DP is then turned into a defective, in essence intra-configurational relation, which is not capable of acting as a blocker for configurational relations of grammar, unlike its non-defective counterpart (with no incorporation); see Fn. 24. This allows the grammar to pursue the most economical route: the DP relates to

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.24 (1227-1255)

 Juan Uriagereka

the vacc Spec and from there to the vdat Spec, in successive cycles. Still, the double in the DP Spec is capable of checking dative. In contrast, the possessive construction does not involve a determiner clitic, heading the DP. This accounts for why the clitic that surfaces in these instances does not have, to start with, the morphology of a determiner, and is thus realized as le(s) or even se in some contexts (see Fn. 15), with no gender agreement and possibly no number agreement either. Presumably this element is base-generated directly in the v layer (see Torrego (1998) for relevant discussion). Each DP involved, the entire relational one and the possessor in its specifier, relate to one of the v layers: the relational DP moves to the vacc layer where it checks accusative Case, and its specifier moves to the vdat layer where it checks Dative Case. This movement is legitimate because, although it is not ideal in terms of the locality of movement processes, it is nonetheless the only one that leads to a convergent derivation. (20) in Section 4 does not arise with the meaning ‘I do not see your persona’ because, trivially, this would involve two relational expressions and not enough Cases:25 íP

(38)

í’

DPi (a tu persona) Dat Case D

ídat

D’ ...

íP í’

ti tj íacc Dj la

íacc V íeo

V

DP ti

There is nothing wrong with the relevant semantics, however, as (39) immediately shows: (39) a.

Yo ya no lo veo al burro de Juan. I already not him see to-the donkey of Juan ‘I don’t see that ass of John any more.’ b. Yo ya no lo veo al padre del burro de Juan. I already not him see to-the father of-the donkey of Juan ‘I don’t see anymore that ass of John’s father.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.25 (1255-1310)

On the syntax of doubling 

c.

Yo ya no lo veo al idiota del padre del I already not him see to-the idiot of-the father of-the burro de Juan. donkey of Juan ‘I don’t see anymore that idiot of that ass of John’s father.’

These are fine, once we provide further sources of Case inside the integral small clauses. A seemingly more problematic version of (20) would be as in (40): (40) Yo ya no se lo veo (el burro) (a Juan). I already not to-him him see the donkey to Juan ‘I don’t see John’s donkey any more.’ (Not: ‘I don’t see that ass of John any more.’) Why can’t this be used to mean that one cannot see John presented as a donkey? The fact that a dative clitic is employed tells us that the relevant construction is of the sort in (36), not as in (37). But then how about the accusative clitic? It is a mere pronominal instantiation of the possessed item, the donkey. In order to obtain the reading whereby the donkey is not an independent referring expression, but actually a presentation of Juan, we would have to incorporate to vacc a Dcomp head. As a consequence the most economical route for the derivation would then be the one where the entire relational DP moves to the vdat domain, thus leaves no room for an independent dative clitic. Consider then (41), where we purposely avoid using a dative clitic: (41) Yo ya no lo veo el/al burro (*a Juan). I already not him see the/to-the donkey (to Juan) ‘I don’t see the donkey any more.’ Without the dative clitic, neither a possessive, nor an epithetic reading are possible; just a referential reading for the direct object is. This object stands as a right dislocated element with regards to the clitic if it is not introduced by personal a, and is otherwise a double. Of course, the personal a relates to movement of the entire relational DP to the vdat domain, possible only through the incorporation of its D head. In contrast, absence of a indicates absence of that incorporation, and thus a simpler structure.

. Conclusions The IDH provides an approach to the bizarre phenomenon of clitic doubling. The claim it makes is rather abstract, but it accords with the phenomenology of doubling, understood as a form of ‘inalienable possession’. The obvious differences in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.26 (1310-1365)

 Juan Uriagereka

syntactic instantiation follow from assuming a small variation between the two structures, and associated consequences: the doubling construction is headed by a complete determiner introducing the relational structure, whereas the possessive construction is not. Many important questions remain. For example, could things have been the other way around? What in the doubling construction demands that it be headed by Dcomp ? Intuitively, this should relate to the fact that agreement systems in languages are known to originate, diachronically, from doubling systems. It seems that the extra personal feature of Dcomp is to blame, but a full understanding is missing of why this feature relates to ‘more referential’ expressions (e.g. the double and its canonical realization, as opposed to the possessor and its various instantiations). Those ideas should relate to the puzzling and widespread fact that when it comes to personal clitics (non-default first and second persons) accusative and dative morphology syncretize into single forms. This suggests that only one of the strategies for Case realization above is possible for personal forms, surely because they relate to the Dcomp variant of D (which as we saw licenses full pro-drop). A final deep and mysterious question is why in most instances discussed here there is not only agreement between relevant probes and goals, but also overt movement (in essence, an Extended Projection Principle effect). This is especially the case when relevant displacements affect referential and contextual specifications that shape LF representations. One possibility to pursue is that intentional relations are categorial (not merely featural) and furthermore that the computational machinery is all pre-Spell-out. The other possibility is that the movements relate to low-level syntactic facts (e.g. ‘if X doesn’t move one of X’s components will be too far away from a necessary probe’, or ‘at least some X must leave domain Y’); these may have important, if accidental, semantic consequences.

Acknowledgements I thank my students, at Maryland, the University of the Basque Country, and the LSA Summer Institute for their questions about these ideas. Thanks also to Lorie Heggie and Paco Ordóñez for the workshop they organized and their invitation, as well as for their interest in publishing this piece, and to two anonymous reviewers for many detailed comments. This work was funded by NSF Grant BCS-9817569.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.27 (1365-1419)

