Cover not available
Part of
Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards microvariation
Edited by Monica Alexandrina Irimia and Alexandru Mardale
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 280] 2023
► pp. 85–104

Clitic doubling in Brazilian Portuguese as a DOM strategy

| POSLIN-UFMG
This article shows that clitic doubling in Brazilian Portuguese is possible if the direct and indirect objects correspond to a first or a second person pronoun. We posit that the clitics are required whenever the doubled object carries a familiar [topic] feature, whose presence depends on the semantic properties of the nominal item. We postulate that the clitics are merged in the head Do to value the uninterpretable φ-feature of the head Do and the uninterpretable topic feature of the object. This proposal entails that there is a transfer of the topic feature from Ko to Do, which explains why the clitic is spelled out on the head of DP. We claim that the phenomenon of clitic doubling can be viewed as a side effect of differential object marking. This mechanism contrasts with typical DOM in Romance languages in the sense that it does not licence a preposition in a prenominal position.
Keywords: clitic doubling, DOM, person feature, topic and case
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Empirical data: Clitic doubling of direct and indirect objects
    • 2.1Summary of the section
  • 3.Theoretical assumptions
  • 4.The syntactic and semantic effects of clitic doubling
  • 5.The syntactic derivation of clitic doubling in BP
    • 5.1Derivation of the indirect object constructions
  • 6.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.280.04bon
References (24)
References
Aboh, E. O. (2004). Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 21, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2006). Clitic doubling. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 519–581). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F., & Roca, F. (2018). DOM and DP layers in Romance. Paper presented at the international workshop DOM in Romance – Towards microvariation, Inalco, Paris, November.
Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2004). The status of case. In V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (Eds), Clause structure in South Asian languages. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, D. (2008). A estrutura interna dos pronomes pessoais em português (Tese (Doutorado em Linguística). Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delfitto, D. (2002). On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diniz, C. R. (2007). Eu te amo você: O redobro de pronomes clíticos sob uma abordagem minimalista (Dissertação de Mestrado). UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Fale.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1987). Syntaxe du Roumain: Chaines Thématiques. Thêse de Doctorat d’État. Université de Paris 7.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. (2006). Parallels in clausal and nominal pheriphery. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation: Studies in generative grammar (pp. 163–186). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. (2012). On force and case, fin and num. In V. Bianchi & C. Chesi (Eds.), Enjoy linguistics! (pp. 205–217). Centro Interdipartimentali di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (2004). DP-periphery and clausal periphery: Possessor doubling in West Flemish. In D. Adger, C. De Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 211–240). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2019). Patterns for differential object marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Syntax, 3, 1–47.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rocha, R. M. (2016). O redobro de clítico no português brasileiro dialetal (Tese, Doutorado em Linguística). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG.Google Scholar
Rocha, R. M., & Ramos, J. (2016). Clitic doubling and pure agreement person features. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 24(2), 378–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer & K. É. Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (pp. 179–274). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2014). The universal structure of categories. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar