Abstract
Chapter 3 concludes on a syntactic person hierarchy interaction in Arizona Tewa, in which the external argument alternates between a bare and oblique DP, according to whether it outranks the direct object on the hierarchy 1st/2nd > 3rd person.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the examples, clitics are in italics; CAPS signal semantic focus; to draw attention, underline is used for strong pronouns and bold generally; the glosses A, D, N abbreviate ACC, DAT, NOM. The French described corresponds to Lambrecht's (1981: Chapter 1) or Schwegler's (1990: 94) ‘Informal (Standard) French’ or ‘Spoken French’, an informal middle-class variety of metropolitan France. It is a fiction. Deep splits exist within it, some pertinent here, including dative-locative syncretisms and behaviour (notes 4, 7), dative antecedence of floating quantifiers (note 20), deletions, gaps, and order in the clitic cluster (ex. (40), q.v. Section 2.4, ex.(76), Rezac 2010a). Yet the fiction is convenient, since on the distribution of strong dative and accusative pronouns, I have found almost no variation. All the French data in this work have been first either drawn from the literature and checked, or directly constructed, with the aid of a native speaker of Nantes French, M. Jouitteau. Most were then discussed with speakers from Nantes, Paris, Geneva, Toulouse, Brittany, and Iparralde. A questionnaire was then drawn up covering all the key contrasts and submitted to eleven other speakers (three linguists). Variation has been noted whenever found (for examples from the literature sometimes by % after the citation).
- 2.
For the personhood of reflexive se, see Bonet (1991: 1.2.4, 2.1), Kayne (2000: Chapter 8), Alboiu et al. (2004), and Appendix 1; cf. Reuland (2001). Se patterns with 1st/2nd against 3rd person on such properties as dative-accusative syncretism (affecting ellipsis, Morin 1978: 359f., and coordination, Burston 1983: 254), clitic compatibility (Morin 1979b: 7 note 2), and clitic climbing (Cinque 2004: note 27). For the [+person] of datives, which is less directly pertinent to the discussion that follows, see note 7 and references there.
- 3.
Save (4)d unique to Postal's work, see Appendix 1.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Dative-locative alternations are studied in Couquaux (1975), Kayne (1975: 151), Blanche-Benveniste (1978), Barnes (1980), Gaatone (1984), Herslund (1988). Datives are often animate, but not always, as in (i), and then continue to participate in the PCC and its repair, (ii). Such inanimate datives do not belie the [+person] character that datives share with 1st/2nd but not 3rd person accusatives or its role in the PCC, insofar as they entail control, individuation, and a relationship to the perspective or consciousness centre (see esp. Benveniste, Gaatone, Ruwet; cf. Burston 1983, Boeckx 2000). This matches morphological patterning, both in French (e.g. Morin 1978: 12 note 7) and cross-linguistically (Section 5.2).
(i)
a
Il faut leur i passer une couche de peinture, à ces voletsi.
It is necessary to pass (=give) them.D i a coat of paint, to these shuttersi.
b
Un résident temporaire doit leur i / (?) y i obéir, à ces dispositions légalesi.
A temporary resident must obey them.D i / (?)LOC i, to these legal measuresi.
(ii)
Le départementi de breton a besoin d'une secrétaire. Il ne nous reste que Claire/toi. On va {la/*te lui attribuer} / {t'/*l'attribuer à lui} pour un an.
The department(M)i of Breton needs a secretary. We have only Claire/you left. We will attribute {her.A/*you.A it.D i} / {you.A/*her.A to him.D i} for one year.
Genuine locations do not permit the locative clitic to refer to humans and need à + strong pronoun, e.g. venir ‘come to', amèner ‘bring (someone) to'. A class of verbs selects locative arguments with a less clearly locative meaning and their clitics may then refer to humans, with some variation: e.g. penser ‘think about', réflechir ‘reflect on', songer ‘dream about', habituer ‘habituate to', interesser ‘interest in', s'attacher ‘attach oneself to', faire attention ‘pay attention to', faire peur ‘frighten' (Kayne 1975: 106–9, 2008, Gaatone 1984, Herslund 1988: 2.3, 3.2.1, Jones 1996: 262; CNRTL s.v. y 2 II.B.2.a remarque 1, Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §678.2°, Pinchon 1972: 2.III, Nyrop 1925: §221). One set of grammars permits the y of such verbs to refer to humans and even 1st/2nd person provided they are not the subject of consciousness (Ruwet 1990: 80f., 1991, Pica 1994; cf. Blanche-Benveniste 1978, Lamiroy 1990, 1991, Zribi-Hertz 2000). Another freely permits human reference (Couquaux 1975, Lambrecht 1981: 35). See Rezac (2010c) for a comparison and relationship to the PCC repair. Matters are similar for the genitive clitic en, save that it admits human reference freely as partitive.
- 8.
On participle agreement, see Kayne (1989), D’Alessandro and Roberts (2008). Reflexive clitic datives exceptionally agree for some speakers, (i): Grevisse and Goosse (2008: §953), Medová (2009: 5.3, 6.3.2), vs. Burzio (1981: 482, 446), Kayne (2000: 24 note 21); cf. for Italian, Belletti (2005: 2.2), D'Alessandro and Roberts (2008: 484 note 8). Reflexive clitics are syncretic for dative and accusative, although differentiated by linked elements such ‘each other' in (i), but nonreflexive 1st/2nd person clitics are also syncretic yet agree only if accusative. The participle agreement of reflexive accusative and dative reflexive clitics has been related to the fact that through reflexivity their phi-features are the same as those of the subject, and the perfect auxiliary involved in reflexives is BE rather than HAVE, so it is really the subject of BE that controls participle agreement, as the subject of BE does generally elsewhere. Nonreflexive dative clitics do sporadically control participle agreement elsewhere in Romance (Haiman and Benincà 1992: 139 f., D'Alessandro and Roberts 2010: note 1; cf. generally Rezac 2008a, b).
(i)
Elles
se sont décrit(%es)
l'une à l'autre.
They(F)
SE are described(%PLF)
one to the other
- 9.
The description is subject to some caveats. In the neighbouring Romance languages, dative clitics do not license bare floating quantifiers, and so also for some French speakers, particularly with indirect objects, but for the speakers relevant here all dative clitics do so; cf. further Kayne (1975: 2.14), Herslund (1988: 236), Sportiche (1996: 232 f., 270 note 9) (the difference might relate to the availability DP beside à-PP indirect objects in older French, Zink 1997: 181, 281). Postparticipial à + floating quantifiers are somewhat possible with those locative clitics that could be viewed as inanimate datives (Kayne 1975: 107 note 51; Rigau 1982, Bonet 2008, Rezac 2010c). They may front before the participle in a stylistically marked way, while bare ones do so regularly (Kayne 1975: 65 note 81, 154 note 101, Herslund 1988: 218).
- 10.
Additional works on the Cliticization Requirement are Couquaux (1975), Morin (1979a), Postal (1984), Zaring (1991), Auger (1994), Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), Zribi-Hertz (2008), with the history in De Kok (1985) and Nyrop (1925). For semantically focussed strong pronouns, many speakers require clitic-doubling of datives, more of accusatives, and yet more but not all of 1st/2nd person accusatives: Sandfeld (1970: 72), Kayne (1975: 173 f., 183, 2000: 166 f., 180 note 13), Blanche-Benveniste (1975: 87, 209), Burston (1983: 269), Tasmowski (1985: 245), Postal (1990: 178), Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), Schwegler (1990: 229 note 49), Zribi-Hertz (2008: 599, 600 note 11, 619). Analytical options are discussed in Kayne (2000: 179 note 11), Cardinaletti and Starke (1999: 222 note 35). Thus the differences in (i) vs. (ii):
(i)
a Il téléphone autant à moi qu'à Jacques.
b ?*Il aime autant moi que Jacques.
