DOCSLIB.ORG

Dom and the Pcc: How Many Types?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dom and the Pcc: How Many Types? LSRL 50, Online Monica Alexandrina Irimia July 6 2020 DOM and the PCC DOM AND THE PCC: HOW MANY TYPES? Monica Alexandrina Irimia University of Modena and Reggio Emilia [email protected] ROADMAP • pervasive syntactic co-occurrence restrictions induced by oblique differential object marking – one challenge: their non-uniformity, as shown by both Romanian and Spanish • One observation made here: the position where the relevant features are licensed is impor- tant, beyond the split Agree/Case 1 INTRO • Romance varieties exhibit differential object marking (DOM) via oblique morphology 1; ob- ject splits regulated by grammaticalized animacy (under certain conditions) 2 (1)S PANISH (Ormazabal and Romero 2013, ex. 1a, b, adapted) a. Encontré *(a) la niña. b. Encontré (*a) el libro. find.PST.1SG DAT=DOM the girl find.PST.1SG DAT=DOM the book ‘I found the girl.’ ‘I found the book.’ (2)R OMANIAN a. Nu vad˘ *(pe) nimeni. b. Nu vad˘ (*pe) un copac. NEG see.1SG LOC=DOM nobody NEG see.1SG LOC=DOM a tree ‘I can’t see anybody.’ ‘I can’t see a tree.’ 1Bossong (1991, 1998), Torrego (1998), Cornilescu (2000), Aissen (2003), Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), Tigau˘ (2011), López (2012), Ormazabal and Romero (2013a), Manzini and Franco (2016), Hill and Mardale (to appear), a.o. 2Abbreviations: ACC = accusative, DAT = dative, DEF = definite, DOM = differential object marking, GEN = genitive, LOC = locative, M = masculine, NEG = negative, PL = plural, PST = past, SG = singular, 1/2/3 = person. Page 1 LSRL 50, Online Monica Alexandrina Irimia July 6 2020 DOM and the PCC • oblique DOM is also seen on clitics, eg. in leísta varieties of Spanish 3 (3)L EÍSTA SPANISH (Ormazabal and Romero 2007; ex. 15a, b, glosses adapted) a. Lo vi. b. Le vi. CL.3M.SG.ACC[−animate] see.PST.1SG CL.3M.SG.DAT[+animate] see.PST.1SG ‘I saw it.’ ‘I saw him.’ 2 CO-OCCURRENCE RESTRICTIONS • Romance varieties show syntactic co-occurrence restrictions triggered by oblique DOM • such effects are seen with both oblique clitic DOM and full nominal oblique DOM (4)L EÍSTA SPANISH (Ormazabal and Romero 2007; ex. 16a, b, glosses adapted) a. !Te lo di. b. *Te le vi. 2CL.DAT 3CL.ACC give.PST.1SG 2CL.DAT 3CL.DAT=DOM give.PST.1SG ‘I gave it to you.’ Intended: ‘I gave him to you.’ 4 (5)R OMANIAN: *Poss CLdat DOM - DOM is blocked under a type of dative possessor clitic (6) a.* ¸Si/*mi-(l) ajuta˘ pe prieten. CL.3SG.DAT/1SG.DAT-CL.3M.SG.ACC help.3SG LOC=DOM friend Intended: ‘He is helping his/my friend.’ b. !θsi /!îmi ajuta˘ prieten-u-l. CL.3SG.DAT / CL.1SG.DAT help.3SG friend-M.SG-DEF.M.SG ‘He is helping his friend.’ 5 Romanian • such effects are similar to the better known Person-Case Constraint (PCC)6 (7) Strong PCC: If DATIVE, then ACC/ABS = 3 person (8) a. *Pedro le/se me envía. Pedro CL.3SG.DAT CL.1SG.ACC send.3SG.SUBJ Intended: ‘Pedro sends me to him.’ b. Pedro me lo envía. Pedro CL.1SG.DAT CL.3SG.ACC send.3SG.SUBJ ‘Pedro sends him/it to me.’ Spanish 3Bleam (2000), Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2013a, 2013c, 2013b), Zdrojewki (2008), a.o. 4Onea and Hole (2017), a.o. 5In Romanian only marked direct objects can be clitic doubled (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, a.o.). The alternation in the shape of the possessor dative clitic is only due to phonetic reasons - the presence of the accusative clitic in (6a). 6Bonet (1991), Albizu (1997), Anagnostopoulou (2003), Béjar and Rezac (2003), a.o. Page 2 LSRL 50, Online Monica Alexandrina Irimia July 6 2020 DOM and the PCC 3 OBJECT AGREEMENT CONSTRAINT (OAC) • Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2013a): grammaticalized animacy requires obligatory licens- ing via object agreement (9) OAC: If the verbal complex encodes object agreement, no other argument can be licensed through verbal agreement. (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: ex. 50) • This can explain the animate clitic co-occurrence restrictions in (4) PROBLEM1: assuming that oblique DOM with full nominals also grammaticalizes animacy, it should trigger a PCC effect with dative clitics • however, examples such as (10) are grammatical; and so are examples such as (11) • what is not possible: oblique full nominal DOM with a clitic-doubled dative (10) Le enviaron a todos los enfermos. CL.3SG.DAT send.PST.3PL DAT=DOM all.M.PL DEF.M.PL sick people.M.PL ‘They have sent all the sick people to him/her.’ (11) Enviaron a todos los enfermos a la doctora. send.PST.3PL DAT=DOM all.M.PL DEF.M.PL sick people.M.PL DAT DEF.F.SG doctor ‘They have sent all the sick people to the doctor.’ (12)* Le enviaron a todos los enfermos a la CL.3DAT send.PST.3PL DAT=DOM all.M.PL DEF.M.PL sick people.M.PL DAT DEF.F.SG doctora. doctor ‘They have sent all the sick people to the doctor.’ Spanish 7 • This restriction also holds in Romanian: *DOM-ed DPtheme > CLdat - DPdat (13) *Comisia le-a repartizat pe mai mul¸ti medici reziden¸ti board.DEF.F.SG CL.3PL.DAT-has assigned LOC=DOM more many.M medical residents unor fo¸sti profesori de-ai lor. some.DAT.PL former.M professors of theirs Intended: ‘The board assigned several medical residents to some former professors of theirs.’ (Cornilescu 2020, ex. 4; glosses adapted) 7Note that, here, the problem cannot be the putative absence of accusative clitic doubling on DOM in Romanian. Many speakers accept non-pronominal oblique DOM without clitic doubling (see Tigau˘ 2011, Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, Cornilescu 2020, a.o.). However, they judge examples such as (13) ungrammatical. See also Tigau˘ (2020) for further discussion. Page 3 LSRL 50, Online Monica Alexandrina Irimia July 6 2020 DOM and the PCC • repair strategy: accusative clitic doubling of oblique DOM; ACC clitic removes DOM from the relevant domain (14) CLacc-DOM-ed DPtheme > CLdat - DPdat (15) Comisia i l-a repartizat pe fiecare medic board.DEF.F.SG CL.3SG.F.DAT CL.3SG.M.ACC-has assigned LOC=DOM each medical rezident unei foste profesoare a lui. resident some.DAT.SG.F former.F.SG.DAT professor.F.SG.DAT of his ‘The board assigned several medical residents to some former professors of theirs.’ (Cornilescu 2020, ex. 6; glosses adapted) PROBLEM2: ACC clitic doubling is not a repair strategy in ex. (6a), repeated below (16)* ¸Si/*mi-l ajuta˘ pe prieten. CL.3SG.DAT/1SG.DAT-CL.3M.SG.ACC help.3SG LOC=DOM friend Intended: ‘He is helping his/my friend.’ Romanian • the complexity of the data is non-trivial and many patterns are still uncharted • here, one (modest) goal: an empirical contribution; understanding, first of all, in which domains the presence of oblique DOM does (not) give rise to co-occurrence restrictions 4 CLITIC DOM AND FULL NOMINAL DOM:AGREE VS.CASE? PROBLEM1 - what explains the difference between (17) and (18) from leísta Spanish? (17) *Me les entregaron. 1.DAT 3CL.PL.DAT=DOM hand over.PST.3PL ‘They handed themANIMATE over to me.’ (18) !Me entregaron a los sospechosos. 1.DAT hand over.PST.3PL DAT=DOM DEF.M.PL suspect.PL ‘They handed the suspects over to me.’ (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: ex. 52a, b) • Ormazabal and Romero (2007, p. 338), for this contrast: ‘whatever rule or principle is involved in A-insertion it has to be independent of object agreement.’ • Ormazabal and Romero (2013a): clitic DOM (17) involves licensing in terms of Agree, while prepositional DOM involves licensing in terms of Case ) both Agree and Case are necessary Page 4 LSRL 50, Online Monica Alexandrina Irimia July 6 2020 DOM and the PCC Some (more) problems: • the hypothesis does not explain (all types of) Romanian nominal DOM • remember that in (6a), repeated below, dative clitic and nominal DOM do lead to PCC (19)* ¸Si/*mi-l ajuta˘ pe prieten. CL.3SG.DAT/1SG.DAT-CL.3M.SG.ACC help.3SG LOC=DOM friend Intended: ‘He is helping his/my friend.’ Romanian (20) XLe robaron a la niña. CL.3SG.DAT steal.PST.3PL DAT=DOM DEF.F.SG child ‘They stole his/her child.’ Spanish PROBLEM3: a less discussed fact - not all types of nominal oblique DOM trigger co-occurrence restrictions. For example, DOM-ed negative quantifiers don’t • if nominal DOM and clitic doubled datives compete for Case, leading to PCC in , why is PCC avoided in (21) a.* Le enviaron a todos los enfermos a CL.3DAT send.PST.3PL DAT=DOM all.M.PL DEF.M.PL sick people.M.PL DAT la doctora. DEF.F.SG doctor Intended: ‘They have sent all the sick people to the doctor.’ b. No le enviaron a nadie a la doctora. NEG CL.3SG.DAT send.PST.3PL DAT=DOM nobody DAT DEF.F.SG doctor ‘They haven’t sent anybody to the doctor.’ Spanish (22) a. *Comisia le-a repartizat pe mai mul¸ti medici board.DEF.F.SG CL.3PL.DAT-has assigned LOC=DOM more many.M medical reziden¸ti unor fo¸sti profesori de-ai lor. residents some.DAT.PL former.M professors of theirs Intended: ‘The board assigned several medical residents to some former professors of theirs.’ (Cornilescu 2020, ex. 4; glosses adapted) b. Comisia nu i-a repartizat pe nimeni profesorului. board.DEF NEG CL.3SG.DAT-has assigned LOC=DOM nobody professor.DEF.DAT ‘The board hasn’t assigned anybody to the professor.’ Romanian • NO STARTER: we cannot say that Neg Q DOM lacks a Case feature/is unlicensed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish Ditransitive Constructions Klaus Von Heusinger Universität Zu Köln
    Chapter 11 The diachronic development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish ditransitive constructions Klaus von Heusinger Universität zu Köln Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish synchronically depends on the referential features of the direct object, such as animacy and referentiality, and on the semantics of the verb. Recent corpus studies suggest that the diachronic development proceeds along the same features, which are ranked in scales, namely the Animacy Scale, the Referentiality Scale and the Affectedness Scale. The present paper investigates this development in ditran- sitive constructions from the 17th to the 20th century. Ditransitive constructions in Spanish are of particular interest since the literature assumes that the differential object marker a is often blocked by the co-occurrence of the case marker a for the indirect object. The paper focuses on the conditions that enhance or weaken this blocking effect. It investigates three types of constructions with a ditransitive verb: (i) constructions with indirect objects real- ized as a-marked full noun phrases, (ii) constructions with indirect objects as clitic pronouns, and (iii) constructions with non-overt indirect objects. The results clearly show that DOM is more frequent with (iii) and less frequent with (i). Thus the results support the observation that the co-occurrence of an a-marked indirect object (partly) blocks a-marking of the di- rect object to a certain extent. Furthermore, the results show for the first time that indirect objects realized as clitic pronouns without the marker a have a weaker blocking effect, but still a stronger one than constructions without overt indirect objects. In summary, the paper presents new and original evidence of the competition between arguments in a diachronic perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnosing Object Agreement Vs. Clitic Doubling: an Inuit Case Study
    REMARKS AND REPLIES 153 Diagnosing Object Agreement vs. Clitic Doubling: An Inuit Case Study Michelle Yuan Much recent literature has focused on whether the verbal agreement morphology cross-referencing objects is true ␾-agreement or clitic doubling. I address this question on the basis of comparative data from related Inuit languages, Inuktitut and Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), and argue that both possibilities are attested in Inuit. Evidence for this claim comes from diverging syntactic and semantic properties of the object DPs encoded by this cross-referencing morphology. I demon- strate that object DPs in Inuktitut display various properties mirroring the behavior of clitic-doubled objects crosslinguistically, while their counterparts in Kalaallisut display none of these properties, indicating genuine ␾-agreement rather than clitic doubling. Crucially, this dis- tinction cannot be detected morphologically, as the relevant cross- referencing morphemes are uniform across Inuit. Therefore, this article cautions against the reliability of canonical morphological diagnostics for (agreement) affixes vs. clitics. Keywords: Inuit, agreement, affixes, clitic doubling, pronouns, objects 1 Introduction Verbal agreement morphology is commonly analyzed as the morphological reflex of ␾-feature valuation of a probing head H0 by a ␾-bearing goal, the result of Agree (e.g., Chomsky 2000, 2001). However, much recent literature has argued for a contrast between the agreement mor- phemes cross-referencing subjects and those cross-referencing objects: while subject agreement is often considered to be genuine ␾-agreement, many cases of apparent object agreement have been reanalyzed as pronominal clitic doubling (e.g., Woolford 2008, Preminger 2009, Nevins 2011, Kramer 2014, Anagnostopoulou 2016). Unlike true agreement, clitic doubling involves a pronominal D0 element cooccurring and coreferring with a DP associate.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions with Differentially Marked Direct Objects in Romanian Alexandra Cornilescu University of Bucharest
    Chapter 5 Ditransitive constructions with differentially marked direct objects in Romanian Alexandra Cornilescu University of Bucharest The paper discusses Romanian data that had gone unnoticed so far and investi- gates the differences of grammaticality triggered by differentially marked direct objects in ditransitive constructions, in binding configurations. Specifically, while a bare direct object (DO) may bind a possessor contained in the indirect object (IO), whether or not the IO is clitic doubled, a differentially marked DO may bind into an undoubled IO, but cannot bind into an IO if the latter is clitic doubled. Gram- maticality is restored if the DO is clitic doubled in its turn. The focus of the paper is to offer a derivational account of ditransitive constructions, which accounts for these differences. The claim is that the grammaticality contrasts mentioned above result from the different feature structures of bare DOs compared with differen- tially marked ones, as well as from the fact that differentially marked DOs and IO have common features. Differentially marked DOs interfere with IOs since both are sensitive to the animacy hierarchy, and include a syntactic [Person] feature in their featural make-up. The derivational valuation of this feature by both objects may create locality problems. 1 Problem and aim In this paper, I turn to data not discussed for Romanian so far and consider the differences of grammaticality triggered by differentially marked direct objects (i.e. DOs with Differential Object Marking, from now one, DOM-ed DOs) indi- transitive constructions, in binding configurations. Alexandra Cornilescu. 2020. Ditransitive constructions with differentially marked direct objects in Romanian.
    [Show full text]
  • Optional Direct Object Clitic Doubling in Limeño Spanish
    OPTIONAL DIRECT OBJECT CLITIC DOUBLING IN LIMEÑO SPANISH Elisabeth Mayer Australian National University Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ Abstract In some Spanish dialects, direct object arguments of transitive clauses under certain conditions allow co-occurrence of a pronominal clitic with a coindexed lexical NP (direct object clitic doubling). In Limeño, as well as in Standard Spanish, in accordance with Kayne’s Generalization, direct object clitic doubling obtains only under a-marking, by conveying animacy and specificity on direct objects. This paper explores the motivations and mechanisms of a-marking based on these referential categories with an emphasis on optional marking. It focuses on the resulting morphosyntactic reflexes: mood in relative clause, a-marking DOM , and clitic doubling. This analysis links Kayne’s Generalization to topic marking in Spanish, which mostly seems to hold, by associating the semantic feature specificity with the discourse roles TOP and FOC . The evolution of clitics from marking agreement to marking a secondary topic is ascribed to a known grammaticalization process of the formative a. 1 Introduction ∗∗∗ Standard Spanish requires pronominal objects to be expressed by a clitic, allows optional doubling by a pronoun and rejects doubling of full NPs. All dialects require obligatory doubling of a pronominal direct object (DO) as demonstrated in (1). (1) Pedro lo vió a él. All dialects Peter DOCLMascSg saw-3Sg OM PROMasc3Sg Peter saw him. Standard Spanish rejects doubling of full lexical NPs as in (2a). All dialects abide by the principle of economy of expression 1 as in (2b): the referential PRO is supplied by anaphoric control.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop : "Clitic Doubling and Other Issues of the Syntax/Semantic Interface I
    Arbeitspapier Nr. 128 Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop: “Clitic Doubling and other issues of the syntax/semantic interface in Romance DPs” Susann Fischer & Mario Navarro (eds.) Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-372560 Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz Arbeitspapier Nr. 128 Proceedings of the VII NEREUS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP: CLITIC DOUBLING AND OTHER ISSUES OF THE SYNTAX/SEMANTIC INTERFACE IN ROMANCE DPS SUSANN FISCHER & MARIO NAVARRO (EDS.) Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universität Konstanz FACH 185 D-78457 Konstanz Germany Konstanz November 2016 Schutzgebühr € 3,50 Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz Sekretariat des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft, Frau Tania Simeoni, Fach 185, D – 78457 Konstanz, Tel. 07531/88-2465 Table of Contents Susann Fischer & Mario Navarro Preface Artemis Alexiadou DP internal (clitic) Doubling .............................................................................................. 1 Elena Anagnostopoulou Clitic Doubling and Object Agreement ............................................................................... 11 Klaus von Heusinger, Diego Romero & Georg A. Kaiser Differential Object Marking in Spanish ditransitive constructions. An empirical approach ........................................................................................................ 43 Mihaela Marchis Moreno & Carolina Petersen On locality effects in Romance: the role of clitic doubling ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clitic Doubling in Hebrew and Arabic Construct States: Overview and Counterarguments H U S S E I N a L -B ATAINEH
    Clitic Doubling in Hebrew and Arabic Construct States: Overview and Counterarguments H U S S E I N A L -B ATAINEH This article examines clitic doubling in Construct State constructions (CSs), which is found in Semitic languages, among other language families. It provides a comprehensive overview of the previous studies for Hebrew and Arabic doubled CSs and shows that the lexicalist approach argued by Borer (1984) is adopted by other researchers with some minor modifications. The central tenets of this approach assume that clitics as base-generated inflectional elements (i.e., lexical affixes) which absorb the case-assigning properties of the head noun; consequently, the presence of a dummy case marker is obligatory to save the structure from the Case Filter by assigning the genitive case to the doubled NP. The paper claims that this approach is inadequate to account for data from Jordanian Arabic and shows evidence for the argumental status of the clitic as a possessive pronoun, and the meaningful content of the preposition that expresses the possessive relation between the pronoun and the doubled nominal. Moreover, the paper explains why the preposition is utilized only in doubled CSs, as opposed to non-doubled CSs, based on the existence of a systematic consistency/ correlation between D and P regarding morphological realization (i.e., covertness vs., overtness). 1. Introduction Clitic doubling is “a construction in which a clitic cooccurs with a full DP (Determiner Phrase) in argument position forming a discontinuous constituent with it” (Anagnostopoulou 2006: 520), as exemplified in (1) from Spanish (Jaeggli 1986: 32)1: (1) Lo vimos a Juan.
    [Show full text]
  • Dalina Kallulli. Clitic Doubling As Differential Object Marking
    CLITIC DOUBLING AS DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING Dalina Kallulli Universität Wien Abstract: Taking my cue from clitic doubling constructions primarily in Balkan languages where this phenomenon is prevalent, my goals in this paper are to show that: (i) clitic doubling is a form of differential object marking; (ii) clitic doubling is the spell-out of agreement with a [+given] XP; (iii) clitic doubled indefinites are “non-novel” indefinites; (iv) the restrictor of ‘all’-quantifiers is always ‘given’; (v) generalized quantifiers are formed in two steps, crucially involving an intermediate DP-layer as the complement of the quantifier head; (vi) the XP in (ii) is invariably a DP; (vii) the person-case constraint is in effect differential object marking. Keywords: clitic doubling, differential object marking, person case constraint 1. Introduction Taking my cue from clitic doubling constructions primarily in Balkan languages where this phenomenon is prevalent (see Kallulli and Tasmowski 2008), I put forward the following claims: (i) clitic doubling is a form of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Bossong 1991); (ii) clitic doubling is the spell-out of agreement with a [+given] XP; (iii) clitic doubled indefinites are “non-novel” indefinites (Krifka 2001); (iv) the restrictor of ‘all’-quantifiers is always ‘given’; (v) generalized quantifiers are formed in two steps, crucially involving an intermediate DP-layer as the complement of the quantifier head (Matthewson 2001); (vi) the XP in (ii) is invariably a DP; (vii) the Person-Case Constraint (PCC) is in effect DOM. In particular, inspired by Kiparsky (2008), I focus on the relation between generalizations drawn in previous work and a true universal grammar principle, namely the “D-hierarchy”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Minimalist Approach to Clitics and Clitic Doubling in Spanish
    A Minimalist Approach to Clitics and Clitic Doubling in Spanish Cristina S. Banfi University College London This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in February 1999 ProQuest Number: 10609090 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10609090 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Abstract This dissertation addresses questions concerning cliticisation within the framework of the minimalist approach as presented, among others, by Chomsky (1995a). Chapter 1 presents the basic tenets underlying the minimalist approach. It also briefly discusses the historical developments within generative grammar which have led to the adoption of a minimalist approach. Chapter 2 presents general background on cliticisation and clitic doubling, including theories such as the Movement and |Base generation theories which have been advanced to account for the behaviour of clitics. The theory of Clitic Voices presented by Sportiche (1992), a synthesis of previous analyses, is also presented and adopted as providing a more principled account of clitics in clitic-doubling constructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Clitic Doubling of Indirect Objects in Spanish Considering Referential Properties of the Indirect and the Direct Object
    Clitic doubling of indirect objects in Spanish considering referential properties of the indirect and the direct object Barbara Hentschel – University of Würzburg This paper presents results from a study on clitic doubling (CD) of indirect objects (IO) in Spanish, i.e. the occurrence of an object NP with a coreferential dative clitic: (1) Los servidores de Saúl le comunicaron estas noticias a David. DET.PL servant-PL POSS Saúl DAT.3SG = tell-PAST.3PL DEM.PL news-PL C David 'Saul's servants delivered this message to David.' CD is widely regarded as the predominant way of IO-realization (Flores 2006: 671; Givón 1976: 161; Silva-Corvalán 1984: 567). However, the quantitative analysis of this study draws a different picture: It compares two registers represented by bible translations, one formal and one colloquial, and reveals that the occurrence of IO-CD is more widespread in the latter variety. Yet, even in the colloquial version only less than 50% of the IOs appear with a clitic. For 3-participant constructions, the investigation shows that it is not sufficient to consider the IO in isolation to account for the occurrence or absence of CD, but that the same properties have to be explored for the direct object (DO) as well. CD is mainly regarded as object agreement and its likelihood to occur correlates with the IO's degree of prominence in the topicality hierarchy: CD is obligatory for IO's that are left-dislocated and/or personal pronouns. The otherwise unrestricted possibility of IO-CD is often explained by the IO's high position in the topicality hierarchy (Givón 1976: 152; Silva-Corvalán 1984: 556): IOs usually carry the features [+animate] and [+definite] in contrast to DOs, which are often [-animate] and can only be doubled in topicalized position (von Heusinger & Kaiser 2003: 60; Parodi 1998: 89).
    [Show full text]
  • Clitic Doubling in Modern Greek: a Head- Complement Relation*
    Clitic Doubling in Modern Greek: a Head- Complement Relation* DIMITRA PAPANGELI Abstract The hypothesis presented in this paper, namely that in clitic doubling constructions the clitic selects for a DP-complement in Syntax, is motivated by the need to explain the thematic problem raised in such constructions: Two elements, the clitic and its double, compete for the same theta-role. It will be argued that, in languages with an overt case affix on nouns, the clitic and its double may start out in a head-complement relation. The clitic may also be coreferential with a phrase in an adjunct position. In this case, though, the relation between the clitic and the double is one of coreference, established outside the module of Syntax. 1 Introduction This paper deals with the well-known problem of clitic doubling. The verb seems to assign a single theta-role to two elements, the pronominal clitic and its double phrase. For example: (1) Ton idha to Jani cl-3sg-m-acc saw-I the Jani-acc “I saw Jani” The verb idha “saw” must assign an internal theta-role. Both the clitic and the DP-double of the clitic appear as potential internal arguments of the verb. If the clitic is the highest functional head that is merged in the extended projection of the Noun-double, then the clitic and its double can be jointly assigned a single theta-role (i.e. the internal-role of the verb). The clitic then incorporates to the verb: * Firstly, I would like to thank Ad Neeleman for all his help.
    [Show full text]
  • A CORPUS STUDY of DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING in SPANISH By
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt OPTIONAL AGREEMENT AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS: A CORPUS STUDY OF DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING IN SPANISH by Roberto Aranovich Licenciado en Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1997 Magister en Lingüística, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 2002 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2011 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Roberto Aranovich It was defended on February 7th 2011 and approved by Lori Levin, Associate Research Professor, Carnegie Mellon University Alan Juffs, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh Yasuhiro Shirai, Professor, University of Pittsburgh Erin O'Rourke, Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa Roberto Mayoral Hernández, Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham Thesis Advisor: Lori Levin, Associate Research Professor, Carnegie Mellon University Thesis co-Advisor: Alan Juffs, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright © by Roberto Aranovich 2011 iii OPTIONAL AGREEMENT AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS: A CORPUS STUDY OF DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING IN SPANISH Roberto Aranovich, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2011 Spanish ditransitive constructions are characterized by the optionality of dative clitic doubling (DCLD), the co-occurrence of an unstressed dative pronoun with a co-referential indirect object (IO). This fact has not received a satisfactory account in the literature, which has largely overlooked the optionality of the phenomenon or tried to reduce it to syntactic or lexical considerations (Strozer, 1976; Demonte, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Greek Experiencer Object Verbs
    EXPERIENCER OBJECTS AND OBJECT CLITICS IN MODERN GREEK: EVIDENCE FROM A CORPUS STUDY Elisabeth Verhoeven University of Bremen [email protected] Abstract Studies on experiencer verbs have shown that certain object experiencers show a special syntactic behavior in contrast to objects of canonical transitive verbs. For Modern Greek, it has been argued that genitive and accusative experiencers co-occurring with non-agentive stimuli display subject-like behavior which manifests itself syntactically through obligatory clitic doubling (Anagnostopoulou 1999). This paper investigates corpus evidence for a distinctive behavior of object experiencers in constructions with pronominal object clitics, in contrast to (canonical) transitive objects. A study of the Hellenic National Corpus shows that experiencer objects are indeed more often coded as pronouns and occur more frequently in constructions with clitic doubling and clitic left dislocation than canonical transitive objects. However, contrary to former claims, it turns out that (a) clitic doubling is a very rare phenomenon in written discourse and (b) it is a largely optional phenomenon with non-agentive experiencer object verbs. 1. Introduction1 1.1 Two types of experiencer object verbs Modern Greek has experiencer object (henceforth EO) verbs belonging to two different valency frames. Some of the verbs license an oblique experiencer which may be coded either in the genitive (1a) or in a prepositional phrase (1b). Some other verbs govern an experiencer argument in accusative case (2) (s. Anagnostopoulou 1999, Kordoni 1999). (1) a. To krasí tu arési DEF:NOM.SG.N wine:NOM.SG.N 3.SG.GEN.N please:3.SG tu pétru. DEF:GEN.SG.M Peter:GEN.SG.M ‘The wine pleases Peter.’2 1 Work on this paper was financially supported by project 10/853/05 (University of Bremen).
    [Show full text]