On the syntax of doubling 

Notes . A reviewer suggests that I should use more technical terms at this point, such as ‘Dlinking or discourse anaphora/logophoric relations’. The truth, is, however, that I am trying to stay away from those particular technical implementations. In their customary theoretical interpretation, these notions introduce other sorts of commitments that I do not wish to adhere to. In a more metaphorical use, they do not seem particularly more illuminating than ‘context confinement’ in the sense to be discussed below. . A reviewer objects to my claim, noting that I have not given a definition of inalienability (the reviewer mentions Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992), Köenig (1999) and Nicol (2002)) and that I am confusing inalienability with possession of a body part. Again, I am taking ‘inalienability’ in its common use, whereby something alienable is ‘capable of being separated from one ownership and transferred to another’ (Webster Dictionary), and thus something in-alienable is not. It is easy to get into a lengthy and pointless philosophical discussion, concerning what does and does not qualify as alienable in some sense or another. The bottom line, however, is that speakers of Spanish use grammatical expressions for this ultimately cognitive purpose, e.g. (4) below, which refers to a body part which is not attached. The reviewer notes how some definitions in the literature correlate inalienability to the part-whole relation, but I am trying to suggest that this is wrong. To repeat, in Spanish one has a particular expression to denote something which is of one’s ownership by nature, and yet is not a part to one’s whole, at least in any spatial sense. Needless to say, family relations count as inalienable in similar respects, yet have little to do with spatial dependencies beyond pregnancy. Incidentally, my fairly radical departure from tradition is the reason I don’t go into the massive typological literature on the topic; a different reviewer mentions, in particular, Haspelmath and Koenig (forthcoming) as especially useful. . I have no trouble postulating separate lexico/conceptual and intentional components of the system, which of course is the Principle and Parameters view that included a Deep Structure and an LF level. I have argued in Uriagereka(1999) that the Minimalist Program, at least in Chomsky’s (1995) version, while having gotten rid of the level of D-structure (due to a conclusive argument by Howard Lasnik), has never eliminated the need for a D-structure component, with relevant primitives (configurations and accompanying predicate/argument relations, à la Hale and Kayser (1993)), and a separate LF where derived scope is to be coded. It is thus proper to claim, as I do in the text, that something has a concrete predicate/argument status in the initial component, and later on, derivationally speaking, subsumes a (different) semantic role. . Granted, this presupposes non-trivial type-shifting (think for instance of an element which starts its derivational life as the lexical predicate to some argument, e.g. cord in (5a), and eventually is taken to be, in itself, the argument of a PRESENTATION role of the sort in (5b)). This is a matter I have discussed, for example, in Uriagereka(2001), and which in my view is at the core of the duality in integral relations, which express both notions (say, one’s components) and objects which bear referentiality to them (those components behave as other ‘things’ do). For me, the notionality of, say, a part is a matter of its lexico-conceptual expression, whereas its objectuality results from its intentional expression at LF.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.28 (1419-1480)

 Juan Uriagereka . A reviewer finds this assertion too hasty and claims, first, that a part-and-boundary framework in the vein of Jackendoff (1991, 1992, 1996) would predict the ungrammaticality of (7d). The reviewer does not specify how. Next the reviewer claims that the paradigm I discuss does not obtain with ‘relational’ terms: (i)

a. b. c. d.

A daughter of a father A father’s daughter A father of a daughter A daughter’s father

This is as true as trivial: ‘relational’ terms, in particular, are such that either one can be the space or the presentation in the sense above (unlike, for instance, part/whole terms, where the part is a presentation of the whole’s space, not vice-versa). If either relational term can be structurally high or low within the small-clause I am assuming, the syntax will never violate locality (or more precisely, there is always a way of obtaining the surface strings in (i) without violating locality, unlike what happens in (7d)). . This element can correlate with case-marker of when lexical material is left inside the small clause, see Section 5 and Castillo (2001). . I am not attaching any significance to the particular lexical implementations of abstract, decomposed notions. . I admit I do not know precisely what counts as ‘canonical’, or for that matter precisely why this makes a difference. Intuitively, the more attributive one of these presentations is, the less likely it is that it will force a referential reading. Conversely, the less attributive presentations (e.g. ‘guy’, ‘thing’, etc.) will normally force a referential reading. . Uriagereka (2002: Ch. 12) discusses the issues that this theory poses for proper names, which are argued to be complex as well (as is evident in many languages where they are introduced by determiners). . For instance, ‘one car’ in Japanese is ichi-dai no kuruma, literally ’one-classifier genitive car’, which has the syntax of ‘one type of car’ or ‘one part of the car’. . The relation between the D clitic and the rest of the structure will be clarified in the next section. . From this point on I’ll assume, inaccurately, that the doubling of direct objects is systematic in Spanish. In truth, only a few dialects are totally permissive about direct object doubling, and even for animate objects the phenomenon is not totally widespread. To my knowledge, however, speakers of Spanish in general have judgments about doubling (e.g. it is better with animates than with inanimates), which might relate to the fact that doubling is actually obligatory with pronouns, across dialects. . I have no idea why that should be, neither in the D instance nor in the T system. The latter is normally assumed without comment, but to my mind is deeply mysterious. . I write personal pronouns in hyphenated fashion (e.g. él/-la = ella) to show how the morphology of the different pronouns is identical to that of definite articles and corresponding clitics. The only exception in Spanish is third person él (cf. clitic lo), although it is possible that morpho-phonological adjustments are responsible for this exception; I will ignore it for my purposes here.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.29 (1480-1542)

On the syntax of doubling  . The gloss in (27b) needs some clarification. The indirect object clitic is introduced as either le or se to cover all possible combinations. The latter form only surfaces when the direct object clitic is third person. Also, strictly this element should not be glossed as ‘her’, but I’m trying to give glosses that are intuitive whenever further precision is irrelevant. I follow this practice in other glosses as well. . There is a curious concord property in (29b): the double uno de vosotros can match either the singular third person clitic (lo) or the second person plural (os). The same is not true for the double uno de ellos, which must be matched by the singular lo: (i)

a. ?Padre Father b. Padre Father

(ii) a.

Padre Father b. *Padre Father

lo vio him saw os you.guys

a uno de vosotros. to uno of you.guys vio a uno de vosotros. saw to one of you.guys

lo vio a uno de ellos. him saw to one of them los vio a uno de ellos. them saw to one of them

I do not know what to make of these facts. . It is possible that if CP introduces SC, the latter element is a form of defective TP, but this will not affect anything I have to say here. . In this alternative to the proposal I sketched earlier, there would be no substantive content to the category I have been calling RP, which could then be interpreted as Kayne’s more neutral AgrP. It would still be the case that what ends up in the domain of this Agr/R has referential consequences, but it would not be a particular semantic feature that carries the element to that position. Something similar could be said about contextual specifications related to the D projection. I will set aside all of these concerns now. I should also note that the suggestion in the text is incompatible with a number of standard instantiations of ‘last resort’, although not all. For instance, a generalized version of Lasnik’s (1999, Chapter 3) ‘enlighted self-interest’ could be invoked in this instance. It should be added, also, that although the notion of ‘last resort’ is quite central to minimalist theorizing, its details have changed rather drastically over the years, and many central proposals in the program violate the strictest versions of the intuition, which suggests it needs to be liberalized. . Setting aside as irrelevant those instances discussed in Section 2 that involve head movement (9). . This presumably means that there is a D feature of some form in the v head, perhaps a personal one (see Torrego (1998) for discussion). Note also that if v probes DP for a concrete feature in D, the fact that there is a closer V, albeit of a different type (lexical, not functional) is possibly irrelevant. . An issue, also, is why this doesn’t violate ‘sub-extraction’ (as POSS is extracting from a ‘left-branch’). I address this general question more generally in Uriagereka (2003), where I attempt to make Uriagereka(2002: Ch. 3) proposal involving multiple Spell-out with instances where left branches are clearly porous (Japanese subjects, small clause subjects).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.30 (1542-1616)

 Juan Uriagereka . For example, we want it to induce an intervention effect, even when its Case is checked: (i) *There seemed that it was told a man that the earth is flat. See Chomsky (2001) for discussion of this and related instances. . There has always been a debate about this. For instance, Chapter 3 of Chomsky (1995) takes one view (locality as optimality) whereas Chapter 4 takes the opposite. The recent literature contains several instances of either one of these possibilities. There is also much recent discussion as to whether locality should constrain Agree, Move, or both (see Ochi (1999) on this general topic). The only (empirical) possibility that I’m raising here is this: locality constrains both operations, in terms of optimality evaluation when Move is involved. . The assumption here is that incorporation produces some sort of head chain, and a chain is not a configuration, but a set of configurations. Only one link of the chain is in the displaced DP, hence it is defective. Another way of thinking of this formal point is as follows: the displaced DP is headed by a D trace, whose antecedent is incorporated to the v structure; therefore the DP projection as such is fully licensed only with regards to a reconstructed site, lower down in the phrase-marker. As a result, the structure projecting from the D trace does not shield the DP Spec to ‘government’ from the outside. . There is still an issue arising with doubling involving first and second person clitics, which I argued in Uriagereka(1995) are not determiners. There I suggested that this kind of doubling is quite different, but the question now would be whether it obeys the IDH. This is not easy to test, because first and second person expressions are very restricted, to start with, in terms of the sorts of integral qualifications we have been discussing. Thus the expressions in (i) are impossible when involving non-third person pronouns: (i)

a. b.

El the los the

burro de él /*mí/*ti ass of him/ me/ you burros de ellos/ de nosotros / de vosotros ass of them/ of us / of you guys

At any rate, if my arguments in Uriagereka(1995) are still valid, doubling for non-third person clitics ought to be ultimately an unrelated phenomenon.

References Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. Burge, T. 1974. “Mass Terms, Count Nouns, and Change.” Synthese 31. (Reprinted in Mass Terms. Some philosophical problems, F. Pelletier (ed.) 1979. Dordrecht: Reidel.) Castillo, J. C. 2001. Thematic Relations in Nouns. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1998. “Minimalist inquiries.” In Step by Step, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.31 (1616-1722)

On the syntax of doubling 

Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A life of language, M. Kenstowitz (ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and other locatives.” Language 68(3): 553–595. Hale, K. and S. J. Kayser. 1993. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.” In The View from Building 20, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds), Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Haspelmath, M. and E. Koenig (eds). Forthcoming. Handbuch der Typologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Higginbotham, J. 1988. “Contexts, models, and meanings.” In Mental Representations. The Interface between language and reality, R. Kempson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, N., S. Rosen and J. Uriagereka. 1995. “Integral existentials.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 14, Stanford Linguistics Association. (Reprinted in Juan Uriagereka, 2002.) Jackendoff, R. 1991. “Parts and boundaries.” Cognition 41: 9–45. Jackendoff, R. 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on mental representation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1996. “The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface.” In Language and Space, P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett (eds). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antysymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Köenig, J. P. 1999. “French body-parts and the semantics of binding.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 219–265. Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the external argument from its verb.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, L. Zaring and J. Rooryck. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landau, I. 1999. “Possessor raising and the structure of VP.” Lingua 107: 1–37. Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Muromatsu, K. 1998. On the Syntax of Classifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland. Nicol, J. 2002. “Semantic constraints on clitic raising: Evidence from inalienable possession Structures.” CLS 37, Vol. 1: 437–453. Ochi, M. 1999. Constraints on Feature Checking. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Raposo, E. and J. Uriagereka. 1995. “Two types of small clauses.” In Small Clauses, A. Cardinaletti and M. T. Guasti (eds). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in J. Uriagereka, 2002). Schmidt, C. 1995. Aspect and the Syntax of Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland. Sportiche, D. 1996. “Clitic constructions.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, L. Zaring and J. Rooryck (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Suñer, M. 1988. “The role of agr(eement) in clitic doubling constructions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. Szabolcsi, A. 1983. “The possessor that ran away from home.” The Linguistic Review 3: 89– 102.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:7/02/2005; 16:40

F: LA7411.tex / p.32 (1722-1752)

 Juan Uriagereka

Torrego, E. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Uriagereka, J. 1995. “Aspects of clitic placement in western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 25(1): 79–123. Uriagereka, J. 1999. “In defense of deep structure.” Ms., University of Maryland. Uriagereka, J. 2001. “Doubling and Possession.” In Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, B. Gerlach and J. Grijzenhout (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Uriagereka, J. 2002. Derivations. London: Routledge. Uriagereka, J. 2003 “Spell-out onsequences.” Ms., University of Maryland. Vergnaud, J. R. and M. L. Zubizareta. 1992. “The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/02/2005; 10:10

F: LA74NI.tex / p.1 (42-156)

Author index

A Adamović, M. 323, 324 Adger, D. 200, 202, 211, 226, 231 Agostini, P. M. 174, 192 Aissen, J. 21, 106, 111, 112, 119, 120, 133, 193, 200, 226 Albizu, P. 202 Alexiadou, A. 227, 231, 232 Alibert, L. 161, 170, 172, 179, 191 Alsina, A. 276 Alvar, M. 87, 175, 192 Anagnostopoulou, E. 7, 8, 11, 23, 25, 34, 35, 68, 77, 121, 122, 124–126, 135, 136, 142, 143, 159, 161–163, 182, 191, 200–201, 207, 208, 210–212, 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 231, 232 Anderson, S. 92, 275, 283, 296 Andrews, A. 206 Anttila, A. 94 Aoun, J. 193 Auger, J. 82 B Béjar, S. 23, 82, 96, 121, 125, 126, 133, 136 Baski, P. 298 Bader, C. 296 Baker, M. 242 Bayle, L. 170, 191 Baylon, C. 13 Belletti, A. 121, 307 Benincà, P. 168, 169, 191 Benveniste, É. 91, 211, 349 Bergin, T. G. 192 Bertodatti, R. 191 Bessler, P. 34, 82

Beukema, F. 1 Bianchi, V. 200–202, 226, 227, 232 Bigalke, R. 168, 191 Birabent, J.-P. 191 Blasco Ferrer, E. 167, 169, 191, 192 Bloomfield, L. 91 Bošković, Z. 189, 283, 296, 301–309, 311, 312 Bobaljik, J 231, 310 Boeckx, C. 2, 7–10, 200 Bonet, E. 8, 10, 11, 16–18, 26, 34, 41, 58, 67, 70, 82, 85, 88, 90, 96, 97, 124, 131, 135, 166, 188, 190, 200–204, 208, 211, 217–219, 229, 232 Bonnaud, P. 188, 191 Booij, G. 283, 286, 297 Borer, H. 115, 128, 144, 275 Borsley, R. 283 Brero, C. 191 Bresnan, J. 21, 242, 337, 338 Brown, S. 302 Bruening, B. 200, 201, 224–228 Bruhn de Garavito, J. 85, 91, 98 Brunot, F. 192 Burge, T. 346 Burston, J. 34 Burzio, L. 11, 106, 109, 112, 115, 116, 120, 128, 130, 133, 134, 231

C Camproux, C. 170, 191 Cardinaletti, A. 4, 18, 25, 107, 116, 117, 125, 132, 135, 283, 285 Castillo, J. C. 370 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 167

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/02/2005; 10:10

F: LA74NI.tex / p.2 (156-239)

 Author index

Cavar, D. 288, 307 Chabaneau, C. 191 Chae, H.-R. 245, 275, 276, 279 Chenal, A. 192 Chierchia, G. 107 Cho, Y.-M. Yu 239, 242, 243, 249, 250, 252–255, 274, 276 Choi, K.-Y. 244 Chomsky, N. 34, 38, 77, 105, 115, 116, 120–122, 124, 125, 130, 134–136, 141–146, 150, 151, 157, 160, 162, 168, 181, 182, 190, 210–213, 220, 222, 223, 232, 241–243, 294, 297, 301–303, 305, 311, 312, 349, 358, 362, 369, 372 Chuan-chusé Lagraba, M. 192 Chusé L. A. 192 Cinque, G. 106 Cintra, L. 3 Collins, C. 123, 207, 212, 213, 215 Cuervo, M. C. 98 Cummins, S. 34, 82 Cunha, C. 3

D da Silva Dias, A. E. 161, 191 Davies, W. D. 127 Delbecque, N. 167, 192 den Dikken, M. 1 Desouvrey, L.-H. 7, 8, 10, 14, 25, 35, 39–45, 50–52, 54, 56, 58, 62, 65, 75–78, 96, 97, 131, 144, 161, 200, 202, 211, 212, 231 Di Sciullo, A.-M. 242 Diesing, M. 350 Dinnsen, D. 82 Duc, J. 168 Duranti, A. 202

E Embick, D. 284, 297 Erguvanli-Taylan, E. 338 Evans, K. J. 152, 153, 158, 190

F Fabra, P. 192 Fabre, P. 13 Feldman, M. W. 167 Fiengo, R. 141 Fontelles, A. 191 Fourvières (de), X. 170, 191 Fox, D. 293 Franks, S. 8, 103, 106, 125, 132, 298 Freeze, R. 349 Fried, M. 103 G Galves, C. 167, 191 García Martínez, G. 88 Garcia, E. C. 167, 192 Garcia, L. 167, 192 Gardette, P. 192 Gerlach, B. 1, 202 Giacomo-Marcellesi, M. 174, 189 Gitterman, M. R. 141 Goldsmith, J. 39, 76 Good, J. 6, 8, 332, 335 Grijzenhout, J. 2 Grimshaw, J. 10, 19–21, 26, 34, 36, 81–86, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97 Grohmann, K. 2 Gross, M. 65 Guiter, H. 176, 192 H Haiman, J. 168, 326 Hale, K. 350, 369 Halle, M. 16, 18, 40, 271 Halpern, A. 9, 10, 141, 240, 288, 296, 322 Han, H.-S. 266 Harbour, D. 200, 202, 211, 226, 231 Harley, H. 81, 82, 85, 90, 91, 96, 97 Harris, A. C. 232 Harris, James 3, 18, 79, 92–94, 167, 191, 192 Harris, J. 79, 98 Harris, M. 191

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/02/2005; 10:10

F: LA74NI.tex / p.3 (239-324)

Author index 

Haspelmath, M. 200, 202, 203, 231, 369 Heap, D. 7, 8, 10, 21, 22, 25–27, 34, 41, 53, 82–83, 85, 87, 91, 92, 94, 96–98 Heggie, L. 240, 269 Herschensohn, J. 204 Hetzron, R. 86, 88 Hewson, J. 191 Heycock, C. 272 Higginbotham, J. 351 Holmberg, A. 122, 127, 223, 232 Hopper, P. 2 Hornstein, N. 343, 346, 347 Hourcade, A. 177, 191 Hróarsdóttir, T. 223, 232 Huang, C.-T. J. 115 I Izvorski, R. 312 J Jónsson, J. G. 121, 131 Jackendoff, R. 26, 370 Jaeggli, O. 128 Jayaseelan, K. A. 131, 307 Jensen, F. 150, 161, 172, 192, 219 Jo, J.-M. 13, 271, 274, 275, 280 Johns, A. 211 Jones, M. A. 191, 192 K Köenig, J.-P. 369 Ka¸sgarli M. 324 Kaminskaïa, S. 97 Kayne, R. 5, 14, 22–25, 37, 43, 76, 106, 125, 127, 128, 130, 133, 136, 141, 142, 159, 189, 202, 204, 211, 217, 231, 346, 348, 349, 371 Kayser, S. J. 350, 369 Kim, J.-S. 258–262, 275, 305, 306 King, T. H. 103, 106, 125, 132 Kiss, K. 115, 307, 310 Klaiman, M. H. 200 Koopman, H. 239, 257, 276 Kornfilt, J. 338

Kratzer, A. 350 Kroch, A. 167, 272

L Laenzlinger, C. 23, 25, 26, 34, 36 Lamarche, J. 85, 91, 98 Lambova, M. 305 Lambrecht, K. 2 Lamiroy, B. 167, 192 Landau, I. 115, 127, 128, 133, 344 Lapointe, S. 240, 242, 275 Larson, R. 24 Lasnik, H. 115, 142, 145, 146, 181, 189, 369, 371 Leben, W. 76 Lespy, V. 172, 191 Lewis, G. L. 320, 325, 326, 340 Lightfoot, D. 167 Lim, H.-B. 6, 239

M Maling, J. 134 Marantz, A. 16, 18, 212, 228, 271, 288, 296, 297 Martín Zorraquino, M.-A. 87 Martin, J. B. 168, 192 Martin, R. 115 Martin, S. 254, 258, 264, 275 Matsuda, Y. 272 McGinnis, M. 136, 212, 215, 220, 222, 223 Mchombo, S. A. 242, 337, 338 Mišeska-Tomić, O. 305 Miller, P. 34, 75, 141, 144, 188, 189, 191, 193, 202, 240, 320 Miyagawa, S. 114 Moll, F. de Borja 171, 192 Monachesi, P. 202, 204, 232 Moore, J. 193 Morin, Y.-C. 24 Moro, A. 268, 269 Murasugi, K. 200, 202, 232 Muromatsu, K. 352, 353