He phones as.much to me as to Jacques
He likes as.much me as Jacques [does]
(Tasmowski 1985: 245)
(ii)
a J'ai parlé beaucoup à Maï, et elle à moi.
b J'ai salué Mäi, (?*et elle moi).
I have spoken much to Maï, and she to me
I have greeted Maï, and she me
(but Kayne 2000: 170 gives a variant of (b) as ?)
- 11.
For the greater freedom of climbing, see Kayne (1975: 4.5–6). For the greater freedom of y, en placement, in literary French, see Kayne (1975: 79 note 7, 1991: 653 note 18), Tasmowski (1985: 259 note 18), Cinque (2002). In clitic climbing, accusative and dative clitics are subject to the same restrictions and so inseparable, although see note 17, but locative and genitive clitic often can be separated from them, Kayne (1975: 427–430), Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980: 153 ff.), Postal (1981: 316 f., 1983: 409 f., 1990: 166), Tasmowski (1985: 231 note 5, 295 note 23, 365 note 3). Cf. Cardinaletti and Shlonsky (2004: 526 note 6), and Appendix 1.
- 12.
The diagnostics for the applicative and prepositional construction of English (Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Harley 2002) are presently inconclusive for French.
Neutral word order: Dative à-phrases follow direct objects, whether indirect objects, benefactives, psych-experiencers, or causees, which certainly do not all have the same structural relationship to the direct object. The same holds of Spanish, where c-command diagnostics yet clearly distinguish high applicative and low prepositional datives (Cuervo 2003a, b, Demonte 1995).
C-command symmetries: Quantifier-variable binding from the direct object into a following indirect object à-phrases is generally fine. The reverse is however true as well (ia) (cf. Harley 2002), but it is often available with PPs in general (ib) (cf. Zubizarreta 1998: 12–15, 147, but not always restricted by d-linking and focus). Binding of lui-même ‘him-self ' type reflexives and l'un-l'autre ‘each other' type reciprocals from the direct object into the following à-phrase is fine, less so in the reverse direction, particularly for 1st/2nd person (Postal 1989: Chapter 1). English too allows some backward binding and scope from PPs (Burzio 1986: 203, Williams 1994: 254, Pesetsky 1995: 6.3.2.). In contrast to indirect objects, applicative dative à-phrases asymmetrically c-command the preceding direct object (Boneh and Nash 2010).
Interpretation: The restriction that the indirect object be a potential possessor of the direct object, which holds of the applicative but not the prepositional construction in various languages, in French constrains dative but not locative clitics with verbs like envoyer ‘send'. Some à-phrases have readings that in English characterize the double object but not various prepositional constructions, as in (ii), although in English this can be overturned by information structure (Harley 2002, Krifka 2004; cf. Kayne 1975: 137f.; cf. Larson 1988: 377 note 44, Harley 2002 ex. 10).
(i)
a On a rendu sonk livre à chaque enfantk / personnek (sans le k prévenir d'abord).
We returned hisk book to each childk / no onek (without warning himk first).
b On a déposé sonk avis de mission chez chaque fonctionnairek / chez personnek (sans le k prévenir d'abord).
We delivered hisk assignment at each civil servantk's / no one'sk place (without warning himk first).
(ii)
Marie a donné un coup de pied à la table.
Mary has given a kick to the table
Marie gave the table a kick / *a kick to the table.
(Pijnenburg and Hulk 1989: 260)
- 13.
Inversely, prosodic accent may be hard to detect under certain conditions such as second occurrence focus (but see Beaver et al. 2007). Distinct from focus is the construction ne…que ‘only', as in Il ne parle qu'à moi lit. ‘He NEG speaks than to me', meaning ‘He is speaking only to me' (Cardinaletti and Starke 1999, Kayne 2000: 159 note 68, 170). Que behaves as if it were a preposition: it licenses undoubled accusative strong pronouns even for those that cannot license them otherwise, blocks clitic doubling, and allows coreference with the local subject. Perhaps related should be Postal's (1990: 161f.) ability of comparative plus…que ‘more …than' to license strong pronouns for certain applicative datives where regular contrastive focus will not (not all speakers have those contrasts). For metalinguistic accentuation of clitics, see Morin (1982: 19 note 6), Cardinaletti and Starke (1999: 153), Zribi-Hertz (2008: 627 note 22).
- 14.
Blanche-Benveniste (1975: 208 note 1, 1978: 13f.) notes a class of verbs for which human 3rd person accusative clitics appear to act exceptionally as 1st/2nd person, (i). Here belong e.g. amèner ‘bring’, assimiler ‘assimilate’, associer ‘associate’, attacher ‘attach’, comparer ‘compare, sacrifier ‘sacrifice’, soumettre ‘submit’, substituer ‘substitute’. Cross-linguistically the PCC does sometimes treat 3rd person humans as 1st/2nd person (Chapter 6), but this is not the right analysis here. Gaatone (1984: 133) finds the key. These are alternations between a locative argument for spatial motion towards the theme and a dative argument for more figurative motion emphasizing interest to/for/of the theme. The humanness of the accusative clitic is relevant only insofar as only human themes allow the latter, and is independent its being clitic (Cf. also Barnes 1980: 278ff., 289 note 26). (i) thus belongs with (ii)–(iv).
(i)
a Je les i 〈*lui〉 attire 〈à lui〉, les amisi.
b Je les k 〈lui〉 attire 〈*à lui〉, les ennuisk.
I attract themi/k to him.D, ((a): dative clitic) the friendsi / ((b): à + strong) the annoyancesk.
(ii)
a Je vais lui appeler un médecini.
b Je vais appeler à lui tous ses partisansk.
I will call to him ((a): dative clitic) a doctori / ((b): à + strong) all his supportersk
(iii)
a Je le i lui renvoie (le manuscrit à l'auteuri)
b Je le k renvoie à lui (le critique à l'auteurk)
I am sending iti back to him ((a): dative clitic: his manuscript to the authori).
I am sending iti back to him ((b): à + strong: the critique to the author.)
(iv)
a Je te reviens (dit par un soldat à sa femme) b Je reviens à vous dans un instant.
I will come back to you ((a): dative clitic: said by a soldier to his wife).
I will get back to you in a moment ((b): à + strong).
- 15.
The context of naturalistic examples mitigates factors that may render constructed examples clumsy, including the pragmatic division of labour between clitics and strong pronouns in picking discourse antecedents (Tasmowski 1985, Ariel 1990, Delfitto 2002), and the preference for aligning phrase-final accented expressions with focus (as in English: Kate walked in; I showed {her the book} / {the book to her} / {the book to her right away}, the second being less natural.)
- 16.
In this example, the comme ‘how' clause is a useful way of controlling for focus: it is new information and material in it tends to lack narrow focus of its own (Zribi-Hertz 2008: 614).
- 17.
Pertinent is (i), for the y-grammar ¥. Some speakers permit a dative clitic to climb out of a causativized infinitive with the reflexive clitic se, in contrast to the usual clitic cohesion reported in note 11. This occurs in (i), cf. inversely (ii). In (i-a), such climbing avoids the PCC *se lui. So also in (i–b), but here the PCC has been repaired by y within the lower clause first.
(i)
a¥ Marcel lui a fait [se i présenter t lui Lucillei].
Marcel made Lucille introduce herself.A (se) to her.D (lui).
b¥ ?On y k a fait [se i décrire t y Philippei, à Louise/ellek].
We made Philippe describe himself.A (se) LOC k=to.her (y), to Louisek / herk.
(Postal 1990: 166, 130, cf. 1983: 408)
(ii)
Elle me i la j (?lui k) laissera t i (lui k) dire t j t k.
