Advertisement

Two Properties of Clitics in Clitic-Doubled Constructions

  • Margarita Suñer
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 40)

Abstract

One of the well-known facts about Spanish is that it permits object clitic-doubling (CL-D). CL-D is the process by which an object clitic (CL) enters into a chain with a lexical constituent in argument position, thus forming a discontinuous element (Borer 1984). Both parts of the CL-chain must match in the relevant features (Suñer 1986a). Spanish CLs may double indirect objects (IOs) and direct objects (DOs). In all dialects, IO-D is quite free in the sense that the features of the doubled constituent do not appear to interact crucially with the doubling process; consequently, doubling takes places irrespective of the features for animacy, specificity and/or definiteness of the IO phrase (1).

Keywords

Argument Position Indirect Object Wide Scope Reading Discontinuous Element Overt Pronoun 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, J.: 1981, The Formal Nature of Anaphoric Relations, MIT doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J. and Sportiche, D.: 1982, ‘On the Formal Theory of Government’, The Linguistic Review 2, 211–236.Google Scholar
  3. Barss, A. and Lasnik, H.: 1986, ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’. L.I. 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. and Cooper, R.: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bello, A.: 1970, Gramática de la lengua castellana, Rev. by R. J. Cuervo and N. Alcalá-Zamora y Torres, Sopena, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  6. Borer, H.: 1984, Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1976, ‘Conditions on Rules of Grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Higginbotham, J.: 1980a, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, L.I. 11, 679–708.Google Scholar
  12. Higginbotham, J.: 1980b, ‘Anaphora and GB: Some Preliminary Remarks’, NELS X. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa. Dept. of Linguistics: Univ. of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  13. Higginbotham, J. and May, R.: 1981, ‘Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing’, The Linguistic Review 1, 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurtado, A: 1984, ‘On the Properties of LF’’, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
  15. Jaeggli, O.: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Jaeggli, O.: 1985, ‘On Certain ECP Effects in Spanish’, Univ. of Southern California unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  17. Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D.: 1982/83, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M.: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, L.I. 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
  19. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, L.I. Monograph 12. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Montalbetti, M.: 1984, After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns, MIT doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Rivero, M.: 1977, ‘Specificity and Existence: A Reply’, Language 53, 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Safir, K.: 1984, ‘Multiple Variable Binding’, L.I. 14, 603–638.Google Scholar
  24. Suñer, M.: 1986a. ‘The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suñer, M.: 1986b, ‘On the Structure of the Spanish CP’ Cornell Univ., unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  26. Torrego, E.: 1984, ‘On Inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects’, L.I. 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
  27. Wahl, A.: 1985, ‘Two Types of Locality’, Univ. of Maryland, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  28. Zaenen, A., Engdah, E., and Maling, J.: 1981, ‘Resumptive Pronouns Can Be Syntactically Bound’, L.I. 12, 679–682.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarita Suñer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations