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.