She will have me.D i (me) tell it.A j (la) to him.D k (lui).
(Conceição 2007: 92 note 16)
- 18.
For the range of inherent clitics, see Morin (1981: 95f.) for French, Bonet (1991: 61f.) for Catalan. For a handful of verbs, inherent se does not participate in the PCC for some speakers: s'arracher ‘fight over' + ACC in % On se l'/.m'arrache ‘One fights over him/?me', se casser ‘leave' in % Il ne faut pas que je me lui casse ‘It must not be that I leave on him' (Heger 1966: 28, Blanche-Benveniste 1975: 43, De Kok 1985: 384n, Schwegler 1990: 99). Se has then ceased to be argumental or [+person] (Albizu 1997a, Bonet 1991: 192f. for Catalan and Spanish, where this appears to be far more common).
- 19.
For the true reflexive clitic se, the repair may be regular strong pronouns, which are immune to Condition B (Section 4.4), or their intensified forms with même ‘self ', which to a first approximation behave like regular strong pronouns as far as focus and the PCC repair goes, and finally the highly restricted soi ‘(one)self ' (Zribi-Hertz 1980, 1995, 2003, 2008, Kayne 2000: Chapters 8, 9). When a 3rd person direct and indirect object would both be reflexive to the subject *se DAT se ACC, the dative se is usually affected, as expected, Elle i s i 'est décrit-e i à elle-même i ‘She has described-SGF herself (se) to her-self (elle-même)' (Postal 1990: 129, Blanche-Benveniste 1975: 210). A 3rd person accusative se may perhaps also be repaired, ?Elle i s i 'est decrit(-e i ) elle-même i , although the focus facts are unknown (Kayne 1975: 372, Postal 1989: 132 note 15, 1990: 195 note 62; the optional participle agreement in this example is independently available for dative se, note 8, but for some speakers the only reading is with an implicit dative).
- 20.
The questionnaire for (39) indicates nearly perfect acceptability for the accusative for most speakers, but the dative splits into the same score for four speakers, sharp degradation for two, and medium for three. Further inquiry indicates that the degradation is due to the failure of datives to license floating quantifiers and not the doubling, reflecting the dialectal split in note 9.
- 21.
Doubled strong pronouns control for the possibility that floating quantifier licensing would be interfered with by a linked DP following the quantifier (P. Svenonius p.c.; cf. Belletti 2005, Rezac 2010b). Clitic deletion controls for sensitivity to a surface-overt antecedent. It bears on a point due to D. Pesetsky (p.c.): floating quantifiers are not licensed by covert A'-movement even when licensed by overt A'-movement (as in McCloskey 2000). Fitzpatrick (2006) develops a comprehensive analysis where A-licensed floating quantifiers are anaphoric adverbials whereas A'-licensed ones are stranded adnominal ones. On it, Pesetsky's point might be related to the lack of need for covert movement to pied-pipe (Chomsky 1995, but cf. Pesetsky 2000). Other overt-covert differences could be responsible, such as the ability of covert movement to move over longer distances and so skip the floating site (cf. Richards 2001: Chapter 2).
- 22.
A test suggested by B. Spector, p.c., ameliorated by M. Jouitteau, J. Rooryck, E. Schoorlemmer p.c. As Morin (1978: 358) and M. Jouitteau (p.c.) point out, context is needed: I introduced him/you to myself (me) is just not the way to say I introduced myself to him/you in French or English. Beside strong pronouns like lui ‘him' exists the suffixed lui-même ‘him-self ' type. Couquaux (1975: 62), Blanche-Benveniste (1975: 206–213), less so Blanche-Benveniste et al. (1984: 102), dislike all plain strong pronouns reflexive to the local subject or objects, whether PCC repair or locative. They antecede the work that established this use and its difference from même ‘self '-forms, Morin (1978), Zribi-Hertz (1980, 1995, 2003, 2008).
- 23.
So reports the literature; most speakers concur. A few permit overlapping reference for collective readings, as in English: Nous m 'avons (*chacun) choisi ‘We have (*each) chosen me.A'.
- 24.
Questionnaire results bear out the contrast in (47) reported by linguist speaker judgments, but not as sharply as for other gaps; hence the notation ? ? rather than *. Controlling for a focussed strong pronoun here is difficult.
- 25.
Possessors of direct objects can be à-phrases as well as clitics (Kayne 1975: 2.14–5, Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980: 176 note 52, Rooryck 1988a: 383), as can rarely some others (Kayne 1975: 175 note 126, 159 note 106, 170 note 121, Postal 1990: 141). Perhaps such à-phrases are ‘low' applicatives that need the direct object (Baker 1988, McGinnis 2001, Pylkkänen 2002, Cuervo 2003a). The PCC cannot be tested for them since a clitic direct object cannot have a possessor. The name dessus-datives is due to Postal (1990).
- 26.
The matter is complicated by speaker variation: Rooryck (1988a: 384) contrasts with Postal (1990) on acheter, Postal (1990: 191 note 31) notes variation on reflexive benefactives, and M. Jouitteau (p.c.) differs from Postal (1990: 161f.) in allowing benefactives under conjunctive as much as comparative contrast (albeit not in reduced relatives, Postal 1990: 15f., cf. (92)b).
- 27.
For French causatives, see esp. Kayne (1975: Chapters 3, 4, 1991), Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980), Quicoli (1980), Postal (1981, 1983, 1984, 1989), Tasmowski (1985), Zubizarreta (1985), Gibson and Raposo (1986), Santorini and Heycock (1988), Roberts (1991), Miller (1992: Chapter 5), Miller and Sag (1997), Guasti (1996, 1997, 2005), Bobaljik and Branigan (2006), Folli and Harley (2007). Among issues not immediately pertinent but occasionally referred to are:
-
Failure to climb in the restructuring causative for inherent clitics (Kayne 1975: 6.6, Miller 1992: 5.5.4.3); failure to climb for se reflexive to the infinitive's subject, which also makes the infinitive behave as if unergative if se is its direct object (Kayne 1975: 6.1, 6.5, Reinhart and Siloni 2005); climbing in causatives with modals (Postal 1981: 293 note 15); rare climbing in the ECM causative (Postal 1990: 168, 196 note 69, Tasmowski 1985: 314, 362 note 7).
-
The poorly understood mixed causative of transitives, with a dative causee but no clitic climbing (and the concomitant binding pattern of (59)a), available variably, usually when the embedded verb (potentially) takes an indirect object, alongside the regular restructuring causative, but also when the latter is impossible e.g. due to clitic cluster restrictions (Kayne 1975: 295 note 23, Milner 1982: Document 2, Postal 1981: 315, 1983, 1984, Tasmowski 1985: 287, 315f., 330, 363f., Baschung and Desmets 2000: 214).
-
Verb preferences for different causative types and coercion (Miller 1992: 5.5.5–6, Abeillé, Godard and Miller 1997, Tasmowski 1985; Kayne 1975: 295 note 22, Postal 1981: 315).
-
Factors and variation in the coding of the causee of unergatives as dative or accusative (Morin 1980, Postal 1981, 1983, 1984, Blanche-Benveniste et al. 1984: 192–5, Tasmowski 1985, Reed 1992, Abeillé, Godard and Miller 1997, Baschung and Desmets 2000). Cf. Section 4.6.
-
- 28.
The French restructuring causative cannot passivize, least of all with an overt à-causee, so the argument have been made from the similar Italian restructuring causative. There the direct object becomes nominative, in minimal contrast to Japanese where the dative causees does. See Folli and Harley (2007: Section 7) for a counter-analysis claiming that passives of restructuring causatives are unavailable in Italian as well, and their work and Bobaljik and Branigan (2006) for a structural Case analysis of dative causees. For other applicative datives, passivization clearly shows them never to become nominative.
- 29.
The restructuring causative is sometimes degraded with 3rd person direct objects that are animate or specific or clitic, depending (i) on the choice of verb, good being e.g. embrasser ‘kiss', épouser ‘marry', oublier ‘forget', photographier ‘photograph', worse tuer ‘kill', marrier ‘marry', effleurer ‘graze', (ii) the coding of the causee, 3.ACC anim … à-causee being worse than clitics 3.ACC anim 3.DAT causee (Bissel 1944: 331, Kayne 1975: 241 f., Milner 1982: 152–4, Tasmowski 1985: 350–3, Postal 1989: 9, 12, 120 note 5). Only one of these factors affects the badness of 1st/2nd person accusative clitics, and then inversely: they are more ungrammatical if the causee is a clitic, thus forming *me-lui clusters, rather than an à-phrase (cf. Section 4.6.5, and à-phrases causees of connaître verbs below to which coercion might be available). The two phenomena are also divorced in the results of García (2001), examining accusative clitic climbing in French, Spanish, and Italian. There is considerable variation for 3rd person animates, sharp unacceptability for 1st/2nd person clitics. It seems likely the degradation of 3rd person animates is a different phenomenon from the PCC, perhaps along the essentially pragmatic/parsing-based lines of Tasmowski (1985) and García (2001), with competition between the clitic and à-phrase for topichood and agentivity; cf. note 47. If it falls under the PCC, climbing somehow sometimes forces an otherwise absent [+person] specification on animates (found in other languages, Chapter 6).
(i)
a Je te
(*lui)
ai fait
inviter (*à Paul).
b Je la
(lui)
ai fait
inviter (*à Paul).
c Je
(lui)
ai fait
inviter (*à Paul)
ta sœur.
I you/her.A him.D have made invite to Paul
your sister
((b), (c) Milner 1982: 152, 154 note 1)
- 30.
The repair by strong pronoun is subject to an independent factor. Some do not allow even focussed à + strong pronoun to code causees, while others do (Postal 1981: 312, 1984: 122, 1990: 174; Kayne 1975: 296 note 24, 298 note 25). Those that do not then also do not allow the repair. Most speakers surveyed do allow such causees; on the questionnaire, 9/10 speakers report it as natural or only slightly unnatural in their French. Similarly in (63)a, replacing à Ilse with à NOUS ‘to US' gives rise to variation, although it is less commonly good.
- 31.
Postal (1989) develops a battery of other diagnostics, such as the binding in La psychiatrie a fait (se) connaître Marcel à lui-même ‘Psychiatry made know Marceli to himselfi = made Marcel know himself' (Kayne 1975: 372). They seem persuasive, but the details are complex, and the judgments on them and on (68)a turn out to vary across speakers who yet share the exceptionality of the connaître-class in allowing 1/2/SE.ACC clitics. It may be that some speakers analyze à-causees in the connaître-class quite differently, essentially as adjuncts; the use of à-phrases for agents in Middle French bears keeping in mind (Zink 1997: 277). An interfering factor in evaluating Postal's examples are the facts about 3.ACC animate clitics in note 29.
- 32.
Some do allow à-phrases with 1/2.ACC clitics, although not à + strong pronoun under focus or the PCC repair: see Postal (1990: 172) in (71) vs. Kayne (1975: 241 note 47). Both grammars occur among the speakers surveyed here. Similar variation for the PCC in Basque unaccusatives reflects high vs. low datives (Rezac 2008c, forthcoming, Albizu 2009).
- 33.
The inspiration of the present analysis in that of Couquaux (1975) has been stated, but it is likewise indebted to that of Postal (1990), which ends up being different. Instead of there being arguments that must be realized in the applicative (GR3) rather than prepositional construction (GR5) and this constraining PCC repair, Postal proposes that applicative datives (GR3) like possessors cannot lower (demote) to the prepositional construction (GR5), which is proposed to be a special construction associated with PCC contexts and focus. The empirical divergences come down to different status attributed to minor and/or variable patterns: possessor and benefactive à-phrases, inclusion of reflexives (but see Postal 1989: 50), the PCC repair in connaître-class causatives (out for his consultant), the y-repair in double-dative causatives (Section 4.7), and the complex domain of the causatives of raising verbs (note 58).
- 34.
The other context where multiple datives are brought together is in causatives; see Appendix 1. Either a syntactic or a morphological account would extend to the mechanism suggested there. In raising like (74), both the datives brought together must be disjoint from the matrix = embedded subject, unlike in the ECM and causatives structures of Appendix 1.
- 35.
- 36.
The results of the questionnaire are telling: (86)c and (86)d are consistently perfect or close, (86)e sandwiched between them profoundly degraded.
- 37.
Medová (2009: 4.4) shows that in Czech se contrasts with phrasal reflexives in combining with nominative rather than accusative secondary depictives. This may be explained if the antecedent of secondary depictives must have an independent theta-role: the subject, not s e.
- 38.
For recent overviews of the types of se constructions in Romance and elsewhere, see Cuervo (2003a), Dobrovie-Sorin (2005), Medová (2009). Mediopassive se superficially resembles but is distinct from anticausative se, which derives unaccusatives from transitives by eliminating the external argument, casser – se casser ‘break (the wind broke the branch) – break (the branch broke)'. It is incompatible with a dative clitic, but the PCC repair cannot be tested, because the optional dative added to them is applicative and so irreparable: la branche se (*me) cassé (*à moi) ‘the branch broke (*on me)', la tête se (*me) cassé (*à moi) ‘the/*my head broke' (se me good here e.g. in Spanish, Occitan, Czech). More uncertain are similar-looking structures from ditransitives, like La question s‘est posée à ma génération ‘The question posed itself to my generation', Le paysage s'est offert à nos yeux ‘The scenery offered itself to our eyes', where the PCC repair is fine, La question s'est posé à moi ‘The question posed itself to me' (Kayne 1975: 398 note 65). The English translations does not correspond to plain anticausatives, of the type the gates opened to us, but rather to the reflexive type the gates opened themselves to us (Fellbaum 1989, Levin 1993: 84 f.). These have a Case-marked reflexive and so are not simple unaccusatives (cf. Rothstein 1992), yet the nominative is the thematic object and so presumably derived. For French the low origin of the nominative can be ascertained, because the subject in (i) is compatible with the ‘subnominal' genitive clitic en that is only combinable with unaccusative and not transitive or unergative subjects (Pollock 1998, Boivin 2005 and references there).
(i)
Ilsi sont heureux d'agir en accord avec l'Angleterre, quand l'occasion s'en offre à eux i
.
Theyi are glad to act in accord with England, when the opportunity GEN=of.it ( en ) presents itself.A ( se ) to them.D i ( à eux )'.
The type the opportunity presents itself thus has a promoted object in French but accusative reflexive in English. This mix recalls object-experiencer psych-transitives like frighten, strike on the analysis where the nominative theme raises from below the accusative experiencer (Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Pesetsky 1995). If itself/se is accusative, the PCC and its repair can occur as in regular transitives and reflexives. The relationship of the nominative and accusative/se is unclear. One might seek a solution along the lines of Alboiu, Barrie and Friggeni (2004) where se is the Case-marked trace of the nominative.
On unification of reflexives and anticausatives through ‘reflexivization-by-movement' reviewed and developed in Medová (2009), (i) the external argument raises to [Spec, vP] from the thematic direct object position, sharing a theta-role, and (ii) se is or signals an element that blocks accusative assignment to it. Here (i) is irrelevant, and other devices such as a special anaphoric pro/PRO would do, while (ii) would be accomplished by se absorbing the accusative of v ACC, say as Medová's antipassive applicative + an anaphoric pro/PRO in its specifier, or as the Case-marked trace of the raised object, with overt anaphora like each other adjoined to it. The crux is keeping the mediopassive se sufficiently distinct for the PCC and its repair.
