Cover not available
Part of
Variation within and across Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011
Edited by Marie-Hélène Côté and Eric Mathieu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 333] 2014
► pp. 213–232

‘Minimal link constraint’ violations

Move vs. Agree

| Universität Hamburg
This paper continues the long-standing discussion whether clitics in clitic doubling constructions should be regarded as being similar to affixes expressing subject–verb agreement or rather as reflexes of movement. A crosslinguistic comparison of clitics will show that although clitics come in different flavors either as phi-features or as determiners, they are all the result of an overt feature movement to repair violations of the Minimal Link Constraint (MLC) (Anagnostopoulou 2005). Raising constructions in Greek, Romanian and Spanish use clitic doubling as a strategy to avoid minimality effects. On the basis of a parallel between clitic doubling and Raising, I will conclude that they are the outcome of two different operations Move vs. (Long Distance) Agree but both are sensitive to MLC and are regulated by a phase-based locality condition (the Phase Impenetrability Condition).
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.333.15mar
References (60)
References
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2006. “Are we in Agreement?”. Agreement Systems ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 13–39. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Moving Forward with Romanian Backward Control and Raising”. New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising ed. by William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1997. “Toward a Uniform Account of Scrambling and Clitic Doubling”. German: Syntactic problems – Problematic syntax ed. by Werner Abraham & Elly van Gelderen, 142–161. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2001. “The Subject in situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Computations”. Linguistic Inquiry 32.193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Gianina Iordachioaia & Mihaela Marchis. 2010. “No Objection to Backward Control“. Movement Theory of Control ed. by Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky, 89–118. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “In support of Long Distance Agree”. Local Modeling of Non-local Dependencies ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Tibor Kiss & Gereon Müller, 85–110. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, Salzburg University.
. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Cross-linguistic and Cross-Categorial Variation of Datives”. Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou Kontou ed. by Melina Stavrou & Arhonto Terzi, 61–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects”. Linguistic Inquiry 17.347–354.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia 1999. Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.
Boeckx, Cedric & Ángel J. Gallego. 2008. “Clitic Climbing by (Long Distance) Agree”. Paper presented at the workshop Meeting Clitics. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, August 18–29.
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries”. Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, 89–115. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. Structures and Beyond ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Approaching UG from Below”. Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics ed. by Uri Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1997. “Some Notes on the Syntax of the Subject”. Revue roumaine de linguistique XLII.101–147Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 33.409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative Alternation in Spanish”. Probus 7.5–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diaconescu, Rodica & Maria-Luisa Rivero. 2005. “An Applicative Analysis of Double Object Constructions in Romanian”. Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association . [[URL]]
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1999. “On Clitics, Prepositions and Case Licensing in Standard and Macedonian Greek”. Studies in Greek Syntax ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey C. Horrocks & Melita Stavrou, 95–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. “Clitic Doubling, Wh-Movement, and Quantification in Romanian”. Linguistic Inquiry 21.351–397.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2004. “Hyperraising and Null Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese”. Romance, Op. 47: Collected papers on Romance syntax ed. by Ana Castro, Marcelo Ferreira, Valentine Hacquard & Andrés Pablo Salanova. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47.57–85.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese”. Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax ed. by Jairo Nunes, 93–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susann. 2010. Word-order Change as a Source for Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander & Julia Horvath. 1987. “On Non-finiteness in Extraction Constructions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. “Agreement and Movement in Icelandic Raising Constructions”. Lingua 113.997–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Sara Rosen & Juan Uriagereka. 1994. “Integrals”. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 2.70–90.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. “About Agr (P)”. Linguistic Inquiry 21.551–577.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1986. “Three Issues in the Theory of clitics: Case, doubled NP’s, and extraction”. Syntax and Semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics ed. by. Hagit Borer, 15–42. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1996. “A Brief Grammar of Euskara, the Basque Language”. Ms.,Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (University of the Basque Country).
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19.335–391.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. “Specificity in Clitic Doubling and in Differential Object Marking”. Probus 20.33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions”. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1 ed. by Sam Mchombo, 113–150. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marchis, Mihaela. 2012. “A Movement Approach of Control and the Inflected Infinitive”. Paper presented at the 42nd annual Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Southern Utah University, April 20–22.
Martins, Ana-Maria & Jairo Nunes. 2010. “Apparent Hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese: Agreement with topics across a finite CP”. The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and operators ed. by Phoevos Panagiotidis, 143–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Nunes, Jairo. 2010. A Note on Wh-islands and Finite Control in Brazilian Portuguese. Estudos da Língua (gem) 8.79–103.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2004. “Review of The Syntax of Distransitives: Evidence of clitics by Elena Anagnostopoulou”. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5.182–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 1990. “Modal Verbs in Catalan”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1990. “Subjects in English and Greek”. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison of English and Greek. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 12–32.Google Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene & Ioannis Veloudis. 1984. “The Subjunctive in Complement Clauses”. Studies in Greek Linguistics 5.149–167.Google Scholar
Polinksy, Maria & Eric Potsdam. 2008. “Real and Apparent Long-Distance Agreement in Subject-to Subject Raising Constructions”. Paper presented at the workshop on Local-modelling of non-local dependencies , DGfS XXX, Bamberg.

Preminger, Omer. 2008. “Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic-doubling by their failures”. Ms.,MIT.
Rivas, Alberto. 1977. A Theory of Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. “The Structure of the Clause and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.63–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, case, and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1992. “Clitic Constructions”. Ms., UCLA.
. 1996. “Clitic Constructions”. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon ed. by Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring, 213–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. “The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 1992. PRO in Finite Clauses: A study of the inflectional heads of the Balkan languages. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.
Torrego, Esther. 1988. “A DP Analysis of Spanish Nominals”. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance”. Linguistic Inquiry 26.79–124.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1982. Government and Proper Government of Verbal projections. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Marchis Moreno, Mihaela & Carolina Petersen
2016. In defense of defective intervention. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 10], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.