Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 273–313 | Cite as

The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

  • Andrew NevinsEmail author
Original Paper


In modeling the effects of the Person-Case Constraint (PCC), a common claim is that 3rd person “is not a person”. However, while this claim does work in the syntax, it creates problems in the morphology. For example, characterizing the well-known “spurious se effect” in Spanish simply cannot be done without reference to 3rd person. Inspired by alternatives to underspecification that have emerged in phonology (e.g., Calabrese, 1995), a revised featural system is proposed, whereby syntactic agreement may be relativized to certain values of a feature, in particular, the contrastive and marked values. The range of variation in PCC effects is shown to emerge as a consequence of the parametric options allowed on a Probing head, whereas the representation of person remains constant across modules of the grammar and across languages.


Third person Spurious se Person case constraint Me lui Clitic clusters Multiple agree Person features Contrastive specification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger D., & Harbour D. (2006). The syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. To appear in Syntax.Google Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulou E. (2005). Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In: Heggie L., Ordoñez F. (eds), Clitics and Affixation. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 199–235Google Scholar
  4. Anttila A. (2003). Finnish assibilation. In: Kadowaki M., Kawahara S. (eds) The Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst MA, GLSA, pp. 13–24Google Scholar
  5. Archangeli D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
  6. Arregi K., & Nevins A. (2006). Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. In T. Scheffier (Eds.), Penn linguistics colloquium special session on distributed morphology, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1. (Also available as at Scholar
  7. Avery P., Rice K. (1989). Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6, 179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bejar S. (2003). Phi-Syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  9. Bejar S., Rezac M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In: Roberge Y., Pérez-Leroux A.T. (eds), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 49–62Google Scholar
  10. Benveniste E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, FL, University of Miami PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Bianchi V. (2005). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116(12): 2023–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bleam T. (1999). Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic doubling. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  13. Bonet E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in romance. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Bonet E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 607–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borer H. (1984). Parametric syntax. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  16. Bresnan J. (2001). Explaning morphosyntactic competition. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA, Blackwell, pp. 11–14Google Scholar
  17. Bruening B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: ACD and frozen scope. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burzio L. (1986). Italian syntax, Studies in natural language and linguistic theory. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  19. Cagliari L.C. (1997). Fonologia do Português: Análise pela geometria de traços. Campinas, Edição do AutorGoogle Scholar
  20. Calabrese A. (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 373–463Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky N. (2001). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Cambridge, MA, MITWPLGoogle Scholar
  22. Chomsky N., Halle M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York, Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  23. Ciucivara O. (2004). Syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic combinations in Romanian. Ms., NYU.Google Scholar
  24. D’Alessandro, R. (2004). Impersonal si constructions: Agreement and interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. de Yrizar P. (1992). Morfología del verbo auxiliar vizcaino: estudio dialectológico. Bilbao Bizkaia Kutxa, EuskaltzaindiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Farkas D., Kazazis K. (1980). Clitic pronouns and topicality in Rumanian. Chicago Linguistic Society 16, 75–82Google Scholar
  27. Fassi-Fehri A. (1988). Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. In: Barlow M., Ferguson C. (eds), Agreement in natural language. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 107–158Google Scholar
  28. Fernández-Soriano O. (1999). El Pronombre Personal Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres Átonos y Tónicos. In: Bosque I., Demonte V. (eds), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (pp. 1209–1273). Chapter 19. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
  29. Foley W. (1991). The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford, Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Forchheimer P. (1953). The category of person in language. Berlin, Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  31. Francis N. (1985). Amn’t I, or the hole in the pattern. In: Viereck W. (eds), Focus on England and Wales. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 141–152Google Scholar
  32. Franco J., Huidobro S. (2004). Experiencer Datives and Belleti’s and Rizzi’s second class of Psych verbs. In: Bračič S. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th linguistic colloquium, Ljubljana, 2001 (pp. 219–229).Google Scholar
  33. Grimshaw J. (1997). The best clitic: Constraint interaction in morphosyntax. In: Hargeman L. (eds), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 169–196Google Scholar
  34. Hale K. (1973). Person marking in Warlbiri. In: Anderson S., Kiparsky P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 308–344Google Scholar
  35. Hall T., & Hamann S. (2006). Towards a typology of stop assibilation. To appear in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  36. Halle M. (1997). Impoverishment and Fission. In B. Bruening et al. (Eds.), PF: Papers at the interface, (Vol. 30, pp. 425–450). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  37. Halle M., & Marantz A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hall & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building (Vol. 20, pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  38. Harbour D. (2003a). Elements of number theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Harbour D. (2003b). The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 543–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harbour D. (2006). Person hierarchies and geometry without hierarchies or geometries. Queen Mary’s OPAL #6.Google Scholar
  41. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hiraiwa K. (2001). Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In O. Matushansky (Ed.), The Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard joint conference (HUMIT 2000), MITWPL 40 (pp. 67–80). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  43. Hiraiwa K. (2004). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  44. Holmberg A., & Hróarsdóttir, T. (2004). Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua, 114, New York: 651–673Google Scholar
  45. Kayne R.S. (2000). Parameters and Universals. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Kiparsky P. (1973). Phonological representations. In: Fujimura O. (eds), Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo, TEC, pp. 3–136Google Scholar
  47. Kratzer A. (1997). German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung II, Berlin.Google Scholar
  48. Laenzlinger C. (1998). Comparative studies in word order variation. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  49. Landa A. (1995). Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to Leismo and clitic doubling. Doctoral Dissertation, USC, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  50. Leavitt R. (1996). Passamaquoddy-Maliseet. Munich, Lincom EuropaGoogle Scholar
  51. Leben W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Manzini R. (1986). On Italian si. In H. Borer (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The syntax of pronominal clitics (pp. 241–262). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Manzini R. (1998). Syntactic approaches to cliticization. GLOT International 3(3): 3–7Google Scholar
  54. McCarthy J., & Taub A. (1992). Review of Paradis & Prunet (Eds.), The special status of coronals. Phonology, 9, 363–370Google Scholar
  55. McGinnis M. (2005). On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81(3): 699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miyagawa S. (2001). EPP, scrambling, and Wh-in-situ. In: Kenstowicz M. (eds), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 293–338Google Scholar
  57. Mohanan K.P. (1991). On the bases of radical underspecification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 285–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nevins A. (2003). Do person/number syncretisms refer to negative values? Paper presented at the 77th LSA Meeting, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  59. Nevins A. (2004). Conditions on (Dis)Harmony. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  60. Noyer R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  61. Ormazabal J., & Romero J. (2006). The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory this volume.Google Scholar
  62. Perlmutter D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  63. Pescarini D. (2005). Types of syncretism in the clitic systems of Romance. To appear International Journal of Basque Linguistics.Google Scholar
  64. Rackowski A., Richards N. (2005). Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ramscar M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology 45(2): 45–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ringen C. (1975). Vowel harmony: theoretical implications. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  67. Rivero M. (2004). Quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the person case constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ross J.R. (1972). Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 61–86Google Scholar
  69. Sedivy J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Chambers C.G., Carlson G.N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71, 109–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silverstein M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  71. Steriade D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 114–174). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. Trommer J. (2006). Third person marking in Menominee. In Phi theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations