Advertisement

Person Case Constraint Repairs in French

  • Milan Rezac
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 81)

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.

Keywords

Direct Object Matrix Clause Indirect Object Small Clause Clitic Doubling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard, and Philippe Miller. 1997. Les causatives en français: un cas de compétition syntaxique. Langue française 115: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Ms., Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California..Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions. In Clitic and affix combinations, ed. Lorie Heggie, and Francisco Ordóñez, 199–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Aoun, Joseph. 1981. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing NP Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Ashby, William J. 1977. Clitic inflection in French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  14. Auger, Julie. 1994. Pronominal clitics in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  15. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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: 245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067.Google Scholar
  24. Bissel, Clifford H. 1944. Faire, laisser, voir and entendre with a dependent infinitive. The Modern Language Journal 28: 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1975. Recherches en vue d'une théorie de la grammaire française: Essai d'application à la syntaxe des pronoms. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
  26. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1978. A propos des traits sémantiques utilisés en syntaxe: Critique du trait '+/– humain'. Cahier de linguistique 8: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky Agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of agreement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Boneh, Nora, and Léa Nash. 2010. Noncore datives are merged high. Handout from the 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting, Donostia, June 21–23 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morpholgy after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  35. 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: MITWPLGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Bošković, Željko. 2004a. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Bošković, Željko. 2004b. Object shift and the clause/PP parallelism hypothesis. In Proceedings of the WCCFL 23, 99–112. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  42. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Burston, Jack L. 1983. Clitic object sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–75.Google Scholar
  44. Burzio, Luigi. 1978. Italian causative constructions. Journal of Italian Linguistics 2: 1–71.Google Scholar
  45. Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Burzio, Luigi. 1989. On the nonexistence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di Grammatica Generative 14: 3–27.Google Scholar
  48. Burzio, Luigi. 1991. The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27: 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 1999. Two German impersonal passives and expletive pro. In Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 47–57.Google Scholar
  50. Camacho, José Antonio. 1997. The syntax of NP coordination. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Ur Shlonsky. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12: 93–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. A note on ‘restructuring' and quantifier climbing in French. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Restructuring and functional architecture. Italy: Ms., University of Sienna. Google Scholar
  61. CNRTL: Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales. On-line: www.cnrtl.fr. Accessed on September 9, 2010
  62. Collins, Christopher. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Conceição, Manuela da. 2007. Pronominal affixation and cliticization in Romance and Bantu. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  64. Couquaux, Daniel. 1975. Une règle de réanalyse en français. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 4: 32–72.Google Scholar
  65. Couquaux, Daniel. 1977. Même marque-t-il qu'un pronom est réfléchi? Le français moderne 45: 126–43.Google Scholar
  66. Couquaux, Daniel. 1978. Sur une incompatibilité de pronoms clitiques en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 2: 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Cuervo, María Christina. 2003a. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. D'Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  70. D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  72. De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. De Kok, Ans. 1985. La place du pronom personnel régime conjoint en français: une étude diachronique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  74. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Victor Manfredi. 1994. Binding domains in Haitian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Delfitto, Denis. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 29–57.Google Scholar
  76. Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Den Dikken, Marcel 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006a. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. New York: Ms. City University of New York.Google Scholar
  79. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006b. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. Generalized Union. Communication and Cognition 16: 3–37.Google Scholar
  83. Fellbaum, Christine. 1989. On the ‘reflexive middle' in English. Proceedings of the CLS 25, 123–132. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar
  85. 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.Google Scholar
  86. Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  87. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Gaatone, David. 1984. Une allergie syntaxique en français : Réflexions sur l'opposition lui / à lui, Revue de linguistique romane 48: 189–190.Google Scholar
  89. García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.Google Scholar
  90. Gibson, Jeanne, and Eduardo Raposo. 1986. Clause union, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, and the chômeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Goodall, Grant. 1997. Theta-alignment and the by-phrase. Proceedings of CLS 33, vol. 1, 129–139. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  93. Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
  94. 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.Google Scholar
  95. Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 294–313.Google Scholar
  96. Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1997. Romance causatives. In The new comparative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 124–144. Longman: London.Google Scholar
  97. 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.Google Scholar
