The clitic binding restriction revisited: Evidence for antilogophoricity
-
Isabelle Charnavel
and
Victoria Mateu
Abstract
In some Romance languages, including French and Spanish, there is an interesting asymmetry concerning the behavior of isolated clitics and clitic clusters with respect to coreference. In the French example Anne croit qu’on va la lui recommander pour la promotion ‘Anna thinks that they will recommend her to him for the promotion’, the accusative clitic la ‘her’ in the embedded clause cannot corefer with ‘Anne’ when a dative clitic, lui ‘to him’, co-occurs in the cluster. The only previous account of this constraint (Bhatt and Šimík 2009) attributes this to a binding restriction. Based on new data disentangling binding and logophoricity, we show that the generalization capturing the distribution of clitics clusters in French and Spanish is the following: an accusative clitic cannot be clustered with a dative clitic if the accusative clitic refers to a logophoric center and is read de se. We derive this antilogophoricity effect from perspective conflicts, which we represent as intervention effects in the presence of a single logophoric operator in the relevant domain. This analysis furthermore provides a semantic motivation for intervention effects that have been postulated for the Person-Case Constraint (PCC), which we hypothesize also derives from perspective conflicts.
Funding statement: Funding: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants 1424054 and 1424336.
Acknowledgment
For their comments, suggestions and feedback, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers and the audiences of the UCLA Syntax/Semantics Seminar, WCCFL 32 and GLOW 37; a special thanks to Dominique Sportiche for very helpful discussion on this project. We are also greatly indebted to all the participants who completed our linguistic survey.
References
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2003. The syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Ms. Queen Mary, University of London and MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.xSearch in Google Scholar
Albizu, Pablo. 1997. The syntax of person agreement. Los Angeles, CA: USC Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2002. Case 17. Clitic Doubling. SYNCOM project.Search in Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions. In Heggie, Lorie & Francisco Ordóñez (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations – Theoretical perspectives, 199–235. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.74.08anaSearch in Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac, 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.244.07bejSearch in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On the syntax of personal arguments. Paper presented at the XXIX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Urbino.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Radek Šimík. 2009. Variable binding and the Person-Case Constraint. 25th Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL 25). Ben Gurion, University of the Negev.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational grammar. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54. 354–380.10.4324/9780203930335-9Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Pronominal clitics in Romance. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint. A morphological approach. In Harley, Heidi & Colin Phillips (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics 22. The morphology-syntax connection, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2014. Exempt anaphors and logophoricity in French. Ms. Harvard University. lingbuzz/002683.Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Bartsch, Renate, Johan van Benthem, & Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions, 1–31. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110877335-002Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998 [2000]. Minimalist inquiries, Ms., MIT. Published as ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The framework’. In Martin, Roger, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–156.Search in Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The Logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10. 141–177.Search in Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7(1). 5–30.10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5Search in Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley W. & Robert Hamilton. 1998. Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4). 685–693.10.1162/002438998553923Search in Google Scholar
Franco, Jon & Susana Huidobro. 2008. Ethical datives, clitic doubling and the theory of pro. In Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, & Elena Valenzuela (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings.Search in Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques [logophoric pronouns]. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 69. 287–310.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based approach, elanguage.net/journals/constructions/article/download/3073/3052 (accessed 5 October 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian & Marc Richards, 2007. A probe-goal approach to agreement and incorporation restrictions in Southern Tiwa. In Trommer, Jochen & Andreas Opitz (eds.), 1 2 many: One-to-many relations in grammar, 205–239. University Leipzig.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Cheng-Sheng Luther Liu. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. In Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & C.-T. James Huang (eds.), Long distance reflexives, syntax and semantics 33. 141–195. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie & Milan Rezac, 2008. The French ethical dative, 13 syntactic tests. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics IX(1). 97–108.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975: French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Person morphemes and reflexives in Italian, French and related languages. Parameters and universals. 131–162. Oxford & New York: Oxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1989. Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 555–589.10.4324/9780203027868-8Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun. Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187–237.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax. anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 211–41.10.1007/BF00627706Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14. 257–81.10.1007/s11050-006-9002-7Search in Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement restrictions. Ms., University of the Basque Country and University of Alcalá, Spain.Search in Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 315–347.10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9Search in Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2007. On empathic and logophoric binding. Research on Language and Computation 5(1). 19–35.10.1007/s11168-006-9020-0Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language Semantics 23. 77–118.10.1007/s11050-015-9112-1Search in Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. & Paul Postal. 1983 The relational succession law. In David Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in relational grammar 1. 30–80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983: Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The theta system. Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. Utrecht. UiL OTS Working Papers.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 657–720.Search in Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6. 156–182.10.1111/1467-9612.00059Search in Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2006. Phi-agree and theta-related case. http://loargann.batcave.net/index.html (accessed 18 September 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Roca, Francesc. 1992. On the licensing of pronominal clitics. The properties of object clitics in Spanish and Catalan. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2010. Condition B effects in two simple steps. Natural Language Semantics 18. 115–140.10.1007/s11050-009-9049-3Search in Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking Southern Tiwa: the geometry of a triple agreement Language. Language 66. 669–713.10.2307/414726Search in Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux antilogophoriques [en and y: two antilogophoric pronominal clitics]. Languages 97. 51–81.10.3406/lgge.1990.1574Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), Research on Afroasiatic grammar, 409–428. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.241.19schSearch in Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 445–79.Search in Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.) Phrase structure and the lexicon. 213–277. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_9Search in Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. Tromsø/Stuttgart & Norway/Germany: University of Tromsø/University of Stuttgart dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Glow Issue
- From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories
- The clitic binding restriction revisited: Evidence for antilogophoricity
- The differential representation of number and gender in Spanish
- Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming
- Intraparadigmatic cyclic and roll-up derivations in the Old Norse reinforced demonstrative
- Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface
- Animating the narrow syntax
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Glow Issue
- From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories
- The clitic binding restriction revisited: Evidence for antilogophoricity
- The differential representation of number and gender in Spanish
- Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming
- Intraparadigmatic cyclic and roll-up derivations in the Old Norse reinforced demonstrative
- Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface
- Animating the narrow syntax
