Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019
Edited by Janine Berns and Elena Tribushinina
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 36] 2019
► pp. 192–207
Part II: Selected papers presented at the Dutch Annual Linguistics Day of 2019

Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions and the syntactic role of deictic features

| Utrecht University
In this paper I take Romance demonstrative-reinforcer constructions as a way to test whether the deictic features encoded by demonstrative and locative forms are active in the syntax. From a descriptive point of view, I claim that demonstrative systems can be best accounted for by making reference to two binary deictic person features: [dem [±Author]] and [dem [±Participant]]. Then I show how these features combine in demonstrative-reinforcer constructions, providing a comprehensive overview of demonstrative-reinforcer constructions in Italo-Romance varieties. Finally, I argue that deictic person features are inactive in the syntax of demonstrative and locative forms: this is suggested by the shortcomings that Agree-based accounts face when dealing with demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Therefore, I contend that the best analysis for such constructions is a non-core syntactical one, the relevant derivation point being either within the morphological component or at the interface between syntax and semantics.
Keywords: demonstrative-reinforcer constructions, Italo-Romance varieties, deixis, person features, inactive features
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Deictic person features
  • 3.Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions
    • 3.1No co-occurring deictic person features
    • 3.2Coinciding deictic person features
    • 3.3Split systems
    • 3.4Partially overlapping deictic person features
  • 4.Do deictic features undergo Agree?
    • 4.1Activity
    • 4.2Valuation
  • 5.Inactive features and restrictions on co-occurrence: Possible derivations
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00032.ter
References (21)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. & Edward L. Keenan. 1985. “Deixis.” Language Typology and Syntactic Fieldwork III ed. by T. Shopen, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 1997. “Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages.” Lingua 1021:87–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. “Focusing the ‘right’ way in Romance Determiner Phrase.” Probus 131:1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2008. “Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals.” The Linguistic Review 251:203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Distributed Morphology.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics ed. by M. Aronoff. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <[URL]> (31 August 2019). DOI logo
Brugè, Laura. 1996. “Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach.” University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 61: 1–61.Google Scholar
. 2002. “The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection.” Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures ed. by G. Cinque, 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The framework.” Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2007. Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation . Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible Persons. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric analysis.” Language 78(3): 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lander, Eric & Liliane Haegeman. 2016. “The nanosyntax of spatial deixis.” Studia Linguistica 2(1): 1–66.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam & John C. Smith. 2016. “Deixis.” The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages ed. by A. Ledgeway and M. Maiden, 879–896. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maurer, Philippe. 2013. “Distance contrasts in demonstratives”. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures ed. by S. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath, and M. Huber, chapter 33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <[URL]> (31 August 2019).
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. “The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 251.273–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features.” Phrasal and Clausal Architecture ed. by S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian. 2010. “Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 131: 225–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terenghi, Silvia. 2018. Deictic Fission in Romance demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Poster presented at Going Romance 32, Main Session, 12–13 December 2018, Utrecht.
Zubizarreta, María L. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Terenghi, Silvia
2021. Chapter 16. Fission in Romance demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 304 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.