  98. Haiman, John, and Paola Benincà. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68.Google Scholar
  100. 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
  101. Heger, Klaus. 1966. La conjugaison objective en français et en espagnol. Persée 1(3): 19–38.Google Scholar
  102. 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.Google Scholar
  103. 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.Google Scholar
  104. 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.Google Scholar
  105. Herslund, Michael. 1988. Le datif en français. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
  106. 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.Google Scholar
  107. Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Peress.Google Scholar
  108. Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Jones, Michael Allan. 1996. Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Jónsson, Johannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts..Google Scholar
  111. 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.Google Scholar
  112. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  113. Kayne, Richard. 1979. Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 710–719.Google Scholar
  114. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  115. Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  117. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Kayne, Richard. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti. Oxford, New York, 192–212.Google Scholar
  119. 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.Google Scholar
  120. Kempson, Ruth, and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2008. The Person Case Constraint as a treegrowth property. London: Ms., King's College.Google Scholar
  121. Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–135.Google Scholar
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
  124. Labelle, Marie. 2008. French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 833–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  127. Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1990. Binding properties of French en. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language, ed. Carol Georgopoulos, 397–414. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  128. Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1991. Coréférence et référence disjointe: les deux pronoms en et y. Travaux Linguistiques 22: 41–67.Google Scholar
  129. Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  131. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  132. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  133. Leclère, Christian. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datifs éthiques. In Méthodes en grammaire française, ed. Jean-Claude Chevalier and Maurice Gross, 73–96. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  134. Lefebvre, Claire, and Robert Fournier. 1978. Les relatives en français de Montréal. Cahier de linguistique 8: 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Legendre, Geraldine. 1989a. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65: 752–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Legendre, Geraldine. 1989b. Unaccusativity in French. Lingua 79: 95–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicage: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  138. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1994. 1994. ACTIVE passives. In Proceedings of the WCCFL 13, 286–301. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  139. Martín, Truss. 2009. Deconstructing dative clitics. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
  140. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  143. McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. In Linguistic variation yearbook 1: 101–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  145. 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.Google Scholar
  146. Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones con se. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
  147. Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  148. 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.Google Scholar
  149. Miller, Philip H. and Ivan A. Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Milner, Claude. 1982. Ordres et raisons de langue. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  151. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Restructuring in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese linguistics, ed. Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito, 273–300. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  152. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1978. Interprétation des pronoms et des réfléchis en français. In Cahier de linguistique 8: 337–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979a. More remarks on French clitic order. Linguistic Analysis 5:293–312.Google Scholar
  154. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979b. La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. Cahier de linguistique 9: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979c. There is no inversion of subject clitics in Modern French. Montréal, QC: Ms., Université de Montreal.Google Scholar
  156. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1980. Les bases syntaxique des règles de projection sémantique: L'interprétation des constructions en faire. Lingvisticae Investigationes 11: 9–47.Google Scholar
  157. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1981. Some myths about pronominal clitics in French. Linguistic Analysis 8.2: 95–109.Google Scholar
  158. 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.Google Scholar
  159. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Nevins, Andrew, and Oana Săvescu. 2008. An apparent Number Case Constraint in Romanian: The role of syncretism. Ms., Harvard University and New York University.Google Scholar
  161. 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.Google Scholar
  162. Nyrop, Kristoffer. 1925. Grammaire historique de la langue française, vol. 5. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  163. 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.Google Scholar
  164. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 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.Google Scholar
  166. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Rinehart & Winston Inc.Google Scholar
  167. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  168. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  169. Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  170. 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.Google Scholar
  171. Pijnenburg, Hans, and Aafke Hulk. 1989. Datives in French causatives. Probus 1: 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Pinchon, Jacqueline. 1972. Les pronoms adverbiaux en et y. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
  173. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1998. On the cliticization of subnominal clitics. Syntax 1: 300–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Postal, Paul M. 1981. A failed analysis of the French cohesive infinitive construction. Linguistic Analysis 8: 281–323.Google Scholar
  177. Postal, Paul M. 1983. On Characterizing French Grammatical Structure. Linguistic Analysis 11: 361–417.Google Scholar
  178. Postal, Paul M. 1984. French indirect object cliticisation and SSC/BT. Linguistic Analysis 14: 111–172.Google Scholar
  179. Postal, Paul M. 1989. Masked inversion in French. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  180. 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.Google Scholar
  181. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  182. Quicoli, Carlos. 1980. Clitic movement in French causatives. Linguistic Analysis 6: 131–186.Google Scholar
  183. 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.Google Scholar
  184. Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Renzi, Lorenzo, and Anna Cardinaletti. 1988. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: II Mulino.Google Scholar
  186. Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 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.Google Scholar
  189. Rezac, Milan. 2007. Escaping the Person Case Constraint: Referential computation in the phi-system. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6: 97–138.Google Scholar
  190. 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.Google Scholar
  191. 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.Google Scholar
  192. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 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.Google Scholar
  194. Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (3).Google Scholar
  195. Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms.,UMR 7023 CNRS/Université de Paris 8.Google Scholar
  196. Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum.Google Scholar
  197. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  198. Rigau, Gemma. 1982. Inanimate indirect object in Catalan. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 146–150.Google Scholar
  199. Rivas, Alberto. 1977. Clitics in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  200. Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 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.Google Scholar
  202. Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2007. Thematic indirect objects in French. French Language Studies 17: 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2009. The syntax of dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance. Toronto, ON: Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  204. Roberts, Ian. 1991. Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 209–218.Google Scholar
  205. Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes, vol. 3. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
  206. Rooryck, Johan. 1988a. Formal aspects of French nonlexical datives. Folia Linguistica 22: 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Rooryck, Johan. 1988b. Restrictions on dative cliticization in French causatives. Journal of Semantics 6: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Rooryck, Johan. 1997. On the interaction between raising and focus in sentential complementation. Studia Linguistica 51: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116: 1561–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Rothstein, Susan. 1992. Case and NP licensing. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Rouveret, Alain. 2010. On verb-subject languages. Lingua 120: 232–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.Google Scholar
  213. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. La grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  214. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques. Langages 97: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  216. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1970 [1928]. Syntaxe du francais contemporain I: Les pronoms. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  217. 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.Google Scholar
  218. Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  219. Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analycity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  220. Simpson, Jane Helen. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  221. 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.Google Scholar
  222. Solà, Jaume. 2002. Clitic climbing and null subject languages. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 225–255.Google Scholar
  223. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
  224. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  225. Stowell, Tim. 1989. Raising in Irish and the Projection Principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 317–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. 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.Google Scholar
  227. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Torrego, Esther. 1995. From argumental to nonargumental pronouns: Spanish doubled reflexives. Probus 7: 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of clitic placement in western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
  230. Wanner, Dieter. 1977. On the order of clitics in Italian. Lingua 43: 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Watanabe, Akira. 1997. Case absorption and wh-agreement. Dordecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  232. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  233. Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 577–628.Google Scholar
  234. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2002. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  235. Zagona, Karen. 2006. The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  236. Zaring, Laurie. 1991. On prepositions and case-marking in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36: 363–377.Google Scholar
  237. Zink, Gaston. 1997. Morphosyntaxe du pronom personnel (non réfléchi) en moyen français (XIVe-XVe siècles). Droz: Genève.Google Scholar
  238. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1980. Coréférence et pronoms réfléchis: Notes sur le contraste lui/lui-même en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 4: 131–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. 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.Google Scholar
  241. 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.Google Scholar
  242. 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.Google Scholar
  243. 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.Google Scholar
  244. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1985. The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 247–289.Google Scholar
  245. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word-order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris 8Saint Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations