Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY
Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordóñez
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14] 2018
► pp. 153–184

Chapter 9
Clitic doubling, person and agreement in French hyper-complex inversion

| New York University

The paper claims that Hyper-Complex Inversion (HCI) is an instance of clitic doubling that is subject to a person restriction not found with more familiar cases of clitic doubling. This restriction is argued to result from an incompatibility between the postverbal subject clitic (SCL) of HCI and the demonstrative structure associated with first and second person pronouns. That demonstrative structure also plays a role in asymmetries that hold concerning the possible silence, in certain cases, of third person pronouns, but not first or second person pronouns. HCI shares with past participle agreement the property that it is incompatible with an unmoved lexical direct object, in a way that presents a challenge to Agree, if Agree is taken to be available even in the absence of movement. The SCL of HCI sentences can sometimes climb out of an embedded infinitive, in a way related to the Comp-area character of its landing site.

Keywords: doubling, agreement, inversion, person, demonstrative
Article outline
  • 1.HCI
  • 2.HCI as clitic doubling
  • 3.A restriction concerning SCLs
  • 4.The -t- morpheme
  • 5.Remnant movement and -t-
  • 6.HCI and clitic climbing
  • 7.A familiar problem for Agree
  • 8.Pronominal clitics vs. agreement morphemes
  • 9.Person and l
  • 10.Missing persons
  • 11.SCL ce
  • 12.Demonstratives and first and second person pronouns
  • 13.Other types of clitic doubling
  • 14.The sensitivity of silent pronouns to person
  • 15.French on
  • 16.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.09kay
References

References

Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2016 “Clitic Doubling and Object Agreement.” In Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop Clitic Doubling and other issues of the syntax/semantic interface in Romance DPs, ed. by Susann Fischer, and Mario Navarro, 11–42. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
2008 The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2006 “(Past) Participle Agreement.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume III, ed. by Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 493–521. Malden, MA: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola
1983 “Il clitico a nel dialetto padovano.” In Scritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, 25–35. Pisa: Pacini. [reprinted in Benincà (1994)].Google Scholar
1994 La variazione sintattica. Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Boneh, Nora, and Ivy Sichel
2010 “Deconstructing Possession.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 1–40.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia
1991 “Morphology After Syntax: Pronominal Clitics In Romance.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2014 “Defects of Defective Intervention.” Linguistic Inquiry 45: 707–719.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürgi, Anne
1998 “Le pronom ça en français vaudois, description et analyse.” Mémoire de Maîtrise, University of Sherbrook.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1989 “Work in Progress.” Ms., Harvard University.Google Scholar
Butt, John B., and Carmen Benjamin
1988 A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2010 “The German Locative-Directional Alternation. A Peeling Account.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 179–223.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke
1999 “The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Andrea
2009 “It Is All About Clitics: The Case of a Northern Italian Dialect Like Bellinzonese.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1988 “On Si Constructions and the Theory of Arb .” Linguistic Inquiry 19:521–581.Google Scholar
1990 Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris
2005 “A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English.” Syntax 8:81–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko
2002 “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déprez, Viviane
1998 “Semantic Effects of Agreement: The Case of French Past Participle Agreement.” Probus 10: 1–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Ion Giurgea
2011 “Pronominal Possessors and Feature Uniqueness.” Language 87: 126–157.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David
2003 “Locality, Listedness, and Morphological Identity.” Studia Linguistica 57: 143–169.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven, and Asya. Pereltsvaig
2004 “Functional Categories in the Nominal Domain.” In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12. The Ottawa Meeting 2003, ed. by O. Arnaudova et al., 109–128. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gatti, Tiziana
1989/1990 “Confronto tra fenomeni sintattici nell’italiano e nel dialetto trentino: participio passato, accordo e ausiliari.” Tesi di laurea, University of Trento.Google Scholar
Gruber, Bettina
2008 “Complementiser Agreement – New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden.” Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Gulli, Antonino
2003 “Reduplication in Syntax.” Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Center, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A., and M. Hariprasad
2001 “Deixis in Pronouns and Noun Phrases.” Linguistic Analysis 31: 132–149.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle
2009 “Gapping Is Not (VP-) Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 289–328.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1972 “Subject Inversion in French Interrogatives.” In Generative Studies in Romance Languages, ed. by Jean Casagrande, and Bohdan Saciuk, 70–126. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
1975  French Syntax . The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1981 “Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control.” In Binding and filtering, ed. by Frank Heny, 191–211. London: Croom Helm. [reprinted in Kayne (1984)].Google Scholar
1983 “Chains, Categories External to S and French Complex Inversion.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107–139. [reprinted in Kayne (1984)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 “L’accord du participe passé en français et en italien.” Modèles Linguistiques VII: 73–90. [English translation in Kayne (2000), Chapter 2 ].Google Scholar
1989a “Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing.” In The Null Subject Parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Kenneth Safir, 239–261. Dordrecht: Reidel. [reprinted in Kayne (2000)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989b “Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement.” In Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, ed. by Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris. [reprinted in Kayne (2000)].Google Scholar
1991 “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686. [reprinted in Kayne (2000)].Google Scholar
1993 “Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31. [reprinted in Kayne (2000)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Overt vs. Covert Movement.” Syntax 1: 128–191. [reprinted in Kayne (2000)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2001 “A Note on Clitic Doubling in French.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque, and Giampaolo Salvi, 189–212. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [also in Kayne (2000)].Google Scholar
2002 “Pronouns and Their Antecedents.” In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel Epstein, and David Seely, 133–166. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [reprinted in Kayne (2005b)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Person Morphemes and Reflexives in Italian, French and Related Languages.” In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, ed. by Christina Tortora, 102–136. New York: Oxford University Press. [also in Kayne (2000)].Google Scholar
2005a “On the Syntax of Quantity in English.” In Kayne (2005b) Also in Linguistic Theory and South-Asian Languages. Essays in Honour of K.A. Jayaseelan, ed. by Josef Bayer, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and M. T. Hany Babu, 73–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2005b Movement and Silence. New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Expletives, Datives, and the Tension between Morphology and Syntax.” In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, 175–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [reprinted in Kayne (2010b)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Some Silent First Person Plurals.” In Merging Features. Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition, ed. by José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, and Jaume Solà, 276–292. New York: Oxford University Press. [reprinted in Kayne (2010b)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a “Why Isn’t This a Complementizer?” In Kayne (2010b) Also in Functional Structure from Top to Toe: A Festschrift for Tarald Taraldsen, ed. by Peter Svenonius, 188–231. New York: Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar
2010b Comparisons and Contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
To appear. “The Unicity of There and the Definiteness Effect.” (lingbuzz/002858).
Kayne, Richard S., and Jean-Yves Pollock
2001 “New Thoughts on Stylistic Inversion.” In Inversion in Romance, ed. by Aafke Hulk, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 107–162. New York: Oxford University Press. [reprinted in Kayne (2005)].Google Scholar
2010 “Notes on French and English Demonstratives.” in Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, ed. by Jan-Wouter Zwart, and Mark de Vries, 215–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Toward an Analysis of French Hyper-Complex Inversion.” In Functional Heads, ed. by Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 150–167. New York: Oxford University Press. [also in Kayne (2010b)].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Locality and Agreement in French Hyper-Complex Inversion.” In Locality, ed. by Enoch Olade Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti, and Ian Roberts, 32–57. New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2003 “The locality of agreement and the structure of the DP in Maasai.” In The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings, ed. by William Earl Griffin, 206–227. Texas Linguistic Forum, 53.Google Scholar
2005a “Korean (and Japanese) Morphology from a Syntactic Perspective.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 601–633.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b “On the Parallelism of DPs and Clauses. Evidence from Kisongo Maasai.” In Verb First, On the Syntax of Verb-initial Languages, ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 281–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi
2000 Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leu, Thomas
2007 “These HERE demonstratives.” In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laia Mayol, 141–154. Philadelphia: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
2017 “ Ein is Ein and that is that: A note on anti-homophony and meta-morphology.” In The Structure of Words at the Interfaces, ed. by Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa deMena Travis. New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1985 “Connectedness, scope, and c-command.” Linguistic Inquiry 16: 163–192.Google Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles
1979 “There is no Inversion of Subject Clitics in Modern French.” Ms., University of Montreal.Google Scholar
1985 “On the Two French Subjectless Verbs Voici and Voilà .” Language 61: 777–818.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo
1981 “Subject pronouns: the pronominal system of Italian vs. French.” Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek, Mary Frances Miller, 249–276. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Navarro, Mario, and Mareike Neuhaus
2016 “Clitic Doubling restrictions in Leísta Spanish.” In Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop Clitic Doubling and other issues of the syntax/semantic interface in Romance DPs, ed. by Susann Fischer, and Mario Navarro, 79–89. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Nicoli, Franco
1983 Grammatica milanese. Busto Arsizio: Bramante.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire
2017 “Dutch and German r-pronouns and P-stranding.” In The Structure of Words at the Interfaces, ed. by Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa deMena Travis, 209–239. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg
1992 “L’interpretation des structures wh et l’accord du participe passé.” In Structures de la phrase et theorie du Liage, ed. by Hans-Georg Obenauer, and Anne Zribi Hertz, 169–193. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco, and Estela Treviño
1999 “Left Dislocated Subjects and the Pro-drop Parameter: A Case Study of Spanish.” Lingua 107: 39–68.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis
2014 “An Ellipsis Approach to Contrastive Left-Dislocation.” Linguistic Inquiry 45: 269–303.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelliciardi, Ferdinando
1977 Grammatica del dialetto romagnolo. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Penello, Nicoletta
2003 “Capitolo di morfologia e sintassi del dialetto di Carmignano di Brenta.” Tesi di dottorato, Università di Padova.Google Scholar
2007 “On Double Clitics in Interrogatives in a Northern Italian Dialect.” Nordlyd 34: 201–217.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia
2000 The Higher Functional Field in the Northern Italian Dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1978 “Trace Theory and French Syntax.” In Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, ed. by Samuel J. Keyser, 65–112. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983 “Sur quelques propriétés des phrases copulatives en français.” Langue Française 58: 89–125.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 “On Case and the Syntax of Infinitives in French.” In Grammatical Representation, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 293–326. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1989 “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
2006 “Subject Clitics and Complex Inversion.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume IV, ed. by Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 601–659. Malden, MA: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1966 “On So-Called ‘Pronouns’ in English.” In Report of the Seventeenth Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. by Francis P. Dineen, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [reprinted in Modern Studies in English, ed. by David A. Reibel, and Sanford A. Schane, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1969.]Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2009 “Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth
1995 “On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405–443.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1993 “The Nature of Subject Clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdôtain.” In Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 319–353. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
2010 Agreement and Head Movement. Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronat, Mitsou
1979 “Pronoms topiques et pronoms distinctifs.” Langue Française 44: 106–128.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1970 “On Declarative Sentences.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs, and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud
1980 “Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations.” Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Erik
2006 “Double Agreement in Complex Inversion.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Leiden, 9–11 December 2004, ed. by Jenny Doetjes, and Paz González, 275–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur
1994 “Agreement in Comp.” The Linguistic Review 11: 351–375.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spiess, Federico
1976 “Di un’innovazione morfologica nel sistema dei pronomi personali oggetto del dialetto della Collina d’Oro.” In Problemi di morfosintassi dialettale, 203–212. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique
1999 “Subject Clitics in French and Romance. Complex Inversion and Clitic Doubling.” In Beyond Principles and Parameters, ed. Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts, 189–221. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal
2001 “Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1983 “The Possessor that Ran Away from Home.” The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 “The Noun Phrase.” In Syntax and Semantics 27. The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, ed. by Ferenc Kiefer, and Katalin É. Kiss, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. Tarald
1992 “Agreement as Pronoun Incorporation.” Paper presented at the 15th GLOW Colloquium. GLOW Newsletter 28: 50–51.
Togeby, Knud
1982 Grammaire Française, Volume I: Le Nom. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther
1996 “On Quantifier Float in Control Clauses.” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 111–126.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1995 “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Vassere, Stefano
1993 Sintassi formale e dialettologia. I pronomi clitici nel luganese. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen
2002 The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 19 other publications

Cinque, Guglielmo
2020. The Syntax of Relative Clauses, DOI logo
Kayne, Richard S.
2023. Hypercomplex Inversion and the Status of Expletive Pronouns. Probus 35:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Properties of Romance object clitics. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Deriving enclisis in ‘V1’ clauses. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Introduction. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitics in embryo. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Syntactic evidence against deficiency. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. The rise ofadverbalclitics. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitic climbing. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Conclusions. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Romance Object Clitics, DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. ‘V2’ and clitic placement. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Morphophonological evidence against deficiency. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitic combinations. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Historical overview. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Theoretical preliminaries. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Copyright Page. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. List of abbreviations. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Series preface. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.