- 39.
Postal does not control for focus here, but it remains that reduced relatives pattern with the PCC repair against other non-PCC contexts, focus aside. His examples use only 3rd person.
- 40.
See Grevisse and Goosse (2008: 662b4°) for apparent à + strong pronoun dative arguments of nouns, adjectives, participles. Most involve either focus, as in comparison, or uses now strictly literary that hark back to an older French where the Cliticization Requirement does not hold of datives (Zink 1997: 273–285): un cheval à lui inconnu 'a horse to him unknown'. Distinct are adnominal à-phrases, un copain à moi 'a friend to me.D (= of mine) ', un gâteau à framboises ‘a cake to (=with) raspberries', which are full PPs with no Cliticization Requirement.
- 41.
The contrast in (96) is clear in the questionnaire, (96)c being close to perfect for the most part, (96)b mostly not part of the speaker's French at all, although not as severely degraded as some other strong pronouns. There is a confound: for some, even accusative strong pronouns are good unfocussed in lists, as J‘ai vu elle, Pierre, Claire, et Jean-François arriver 'I saw her, P., C., and J.-F. arriving'. There seems to be a nice explanation available. A coordination I saw X and Y arriving may be read as I saw X and Y together arriving or as I saw X arriving and I saw Y arriving. In the latter, X and Y are alternatives to each other for I saw __ arriving, and thus each may have focus semantics, licensing strong pronouns. The examples in the text are chosen to favour the collective reading. The examples in Grevisse and Goose (2008: §660–1) are telling: coordinated accusative pronouns are lists or foci, coordinated nominative ones not necessarily.
- 42.
It is curious that tous can be a floating quantifier, deux can if preceded by the definite article (for some), and autres cannot: Elle vous i en offrira à tous i / % aux deux i / *a(ux) autres ‘She you.D GEN will.offer to all / to.the two / *(*to.the) others'. Perhaps there is a link to be made between the modifier types and the semantics of floating quantifiers (Bobalijk 2003, Fitzpatrick 2006).
- 43.
M. Starke, p.c.
- 44.
There may be differences between left conjunct vs. whole conjunct doubling. They pattern differently in Spanish doubling and dislocation (Camacho 1997: 3.1.1.3; cf. Boeckx 2008: 169).
- 45.
ECM has the same pattern, less sharply (Kayne 1975: 305 f.): see Appendix 1. Unergatives may alternatively causativize as if transitive, with a dative causee, with variation (note 27). Dative causee à-phrases of this transitive pattern also bar cliticization of a dative internal argument, cf. (61). The use of à + unfocussed strong pronoun for it is then also bad, but the baseline of comparison has two dative à-phrases, causee and indirect object, unhappy enough as it is. To avoid these problems, some speakers (only) and in some cases (only) may used the mixed causative, on which see note 27 and references there.
(i)
L‘amie de Clairei les (*lui i ) fera porter au postier (*à ellei/??à sesi collègues).
Clairei's friend will have the postman bring them (les) (*to heri (lui/à elle)/??to heri colleagues).
- 46.
The causativization of unaccusatives is more complex than suggested here. Beside (102), some applicative datives are also fine, Elle lui a fait couler de la crème dessus/sur le visage ‘She made cream run on him.D / on his.D face' (Kayne 1975: 319 f.), but experiencer datives are more recalcitrant, e.g. manquer ‘lack', (dé)plaire ‘(dis)please', suffir ‘suffice', sembler ‘seem' (Postal 1984: 115 f., 1989: 37 f., Rooryck 1988b, Legendre 1989a: 771, 1989b: 143–7), as are unaccusatives with animate subjects and low datives, appartenir ‘belong', échapper ‘escape', naître ‘be born', survivre ‘survive' (Kayne 1975: 252 ff., Tasmowski 1985, Rooryck 1988b, Legendre 1989b: 146, Landau 2010: 3.7, Folli and Harley 2007: 213).
- 47.
Tasmowski's proposal has far greater scope than the causativization of unergatives, including cliticization failure in transitives due to the Specified Subject Condition, and the PCC created by dative causees in Section 4.5. For the PCC, it fails for various reasons, such as the contrast between the PCC 1/2.ACC 3.DAT clusters and good 1/2.DAT 3.DAT clusters (Postal 1981, 1983, 1984, 1990; cf. Tasmowski 1985: 362 note 7), and the non-cancellability of the PCC by dative à-phrase through manipulating information structure in the manner of (103), shown in (64). Similarly the Specified Subject Condition cliticization failure in transitives like (61) seems precisely inverse to the effect predicted for locative clitics, Tasmowski (1985: 356–61).
- 48.
For similar variation with French multiple dative clitics, see Nicol (159f.), Miller (1992: 265).
- 49.
The discussion of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) entails that Italian object clitics behave like French nominative weak pronouns in (104), and other literature hints at the same without controlling for focus, e.g. for the *3SG.DAT LOC gli ci (= lui y) clitic gap (Wanner 1977: 109 note 9), or SE + dative in enclisis (Cardinaletti 2008: 4.7). Italian object clitics would on this point behave like French weak pronouns rather than French pronominal object clitics. The literature reaches a similar conclusion on other grounds, some resumed below (García 2001: 412–4). They do not suggest that Italian clitics are weak pronouns, but closer to them than French clitics are. Better understanding might come from the diachrony of the French object clitic – strong pronoun alternations, which was not always as restricted as it is now (Zink 1997).
(i)
The greater clitic-doubling of focussed strong pronouns in Spanish and French than in Italian (García 2001: 412–4), beside the general impossibility of doubling by weak pronouns (Cardinaletti and Starke 1999: 169). Italian clusters where clitics seem poorer in undergoing morphological fusion may also be those that allow clitic doubling (Section 2.2).
(ii)
The exclusion of the PCC clusters 1/2.ACC + DAT from Old French on, independently of the changing ordering of clitics (De Kok 1985, Zink 1997), versus their availability in even recent Italian, for some with sensitivity to order (Wanner 1977: 109, Evans et al. 1978, Renzi and Cardinaletti 1988: 588 f., García 2001: 412–4, Cardinaletti 2008: note 40). The PCC is variable or absent for Germanic weak pronouns and Slavic second position clitics (Anagnostopoulou 2008, Rezac 2010c).
(iii)
The greater immunity of Italian clitics to constraints on clitic climbing in causativization than those of French and Spanish, e.g. datives in causativized unergatives in Section 4.6, or animate 3rd person objects in causatives in note 29 (García 2001; cf. Burzio 1978: 23–5, Postal 1984: 143 vs. Santorini and Heycock 1988: 51, Baschung and Desmets 2000: 216).
.
- 50.
- 51.
Short shrift is given here to focussed pronouns. Following Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), they have their own Σ-licensing, and perhaps Case-licensing at least for person in (31), albeit fixed by their focus structure/content rather than given by last resort; they might then be PP-like phases. Having Case-licensing would not prevent them from participating in the Agree/Case system of the clause if some of their phi-features (number, for instance) project outside the phase by Agree with the phase-head (Section 5.2, Rezac 2008a; for the number but not person agreement of focussed nominatives, cf. Kayne 2000: Chapter 9). Zribi-Hertz (2008) takes focussed dative and accusative pronouns to be adjuncts to clitics in Case position, building on Kayne's (2000: Chapter 9) generalization that pronouns in Case-positions must be cliticized or clitic-doubled; but this is not true for all the French grammars considered here (note 10). An alternative is that focussed pronouns are clitic-doubled when the focussed DP is a big-DP structure containing a clitic that must move out, and this is a property parametrizable by person and case (Uriagereka 1995, Belletti 1999, Cecchetto 2000 and references there). Postal (1990) takes dative focussed pronouns to have transformed to a locative (cf. Kayne 2000: 166 for topicalized datives). All of these approaches provide a start on explaining why focus often blocks applicative relations for à + focussed strong pronoun, if it yields phases, adjuncts, or locatives.
- 52.
For the Case Filter, see Section 5.4, 5.9. Spanish and Basque are closely parallel to French in the PCC and PCC repair, but display accusative/absolutive Case overtly on nonpronominal DPs.
- 53.
I use P for both the elements traditionally called preposition and oblique case, differentiating their syntactic behaviour by richness of the feature or structural content of P, independently of its morphological realization (Rezac 2008a). The presence and properties of PDAT can accommodate various theories of its insertion. I speak as if it is present on the dative DP from its base-generation onwards, but it seems to make no difference for the present view if PDAT is a clausal functional head attached to the DP through movement (Kayne 2004, cf. 1993, Bianchi 2006: 2045). The greater richness of locatives than of datives is a common proposal in the literature, founded on the Cliticization Requirement, floating quantifiers, and applicativity (below), as well as less secure grounds (q.v. Roberge and Troberg 2007). It is distinct from differences among full PPs, like immunity to Condition B in Kate i looked at her*(self) i / around her(self) i , dependent on the context of the PP (Büring 2005: 11.3.2, Zribi-Hertz 2003, 2008).
- 54.
See Rezac (2010b) for different analyses of floating quantifiers, through Agree/Move (Sportiche 1988) or variable-binding (Fitzpatrick 2006); Landau (1999) and Pylkkänen (2002) for the same alternatives for possessor datives; and Chomsky (2008: 148), Reuland (2001, 2006), Rezac (2010b: note 2) for Agree in the binding of se. Not all relationships are sensitive to PP phasehood or c-command, The chef told the guests about (the ingredients of) every dish i as it i was served (Pesetsky 1995: 172–180, 228ff., Phillips 1996: 44–8; cf. note 12).
- 55.
French datives also fail to raise to the [Spec, TP] subjecthood position, but that is presumably independent of their relationship to the Agree/Case system, since datives in languages like Icelandic do so, although they do not agree, change case, but participate in the PCC, like French datives. Some property of PDAT might be the culprit of the Icelandic-French (Icelandic-Basque, etc.) difference, or something about the applicative structure itself (Rezac 2008c).
- 56.
As in Spanish object-control restructuring configurations, which permit accusative past dative climbing, but not dative past accusative (Rivas 1977).
- 57.
Speakers with this pattern often find ECM with dative clitic climbing grammatical but difficult to understand; reactions to On (le) leur croit sympathique (Paul) ‘One believes him.A (le) / Paul sympathetic to them.D (leur)' recall Higginbotham's (1991: 128) evaluation of John is too clever to expect us to catch. The causativization of ECM in On me la lui a fait croire fidèle ‘One has made me.D (me) believe her.A (la) faithful to him.D (lui)' (Postal 1983: 393 note 25), seems more difficult. The reflexive clitic is even more variable, (*)Elle se (le) croit fidèle (Paul) ‘She believes him.A (le) / Paul faithful herself.D (se)'. Speakers vary on the relative badness of 1/2.ACC+3.DAT vs. 3.ACC+1/2.DAT clusters, but not consistently. It is difficult to see if the dative clitic licenses a bare floating quantifier, Je la leur i aurait tous i cru fidèle ‘I would have believed her faithful to them.D (leur) all (tous)'; judgments become quite uncertain.
- 58.
In ECM (i) Kayne (1975: 305) assigns the nonclitic dative only ?, but counts it with other irreparable datives, comparing Jean (t')est antipathique (?à toi) ‘Jean (you.D) is unpleasant (?to you)' (p. 306 note 30), cf. Elle (t')est infidèle (*à toi) ‘She (you.D) is unfaithful (*to you)' (p. 172). (ii) extends (i) to the ECM grammar (115). My inquiries indicate (i) and (ii) are both ungrammatical, if not easy to judge due to the inherent difficulty of ECM. A configuration similar to ECM (112)a should exist for causatives embedding intransitives with a dative argument. There is great variation on the types faire ACC naître/ressembler DAT ‘make ACC be.born/resemble to DAT', faire ACC sembler/paraître DAT INF 'make ACC seem to DAT to INF', as well as on unfocussed strong pronoun datives when cliticization is impossible for various reasons, including PCC-like clusters: see Postal (1983: 414, 1984: 116, 1990: 171f.). My own investigation finds a great deal of variation on and beyond Postal's data; little can be made of it for now.
(i)
a Tout le monde
croit
Jean antipathique à Marie / ?à toi
b *Tout le monde te
croit
Jean antipathique
everyone
you.D
believes
Jean antipathetic to Marie / to you
Everyone believes Jean antipathetic to you / to Mary.
(Kayne 1975: 305f.)
(ii)
C'est à cause de leursi propos que
a on la/te
croit
sympathique aux étudiants / à EUXi / (*)à euxi.
b on la/*te leur i
croit
sympathique.
one her/you.A them.D believes sympathetic to.the students / to them
It's because of theiri words that we believe her/*you sympathetic to themi.
- 59.
I know of no other published source for the Postal-Morin grammar. It is wholly inaccessible to some who allow (115), but others find the result degraded yet in contrast with the PCC, perhaps better for certain choices of adjectives (C'est à cause de vos écrits qu'on vous leur croit proche, ‘It's because of your writings that we believe you close to them'). Then they have Postal's coindexation pattern indicated in (117) and discussed below.
- 60.
- 61.
This is perhaps extensible to the type of phenomenon in note 17. The chief snag in this account is why the dative in (117) has special binding properties only if the embedded ECM subject is 1st/2nd person (in causatives this is inspectable because 3.DAT 3.DAT sequences are never grammatical). Presumably, it is related to the fact that some speakers only allow dative cliticization out of ECM by itself or when it creates a 3.DAT + 3.ACC cluster, (115). These speakers generally do not allow the dative to corefer with the matrix subject, but there are exceptions when the ECM subject A'-extracts, (i); cf. Postal (1989: 9f.) for another person-based difference in inverse binding of complex reflexives, and for (i) the need of ECM infinitives in French to A'-move or cliticize their subject in Kayne (1984), Rooryck (1997). The binding pattern (119) is problematic for a fully monoclausal approach to climbing structures (Miyagawa 1987, Wurmbrand 2002).
(i)
ellei aime un hommej qu'ellei luii/*sei
croit
fidèle/redevable __j
she likes a man
that she her.DAT/SE believes
faithful/indebted
References
Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard, and Philippe Miller. 1997. Les causatives en français: un cas de compétition syntaxique. Langue française 115: 62–74.
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: UPV/EHU.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Ms., Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California..
Albizu, Pablo. 2009. Construcciones inacusativas con dativos posesivos y dativos de interés en vasco. Handout of talks at LyCC, CSIC, May 11 2009, and UMR 5478, Bayonne, June 9 2009. On-line: http://www.ile.csic.es/linguistica/Albizu.pdf. Accessed on September 9, 2010
Alboiu, Gabriela, Michael Barrie, and Chiara Frigeni. 2004. SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox. In Current studies in comparative Romance linguistics, ed. Martine Coene, Greet de Cuyper, and Yves D’Hulst, 109–139. Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.
Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83: 110–160.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions. In Clitic and affix combinations, ed. Lorie Heggie, and Francisco Ordóñez, 199–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Notes on the Person Case Constraint in Germanic. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aoun, Joseph. 1981. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing NP Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ashby, William J. 1977. Clitic inflection in French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Auger, Julie. 1994. Pronominal clitics in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baschung, Karine, and Marianne Desmets. 2000. On the phrasal vs. clausal syntactic status of French infinitives: causative constructions and subject inversion. French Language Studies 10: 205–228.
Beaver, David, Brandy Zack Clark, Edward Flemming, T. Florian Jaeger, and Maria Wolters. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Accoustical studies of second-occurrence focus. Language 83: 245–276
Belletti, Adriana. 1999. Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 543–579. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. (Past) participle agreement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 3, case 48. Oxford: Blackwell.
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067.
Bissel, Clifford H. 1944. Faire, laisser, voir and entendre with a dependent infinitive. The Modern Language Journal 28: 325–337.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1975. Recherches en vue d'une théorie de la grammaire française: Essai d'application à la syntaxe des pronoms. Paris: Champion.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1978. A propos des traits sémantiques utilisés en syntaxe: Critique du trait '+/– humain'. Cahier de linguistique 8: 1–15.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, José Delofeu, Jean Stefanini, and Karel van den Eynde. 1984. Pronom et syntaxe: L'approche pronominale et son application au français. Paris: SELAF.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2003. Floating quantifiers. The second Glot International state-of-the-article book, ed. Lisa Cheng and Rynd Sybesma, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phillip Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple Case checking. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam., and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky Agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of agreement. London: Routledge.
Boneh, Nora, and Léa Nash. 2010. Noncore datives are merged high. Handout from the 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting, Donostia, June 21–23 2010.
Boivin, Marie-Claude. 2005. Case Theory, DP movement, and interpretation: A new approach to the distribution of French subnominal clitic en. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 543–593.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morpholgy after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. The Person-Case constraint: A morphological approach. MIT Workinng Papers in Linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection, ed. Heidi Harley and Collin Phillips, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2008. The Person-Case constraint and repair strategies. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 103–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218.
Bošković, Željko. 2004a. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.
Bošković, Željko. 2004b. Object shift and the clause/PP parallelism hypothesis. In Proceedings of the WCCFL 23, 99–112. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Bošković, Željko, and Jairo Nunes. 2007. The copy theory of movement: A view from PF. In The copy theory of movement, ed. Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes, 13–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burston, Jack L. 1983. Clitic object sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–75.
Burzio, Luigi. 1978. Italian causative constructions. Journal of Italian Linguistics 2: 1–71.
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Burzio, Luigi. 1989. On the nonexistence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di Grammatica Generative 14: 3–27.
Burzio, Luigi. 1991. The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27: 81–105.
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 1999. Two German impersonal passives and expletive pro. In Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 47–57.
Camacho, José Antonio. 1997. The syntax of NP coordination. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. On different types of clitic clusters. In The Bantu-Romance connection, ed. Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth, 41–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Ur Shlonsky. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 519–557.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12: 93–126
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. A note on ‘restructuring' and quantifier climbing in French. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 617–636.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Restructuring and functional architecture. Italy: Ms., University of Sienna.
CNRTL: Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales. On-line: www.cnrtl.fr. Accessed on September 9, 2010
Collins, Christopher. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81–120.
Conceição, Manuela da. 2007. Pronominal affixation and cliticization in Romance and Bantu. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Couquaux, Daniel. 1975. Une règle de réanalyse en français. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 4: 32–72.
Couquaux, Daniel. 1977. Même marque-t-il qu'un pronom est réfléchi? Le français moderne 45: 126–43.
Couquaux, Daniel. 1978. Sur une incompatibilité de pronoms clitiques en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 2: 211–214.
Cuervo, María Christina. 2003a. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cuervo, María Christina. 2003b. Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 1, ed. Anne Marie Di Sciullo, 117–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
D'Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–491.
D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 485–534.
De Kok, Ans. 1985. La place du pronom personnel régime conjoint en français: une étude diachronique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Victor Manfredi. 1994. Binding domains in Haitian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 203–257.
Delfitto, Denis. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 29–57.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7: 5–30.
Den Dikken, Marcel 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006a. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. New York: Ms. City University of New York.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006b. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2005. The se-anaphor and its role in argument realization. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 4, case 56. Oxford: Blackwell.
Evans, K.J., G.C. Lepschy, S.C. Morris, J. Newman, and D. Watson, D. 1978. Italian clitic clusters. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica ed applicata 7: 153–168.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. Generalized Union. Communication and Cognition 16: 3–37.
Fellbaum, Christine. 1989. On the ‘reflexive middle' in English. Proceedings of the CLS 25, 123–132. Chicago: CLS.
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laímo y loísmo. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1317–1397. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Benjamin Swets. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause 'island' contexts. In Twenty-first century psycholinguistics, ed. Anne Cutler, 263–278. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.
Gaatone, David. 1984. Une allergie syntaxique en français : Réflexions sur l'opposition lui / à lui, Revue de linguistique romane 48: 189–190.
García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.
Gibson, Jeanne, and Eduardo Raposo. 1986. Clause union, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, and the chômeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 295–331.
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodall, Grant. 1997. Theta-alignment and the by-phrase. Proceedings of CLS 33, vol. 1, 129–139. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in romance clitic systems. In Optimality-Theoretic syntax, ed. Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, 205–240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 294–313.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1997. Romance causatives. In The new comparative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 124–144. Longman: London.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2005. Analytic causatives. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 1, case 6. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haiman, John, and Paola Benincà. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive Person Case Constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 2. On-line: www.constructions-online.de/articles/35. Accessed on September 9, 2010
Heger, Klaus. 1966. La conjugaison objective en français et en espagnol. Persée 1(3): 19–38.
Heggie, Lorie, and Francisco Ordónez. 2005. Clitic ordering phenomena: The path to generalizations. In Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 1–29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herschensohn, Julia. 1992. On the economy of Romance nonlexical datives. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. Paul Hirschbühler and Konrad Koerner, 123–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herschensohn, Julia. 1999. What does zero syntax add to an analysis of French psych verbs? In Semantic issues in Romance syntax, ed. José Lema and Esthela Trevińo, 105–120 Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herslund, Michael. 1988. Le datif en français. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.
Higginbotham, James. 1991. The autonomy of syntax and semantics. In Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language, ed. Jay L. Garfield, 119–131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Peress.
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.
Jones, Michael Allan. 1996. Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jónsson, Johannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts..
Jouitteau, Mélanie, and Milan Rezac. 2008. The French ethical dative: 13 syntactic tests. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 97–108. Bucharest: University of Bucharest.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1979. Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 710–719.
Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 133–166. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kayne, Richard. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti. Oxford, New York, 192–212.
Kayne, Richard. 2008. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Theresa Biberauer, 175–217. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kempson, Ruth, and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2008. The Person Case Constraint as a treegrowth property. London: Ms., King's College.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–135.
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In The syntax of specifiers and heads, ed. Hilda Koopman, 204–260. London: Routledge.
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.
Labelle, Marie. 2008. French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 833–876.
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1990. Binding properties of French en. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language, ed. Carol Georgopoulos, 397–414. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1991. Coréférence et référence disjointe: les deux pronoms en et y. Travaux Linguistiques 22: 41–67.
Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1–37.
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.
Leclère, Christian. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datifs éthiques. In Méthodes en grammaire française, ed. Jean-Claude Chevalier and Maurice Gross, 73–96. Paris: Klincksieck.
Lefebvre, Claire, and Robert Fournier. 1978. Les relatives en français de Montréal. Cahier de linguistique 8: 273–294.
Legendre, Geraldine. 1989a. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65: 752–782.
Legendre, Geraldine. 1989b. Unaccusativity in French. Lingua 79: 95–164.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicage: University of Chicago Press.
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1994. 1994. ACTIVE passives. In Proceedings of the WCCFL 13, 286–301. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Martín, Truss. 2009. Deconstructing dative clitics. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.
McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. In Linguistic variation yearbook 1: 101–142.
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1992. On the syntax of constructions with ARB SE in Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo 34: 307–326.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones con se. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa.
Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.
Miller, Philip H., and Paola Monachesi. 2003. Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In Langues Romanes, problèmes de la phrase simple, ed. Danièle Godard, 67–123. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Miller, Philip H. and Ivan A. Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639.
Milner, Claude. 1982. Ordres et raisons de langue. Paris: Seuil.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Restructuring in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese linguistics, ed. Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito, 273–300. Foris: Dordrecht.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1978. Interprétation des pronoms et des réfléchis en français. In Cahier de linguistique 8: 337–76.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979a. More remarks on French clitic order. Linguistic Analysis 5:293–312.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979b. La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. Cahier de linguistique 9: 1–36.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979c. There is no inversion of subject clitics in Modern French. Montréal, QC: Ms., Université de Montreal.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1980. Les bases syntaxique des règles de projection sémantique: L'interprétation des constructions en faire. Lingvisticae Investigationes 11: 9–47.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1981. Some myths about pronominal clitics in French. Linguistic Analysis 8.2: 95–109.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1982. De quelques [l] non étymologiques dans le français du Québec: notes sur les clitiques et la liaison. Revue québecoise de linguistique 11: 9–47.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.
Nevins, Andrew, and Oana Săvescu. 2008. An apparent Number Case Constraint in Romanian: The role of syncretism. Ms., Harvard University and New York University.
Nicol, Fabrice. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic and affix combinations, ed. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 141–197. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nyrop, Kristoffer. 1925. Grammaire historique de la langue française, vol. 5. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint. Anuario del Seminario Julio de Urquijo 32: 415–434.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010b. The derivation of dative alternations. In Argument structure and syntactic relations from a crosslinguistic perspective, ed. Maya Duguine, Susana Huidobro, and Nerea Madariaga 203–232. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Rinehart & Winston Inc.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pica, Pierre. 1994. Condition C and epistemic contexts. In Explorations in generative grammar, ed. Young-Sun Kim, Byung-Choon, Lee, Kyoung-Jae, lee, Kyun-Kwon, Yang, Jong-Yuri Yoon, 544–570. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing.
Pijnenburg, Hans, and Aafke Hulk. 1989. Datives in French causatives. Probus 1: 259–282.
Pinchon, Jacqueline. 1972. Les pronoms adverbiaux en et y. Geneva: Droz.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1998. On the cliticization of subnominal clitics. Syntax 1: 300–330.
Postal, Paul M. 1981. A failed analysis of the French cohesive infinitive construction. Linguistic Analysis 8: 281–323.
Postal, Paul M. 1983. On Characterizing French Grammatical Structure. Linguistic Analysis 11: 361–417.
Postal, Paul M. 1984. French indirect object cliticisation and SSC/BT. Linguistic Analysis 14: 111–172.
Postal, Paul M. 1989. Masked inversion in French. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Postal, Paul M. 1990. French indirect object demotion. In Studies in Relational Grammar 3, ed. Paul M. Postal and Brian D. Joseph, 104–200. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quicoli, Carlos. 1980. Clitic movement in French causatives. Linguistic Analysis 6: 131–186.
Reed, Lisa. 1992. On clitic case alternations in French causatives. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. Paul Hirschbühler, and Konrad Koerner, 205–224. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.
Renzi, Lorenzo, and Anna Cardinaletti. 1988. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: II Mulino.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.
Reuland, Eric. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing grammar, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, and Ursula Kleinhenz, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rezac, Milan. 2005. The syntax of clitic climbing In Czech. In Clitic and affix combinations ed. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 103–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rezac, Milan. 2007. Escaping the Person Case Constraint: Referential computation in the phi-system. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6: 97–138.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. In Phi theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The forms of dative displacement: From Basauri to Itelmen. Gramatika jaietan, ed. Xabier Artiagoitia and Joseba A. Lakarra, 709–724. Zarautz: UPV/EHU.
Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and Absolutive Displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.
Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffability through modularity: Gaps in French clitic clusters. In Defective paradigms, ed. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (3).
Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms.,UMR 7023 CNRS/Université de Paris 8.
Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rigau, Gemma. 1982. Inanimate indirect object in Catalan. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 146–150.
Rivas, Alberto. 1977. Clitics in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 494–502.
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2007. Thematic indirect objects in French. French Language Studies 17: 297–322.
Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2009. The syntax of dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance. Toronto, ON: Ms., University of Toronto.
Roberts, Ian. 1991. Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 209–218.
Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes, vol. 3. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.
Rooryck, Johan. 1988a. Formal aspects of French nonlexical datives. Folia Linguistica 22: 373–386.
Rooryck, Johan. 1988b. Restrictions on dative cliticization in French causatives. Journal of Semantics 6: 41–55.
Rooryck, Johan. 1997. On the interaction between raising and focus in sentential complementation. Studia Linguistica 51: 1–49.
Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116: 1561–1579.
Rothstein, Susan. 1992. Case and NP licensing. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 119–139.
Rouveret, Alain. 2010. On verb-subject languages. Lingua 120: 232–263.
Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. La grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Seuil.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques. Langages 97: 51–81.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sandfeld, Kristian. 1970 [1928]. Syntaxe du francais contemporain I: Les pronoms. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
Santorini, Beatrice, and Caroline Heycock. 1988. Remarks on causatives and passive. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MS-CIS-88–33.
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analycity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Simpson, Jane Helen. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simpson, Jane, and Mary Margaret Withgott. 1986. Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Hagit Borer, 149–174. Orlando: Academic Press.
Solà, Jaume. 2002. Clitic climbing and null subject languages. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 225–255.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Raising in Irish and the Projection Principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 317–359.
Tasmowski, Liliane. 1985. Faire infinitif. In Les constructions de la phrase française, ed. Ludo Melis, Liliane Tasmowski, Paul Verluyten, and Dominique Willems, 223–365. Gent: Communication and Cognition.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell.
Torrego, Esther. 1995. From argumental to nonargumental pronouns: Spanish doubled reflexives. Probus 7: 221–241.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of clitic placement in western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.
Wanner, Dieter. 1977. On the order of clitics in Italian. Lingua 43: 101–128.
Watanabe, Akira. 1997. Case absorption and wh-agreement. Dordecht: Kluwer.
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 577–628.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2002. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zagona, Karen. 2006. The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zaring, Laurie. 1991. On prepositions and case-marking in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36: 363–377.
Zink, Gaston. 1997. Morphosyntaxe du pronom personnel (non réfléchi) en moyen français (XIVe-XVe siècles). Droz: Genève.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1980. Coréférence et pronoms réfléchis: Notes sur le contraste lui/lui-même en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 4: 131–179.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1995. Emphatic or reflexive? On the endophoric character of French lui-même and similar complex pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 31: 333–374.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2000. Les pronoms forts du français sont-ils [+animés]?. In Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur, ed. Martine Coene, Walter De Mulder, Patrick Dendale, and Yves d’Hulst, 663–680. Milan: Unipress.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2003. Réflexivité et disjonction référentielle en français et en anglais. In Essais sur la grammaire comparée du français et de l'anglais, ed. Philippe Miller and Anne Zribi-Hertz, 189–227. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. From intensive to reflexive: The prosodic factor. In Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explanations, ed. Ekkehard König and Volker Gast, 591–632. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2009. Syntax at the interfaces: On the restricted productivity of the French mediopassive within the Romance family. Ms.,UMR 7023 Université de Paris 8/CNRS.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1985. The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 247–289.
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word-order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rezac, M. (2010). Person Case Constraint Repairs in French. In: Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 81. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9697-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9698-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)