Edited by Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 130] 2008
► pp. 289–319
Romanian, as well as certain varieties of Spanish (but not Iberian Spanish, French or Italian) allow the clitic doubling of direct objects (indirect objects will be left out here),1 a phenomenon that is subject to clear crosslinguistic differences: in Spanish, but not in Romanian, clitic doubling is blocked by contrastive Focus and quantificational features. Our analysis of this contrast will rely on the following theoretical ingredients: (i) (most cases of) Head-Movement will be analyzed in terms of Head to Head Merge (Dobrovie-Sorin 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin & Galves 2000); (ii) clitic placement will be analyzed as a Spec-Head agreement configuration with a null pronounpro sitting in the Spec of (the complex head containing) the clitic (revised version of Sportiche 1996); (iii) clitic doubling will be analyzed as resulting from an interarboreal operation (Bobaljik & Brown 1997) that merges a complex head Cl+Vv+T(ense) with the vP containing the clitic doubled dp; (iv) the contrasts between Romanian and (River Plate) Spanish will be analyzed as being due to the fact that in Spanish, Spec,CP is distinct from Spec,Cl+Vv+T, whereas in Romanian, comp is part of the complex functional head clustering around T, and correlatively, Spec,C is not distinct from, but rather a slot inside the Spec of the complex head Comp+Cl+Vv+T.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 april 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.