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/02/2005; 10:10

F: LA74NI.tex / p.4 (324-404)

 Author index

N Nagore, F. 175, 191, 192 Nagy, N. 94, 97 Nevis, J. 240 Nichols, L. 200 Nicol, F. 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, 34, 36, 53, 77, 97, 131, 136, 200, 202, 204, 219, 220, 231, 232 Nicol, J. 369 Nishiyama, K. 239, 245 No, Y.-K. 1, 4, 42, 76, 93, 143, 152, 245, 276, 279 Noyer, R. 96 O Ochi, M. 372 Ordóñez, F. 18 Orgun, O. 315, 320 Ormazabal, J. 11, 135, 200, 202, 212, 231 Öztürk, B. 315 P Pérez Bouza, J. A. 167, 191 Pearce, E. 26, 141, 189 Perlmutter, D. 10, 15–18, 34, 67, 70, 81, 83, 86, 94, 106, 111, 112, 119, 120, 133, 141, 193, 202 Pirvulescu, M. 85, 91 Platzack, C. 122, 127 Pollock, J.-Y. 189, 242, 243, 312 Poser, W. 240 Postal, P. 159, 180, 181, 211, 242 Prince, A. 42 Pullum, G. K. 3, 4, 144, 240, 319, 320 Q Quicoli, A. C.

180

R Raposo, E. 346, 351 Real Academia Española 87 Reinhart, T. 224 Reuland, E. 224

Reynolds, B. 94, 97 Rezac, M. 7–9, 23, 81, 104, 121, 123–126, 129, 134–136, 200, 202 Rice, K. 85, 91, 253, 263, 276 Richards, N. 121, 123, 124, 208, 211, 220, 225, 231, 312 Ritter, E. 81, 82, 85, 90, 91, 96, 97, 211 Rivas, A. 106, 119, 127, 128, 133–135 Rivero M.-L. 129, 283 Rizzi, L. 7, 9, 104, 106, 111, 115, 121, 133, 283, 284, 290, 291, 298, 307 Roberge, Y. 34, 82, 85, 91, 96 Roberts, I. 106, 133 Rohlfs, G. 153, 174, 177, 191, 193 Romero, J. 23, 135, 200, 202, 212, 230, 231 Ronjat, J. 170, 191 Rubach, J. 283, 286, 297 Rudin, C. 301, 302, 305, 306, 310 S Sadock, J. 26 Sag, I. 34, 75, 141, 144, 188, 202, 327, 333, 336, 337, 340 Salles-Loustau, J. 191 Sardou, A.-L. 171, 191 Schütze, C. 121, 135, 205, 207, 209, 222 Sells, P. 6, 239, 242–255, 258, 259, 262, 264–267, 269, 272, 274–277 Seuren, P. 141, 143, 152, 190, 191, 232 Sezer, E. 315, 317 Shaw, R. B. 323 Sheffer, H. 94 Sigurðsson, H. A. 133, 134, 200, 205–207, 209 Silverstein, M. 190, 200, 211 Simpson, F. 188 Skårup, P. 172, 191 Smith, N. B. 192 Smolensky, P. 42 Solà, J. 191, 192 Sportiche, D. 43, 117, 128, 130, 131, 136, 137, 351 Starke, M. 4, 25, 107, 116, 117, 125, 131, 132, 135, 283, 285

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/02/2005; 10:10

F: LA74NI.tex / p.5 (404-478)

Author index 

Stateva, P. 305, 306 Stjepanović, S. 303, 305, 307, 308, 312 Strotzer, J. R. 106, 111, 116 Stump, G. 251, 277 Suñer, M. 360 Svenonius, P. 131 Szabolcsi, A. 346, 348, 363 Szczegielniak, A. 7–9 T Takahashi, D. 189 Taraldsen, T. 200, 204–206, 210–212 Terzi, A. 18, 77 Thráinsson, H. 123, 206, 207 Tinton, M. 191 Todolí, J. 86 Toman, J. 103, 104, 106, 114, 125, 129–132, 134–136 Torrego, E. 366, 371 Tosco, M. 96, 98 Toti, P. 192 Traugott, E. 2 Trubetzkoy, N. S. 36

Vanelli, L. 169, 191 Vergnaud, J. R. 369 Veselovská, L. 129 Vincent, N. 191 Vouland, P. 191 W Wackernagel, J. 8, 103 Wanner, D. 15, 23, 81, 82, 86, 94, 98, 141, 151, 153, 154, 158, 189, 192, 232 Warburton, I. 202 Wasow T. 327, 333, 336, 337 Watanabe, A. 308 Watson, K. 34, 141, 188 Whitman, J. 275 Wilder, C. 288, 307 Williams, E. 242 Withgott, M. 188 Woo, S.-J. 268, 272 Wurmbrand, S. 106, 107, 111, 114–116, 133, 134

U Ura, H. 200, 220, 225, 226 Uriagereka, J. 6, 8, 14, 22, 155, 156, 162, 189, 301, 302, 310–312, 346–349, 351, 352, 369–372

Y Yang, I.-S. 276 Yoon, J. 6–8, 240, 243, 245, 250, 251, 258, 262, 263, 266–272, 274, 275, 277–280 Yoon, J.-M. 274, 275 Yu, A. C. 6, 8, 332, 335

V Valor, E. 191 Van Riemsdijk, H. 1 Vanˇek, A. L. 109, 129, 130

Z Zaenen, A. 121, 122 Zubizarreta, M.-L. 369 Zwicky, A. 3, 4, 39, 144, 240, 319, 320

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/02/2005; 15:26

F: LA74LI.tex / p.1 (42-158)

Languages index

A Altoaragonese see Aragonese Andalusian 87 Aragonese 164, 171, 173, 175, 179, 188, 191, 192 Old 26 Auvergnat 166, 170, 171, 179, 188, 191, 193 B Béarnais see Gascon Basilicatese see Italian Basque 10, 11, 128, 135, 203, 204, 207 Benasque see Aragonese Bielsa see Aragonese Brazilian Portuguese see Portuguese Bulgarian 7, 9, 301–312 C Campidanese 165, 192 Catalan 13, 16, 97, 98, 154, 163, 164, 166, 171–173, 175, 176, 179, 182, 184, 185, 188–192, 203, 217, 219, 220, 230 Choctaw 127 Clermontois see Auvergnat Corsican 171–174, 178, 179, 188, 191, 192 Cushitic 98 Czech 7–9, 81, 103, 105, 106, 108–112, 114, 116, 118, 119, 122, 124–127, 129–137, 296 E English 2, 24, 27, 133–135, 142, 203, 240, 241, 243, 245–246, 272, 288, 353

European Portuguese

see Portuguese

F French

4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19–27, 33–37, 40, 47–49, 52–60, 62, 65, 67–70, 72–74, 97, 98, 109, 117, 119, 124, 126–128, 131, 135–137, 142, 143, 147, 148, 151, 154, 158–163, 173, 177–179, 181, 182, 185, 189–192, 203, 216–220, 230, 231 Non-standard 2 Old 150, 161, 172, 173, 192 Québécois 27

G Gévaudan 170, 172, 173, 179, 191 Galician 165, 167, 168, 191 Gascon 166, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179, 191, 193 Gavot see Occitan Georgian 128, 203, 207, 211, 231, 232 Greek 7, 202, 203, 207, 212, 217, 218, 220, 230 Cypriot 18 H Hebrew

127, 128

I Icelandic 7, 17, 121–123, 127, 131, 133–135, 200, 201, 204, 207–210, 215–218, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 230, 232, 278 Italian 4, 7, 9, 15, 20–22, 26, 33, 35, 36, 54, 56, 62–65, 67, 74, 76, 77, 83–85,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:9/02/2005; 15:26

F: LA74LI.tex / p.2 (158-249)

 Languages index

106, 109, 112, 115, 119, 120, 127, 128, 130, 152–155, 157–159, 161, 163, 165, 168–172, 188, 189, 191, 192, 204, 219, 220, 227, 230–232 J Japanese 106, 114, 239, 243, 244, 272, 280, 370, 371 K Kipchak 324 Korean 6, 7, 239, 241–244, 249–254, 257, 259, 261, 263, 265, 268, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277–280 L Languedoc 161, 166, 169, 173 Limousin 161, 170, 172, 173, 179, 191 Logudorese see Sardinian M Majorca see Catalan Maritime see Occitan Minorca see Catalan N Niçois 171–173, 179, 184, 191 Nissart 171 O Occitan 154, 161, 163, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179, 182, 188, 189, 191, 192, 219 Oghus 324 P Passamaquoddy 201, 224–230 Paulinois see Auvergnat Piedmontese 165, 168, 191 Polish 7, 9, 283–285, 287–298 Portuguese 3, 76, 161, 164, 167–169, 191, 219

Provençal 166, 170–174, 179, 188, 189, 191, 192 R Rhodanian see Occitan Ribagorza see Aragonese Rumanian 26, 166, 170, 191 S Sanflorain see Auvergnat Sardinian 165, 167–169, 191 Serbo-Croatian 7, 9, 288, 301, 302, 304–312 Spanish 3–5, 7, 14, 15, 19–22, 25, 26, 33–35, 53–56, 58–68, 70, 72–74, 76, 77, 81–85, 87, 88, 90–98, 106, 112, 119, 120, 127, 134, 135, 152, 153, 155–158, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 175, 177, 190–192, 208, 209, 217, 219, 220, 224, 232, 343–345, 352, 353, 360, 363, 369, 370 Caribbean Spanish 3 Latin America 48 Murcian 48, 53 Spain 48, 87, 89 Suwar 324 T Turkic 315, 320, 323, 325 Old 323 Turkish 8, 315–317, 319–323, 325–328, 332–335, 337–340 V Valencia see Catalan Veneto 166, 168, 169, 191 Z Zaragosa see Aragonese

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.1 (42-141)

Subject index

A A-movement 105, 112, 116, 121–125, 129–132, 135, 225 ablative postposition 258, 261, 264 Ablative Subject Construction 261, 264, 277, 278 affixation 143–150, 154–156, 159, 161–163, 168, 180–183, 186, 188, 191, 249–251, 275, 319–321, 332, 335, 339 affixes 1–6, 8, 14, 75, 191, 203, 209, 239–243, 249, 252, 267, 274–277, 279, 283–285, 297, 319, 321, 322, 329 edge 240 lexical 240, 241, 243, 321 orders 1, 275 phrasal 191, 240–242, 275 variable ordering of 325, 326 “zero” 251 agglutinative language 274 Agree 9, 23, 37, 113, 116, 122, 125, 134, 136, 205, 206, 210, 222, 226, 228, 259, 365, 372 move Agree 211, 218, 220 multiple Agree 11, 199, 201, 218, 220, 223, 224, 227, 230, 232 see parameter agreement 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 39, 41, 69, 70, 74, 82, 84, 91, 106, 107, 109, 115–117, 122, 124, 127, 128, 133, 134, 136, 157, 168, 169, 190, 192, 199, 200, 202–206, 208–211, 218, 221–223, 225, 227–232, 264, 265, 277, 279, 283–288, 290, 291, 297, 298,

315, 323, 331–333, 338–340, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364–366, 368 φ-agreement 103, 105, 111, 112, 116, 120, 121, 125, 135 ALIGN constraints 82, 92, 94, 98 Alignment constraints 10, 19, 21 allomorphs 163, 170, 171, 174, 178, 183–185, 193 analogical extension 325 anaphor 91, 114, 134 anaphora 114, 133, 135, 137, 369 anaphoric 91, 95, 115 animacy 54, 69, 74, 212, 224 animacy hierarchy 33, 42, 51, 68, 71, 73, 77, 200, 201, 226 animate 36, 39, 42, 54, 68, 70–73, 75, 77, 135, 167, 201, 211, 225–230, 264, 277, 370 applicative 136, 212, 215, 220 asymmetries 83, 97, 227 Atlas Lingüistíco de la Península Ibérica (ALPI) 87 Attract 182, 301–305, 311 Avoid Pronoun Strength 96 B Binding Theory 111, 162 apparent binding properties Burzio’s Generalization 11 C C-selection 245–249 locality of 244, 276 Canonical Copula Construction 268–270

91

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.2 (141-188)

 Subject index

Case Licensing Generalization 120–124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 135 Case Stacking 258, 262 case syncretism 168–171, 174, 178, 183, 189, 190, 193 Case Syncretism Property 163 case syncretism strength 179, 184–186, 188 case-syncretic 141, 147, 158, 164, 167–172, 176–178, 182, 186–188, 192 category-neutral elements 245 causatives 116, 119, 120, 125, 128, 159, 160, 180, 189 checking 25, 68, 77, 121, 128, 135, 143–148, 154, 158, 161, 162, 168, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186–189, 191, 211–214, 216–218, 220–222, 224, 225, 230, 232, 348, 363, 364, 366 Checking Theory 7, 17, 26, 53, 199 split feature 201, 210 classifiers 352, 353 Cleft Construction 268, 269, 273 cline 2 clitics 1–10, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21–23, 26, 33, 35–37, 39–41, 43, 55, 68–76, 81–86, 89–92, 96, 97, 107, 110, 111, 116, 129–134, 144, 145, 151, 152, 161–163, 168–172, 175, 178, 180, 181, 185, 189, 193, 199, 208, 209, 211, 219, 220, 232, 240–243, 275, 293–297, 301, 302, 306–310, 312, 315, 319–321, 325, 335, 337, 339, 345, 350, 354, 363, 368, 370, 372 accusative 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 38, 48–51, 53, 57, 58, 63, 65, 72, 105, 118, 124, 130, 131, 135, 136, 148, 177, 192, 203, 204, 211, 214, 216, 218, 231, 308, 359, 367 adverbial 104, 130 argumental 54, 59, 72, 77, 103, 105, 106, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 137

auxiliary 7, 9, 105, 283–296, 298, 308 dative 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 112, 124–128, 131, 135–137, 148, 167, 177, 214, 216, 217, 231, 308, 356, 367 ethical dative 13, 14, 48, 155, 188 genitive 106 indirect object 19, 34, 49–52, 56, 57, 62, 63, 77, 113, 147, 148, 154, 156, 176, 182, 184, 190, 202, 203, 229, 371 least specified 93, 95 lexical 322 licensing of 77, 311 locative 24, 25, 75, 84 oblique 49, 51, 54, 64, 67, 191 oblique clusters 159 partitive clitic 84, 98 person 5, 17, 20, 22, 39, 45, 47, 52, 54, 60, 62, 64, 67, 71, 72, 93, 143, 147, 150, 153–156, 177, 182, 183, 202, 371 referential status of 146 second 7, 52, 53, 56, 59–61, 67, 68, 72, 73, 78, 158 syncretic 14, 23–25, 141, 171 underspecified 84, 85 unmarked 22 clitic climbing 4, 7, 103, 105–108, 110–117, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 129, 130, 135, 290, 293, 345 clitic cluster 52, 59, 61, 62, 64, 103–105, 126, 130, 132, 142, 143, 147, 153, 154, 180, 181 clitic combinations 1, 7, 10, 12, 15–18, 21–23, 26, 82, 126, 152 clitic double 119, 346 clitic doubling 6, 78, 119, 208, 209, 217, 298, 337, 338, 343, 344, 352–355, 367 see doubling construction clitic group 4 clitic host 298 clitic inversion 88 Clitic Lexicon 84–86, 89, 91

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.3 (188-253)

Subject index 

clitic metathesis 87 clitic movement 43, 76, 111, 116–118, 124, 126, 128–131, 136, 145 clitic ordering 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 17–19, 81, 89, 94, 96, 131, 144, 151, 159, 185, 231 variable ordering 82, 92 clitic placement 4, 6, 18, 170, 288, 290, 302, 307, 344, 346, 348 clitic sequences 7, 8, 50, 81–83, 86, 88, 90, 96–98, 119 clitic-like 322 cliticized pronouns 323 cluster switch 97, 141, 149, 151, 157, 158, 161, 163, 174, 181–183, 187, 188 clustering 9, 132, 169, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 182, 188, 192, 305 co-occurrence restrictions 83, 86, 104 Condition B 114, 162 see Binding Theory conditional 103–105, 132, 133, 316–318, 321, 325, 326 conjunction reduction 319 Constraint Hierarchy 86, 97 constraint interaction 96 constraint ranking 267 constraint-based approach 7 Coordinate structure 241 copula 248–251, 265–274, 276, 279, 280, 285, 286 Crescendo Effect 92 D diachronic analysis 315 diachrony 264 dialectal variations 141 dialects 6, 7, 14, 16, 24, 27, 61, 70, 97, 98, 119, 152, 192, 208, 316, 370 Direct Voice 200, 201, 226, 228 discontinuous dependencies 253 discourse configurationality 307, 310 discourse (D)-linking 162 disjunctive optional ordering 89 distributional restrictions 153 ditransitive constructions 24, 159, 160

double object construction 27, 104, 121, 123 doubling construction 358, 359, 365, 368 dual categorization 254, 255 dual grammar 97 E event 6, 35, 74, 95, 345, 346, 348 Exceptional Case-Marking (ECM) verbs 108, 109 Extended Projection Principle (EPP) 368 F feature

7, 10, 15–17, 21, 22, 26, 33–41, 43, 45, 51, 54–59, 61, 62, 65–67, 70–78, 81, 82, 85, 87, 90–98, 143–150, 153–158, 161–163, 167–169, 174, 177, 178, 180, 181, 185–187, 189–191, 199, 202, 211–213, 215, 216, 219–230, 232, 279, 306, 312, 332, 333, 368, 371 animate 68, 72, 77 case 34, 35, 40, 46, 57, 71, 97, 121, 143, 144, 148, 157, 167, 220, 222 EPP 135 monovalent 36, 84 phi (φ)-feature 107, 116, 125, 183, 184, 210, 220, 221, 230 split (phi (φ))-feature 201, 210, 224 privative features 90 feature bundles 85 feature delinking 67 Feature Geometry 7, 10, 15, 21, 22, 81, 82, 85, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98 feature transfer 169 featural specifications 85, 86, 358 filter 15, 18, 87, 94, 119, 145, 151, 159, 160, 285, 295–297 Floated Quantifiers (FQs) 259 Floating Constraints 94, 97

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.4 (253-328)

 Subject index

Floating Number 89 Focus 7, 17, 23, 36, 129, 133, 142, 144, 243, 246, 247, 250, 266, 268, 283–285, 291–296, 298, 303–307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 339, 350 Functional Uniqueness Condition 338 G grammar change 167 grammaticalization 2, 4, 264 H head movement 133, 136, 243, 247, 248, 296, 371 Long Head Movement 129 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) 6, 315, 316 honorific 253, 260–263, 268, 270, 278 agreement 264, 265, 277, 279 nominative 246, 249, 250, 252, 258

Left Periphery (LP) 283, 291 leismo 164, 166, 167, 169, 175, 192 Leveling Convention 45 lexical idiosyncracy 141, 144 Lexical Integrity Hypothesis 242 lexicalist approach 6, 239, 240, 242–244, 249, 251, 276, 316, 327 hypothesis 40 models 333 strong 188 Linearization Convention 42, 45 linearizing 92 locality 117, 120, 122, 125, 244, 246, 276, 311, 349, 364–366, 370, 372 loismo 164, 167

I I-II constraint 67, 202 Inalienable Double Hypothesis (IDH) 352 inalienable possession 343, 344, 346, 348, 351, 352, 367 incorporation 45, 131, 343, 349, 358, 361, 363, 365, 367, 372 incorporated 337, 338, 359 indefiniteness effect 358, 361 inherent case marker 259 integral expressions 343 Inverse Copula Construction 268, 269, 272, 273 inverse systems 200, 201, 224–227 Italo-Gallo-Romance 96

M Major Class nodes 90 markedness 81, 83, 85, 86, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97 relations 89 me lui constraint 15, 16, 23 merger under adjacency 274 Minimal Link Condition 160, 181, 188 Minimalist Program 34, 103, 105, 305, 369 morphological daughter 328, 330 morphological opacity 150, 152, 153, 161, 162, 189 morphological slot 246 morphological specification 158 morphological structure 23, 85, 91, 328, 329 hierarchical 7, 82, 89 internal 81, 83 Multiple Nominative Constructions 260, 278 multiple wh-fronting 301–303, 312

L Last Resort 97, 224, 230, 276, 295, 298, 371 Least Leafy to the Left Constraint (LLL) 53, 92

N nominative object 204–206, 208, 209 non-restructuring infinitives 106 non-specification 91 non-transparent outputs 49, 97

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.5 (328-396)

Subject index 

non-verbal predicates 319, 321, 322, 327, 332 number and gender paradigms 90

O object shift 103, 121–123, 350 Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) 19, 33, 35, 42 oblique case 36, 41, 46, 48–50, 53, 60–63, 67, 69, 70 obviative morphology 226 Old Romance languages 151 opacity 150, 152, 153, 161, 162, 189 Optimality Theory (OT) 42 ordering variability 317, 326, 335, 336

P parameter 11, 14, 74, 132, 179, 183, 185, 186, 188, 192, 193, 218, 220, 301, 306, 307, 310, 318 gender 171, 172 Multiple Agree 221, 229 number 176 person 177, 178 participant 91, 93–95, 98, 216, 224, 226–231 particle 76, 104, 105, 130, 241, 248, 268, 272 cross-categorial 250 nominal 239–244, 246, 249–255, 257, 258, 266, 270, 274–277 periphrastic tense constructions 325 Person Case Constraint (PCC) 67, 124, 199–201, 208, 229 Strong version 143, 163, 182 Weak version 142, 159, 182, 183 phase 41, 42, 77, 115, 151, 158, 159, 161, 182, 183, 190, 294, 312 theory of 162 phonological filter 295, 296 plain nominative 250, 259, 262, 263, 275 POSS 324, 325, 346, 364, 365, 371 possession construction 365

possessor 207, 346, 356, 361, 364, 366, 368 dative 127 raising 344, 363, 365 postposition 26, 246, 250, 258, 261–265, 276, 277 predicate nominal 248, 249, 251, 268–273 Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT) 34, 128, 275, 369 probe 103, 122, 368 ‘pro-drop’ 133, 286, 339, 368 pronominal subject 316, 323, 337 prosodic inversion (PI) 129, 283, 288, 296 proximate morphology 226 Q quirky case 120–123 quirky subject 17, 122, 201, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 215, 218, 224, 230–232 R ranking criterion 365 reconstruction 283, 293, 294, 298 effects 292 reflexive 3, 5, 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, 34, 54, 55, 64, 75, 84, 91, 97, 104, 106, 133, 151, 152, 158, 189, 191, 204, 206, 211, 212, 219, 220, 224, 230, 232, 283, 288, 289, 293, 294, 297 relativized minimality 103, 105, 117 restructuring 107, 111, 115, 122, 126 infinitives 106, 112, 133 Romance languages 9, 17, 19, 21, 23, 48, 49, 54, 56, 58, 67, 68, 106, 128, 141, 142, 151, 179, 188, 344 S Split Agr 312 spurious se 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, 34, 35, 57–64, 66, 67, 74, 83, 96, 175 stress 23, 24, 37, 189, 203, 285, 291, 319, 320, 322, 326, 332, 333, 339

JB[v.20020404] Prn:15/02/2005; 10:22

F: LA74IND.tex / p.6 (396-450)

 Subject index

strong pronouns 37–39, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 167, 178, 190, 208, 216–218 structural markedness 81, 89, 96 sub-event 344, 346, 350, 351, 354–356 subject markers 315, 316, 328, 330, 337 subject marking 316, 318, 319, 326, 329, 337 Subject-to-Subject Raising (SSR) 262 suffix 6, 169, 225–227, 279, 316–318, 320, 321, 323–332, 335, 336, 338 superiority effects 304, 312 suspended affixation 319–321, 332, 335, 339

T templates 6, 15–18, 41, 82, 89, 94, 141, 142, 144, 155, 160, 172, 179, 190, 244, 246, 249–255, 257, 258, 266, 276, 277 templatic 9, 23, 83, 87, 98 Tense Mood and Aspect (TMA) 317 Thematic Priority Condition 146, 158 topic 11, 106, 129, 247, 250, 266, 272, 283, 291, 292, 294–296, 310, 346, 350, 351, 355, 369, 372 Tough Construction 260

U underspecification 21, 37, 84, 94, 96 Universal Markedness Hierarchies (UMH) 83 V v-APPL 220 verbal predicates 316, 327 violable constraints 82, 97, 226 VP fronting 307 W Wackernagel’s Law 8, 103 Watkins’ Law 26 weak pronouns 23, 25, 26, 151, 153–155, 167, 168, 199, 202, 203, 208, 209, 229, 283–285, 295 wh-phrases 116, 301–303, 305–307, 309–312 Worst Evil First Constraint (WEFC) 52 X X-Delimiter

244

Z Z-Delimiter

244

In the series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 19 JOSEFSSON, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 20 LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 21 KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 22 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 23 GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 24 REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 25 FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 26 ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 27 RŮŽIČKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 28 HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 29 MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 30 BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 31 SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 32 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andre MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 33 PUSKÁS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 34 REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 35 HRÓARSDÓTTIR, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 36 GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 37 LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MÜLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 38 MEINUNGER, Andre: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 39 GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 40 HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Víctor SÁNCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 42 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 44 TAYLAN, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 45 ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Sjef BARBIERS and Hans-Martin GÄRTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp.

50 STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 52 SIMON, Horst J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 53 ZWART, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 55 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 56 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 59 DEHÉ, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 67 MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin É. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDÓÑEZ (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 388 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. xviii, 386 pp. + index. Expected Spring 2005 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. viii, 360 pp. + index. Expected Spring 2005 77 ÖZTÜRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. viii, 267 pp. Expected Spring 2005 78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Expected Summer 2005

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com

Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives (Linguistik Artuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics: In Honor of D. Terrence Langendoen (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Linguistics Today)

Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives (Linguistik Artuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics: In Honor of D. Terrence Langendoen (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Linguistics Today)

Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Recommend Documents