Neither agreement nor pronouns

Clitic doubling and Weak Crossover in Rioplatense Spanish

Authors

  • Andrés Saab CONICET, Buenos Aires

Abstract

Baker & Kramer (2018) suggests that the distribution of clitic doubling in Spanish follows from Weak Crossover. Thus, the fact that in accusative clitic doubling bare wh-phrases cannot be doubled (e.g., *¿A quién lo viste? ‘Who did you see?’) is explained by the same reason that explains a standard WCO violation (e.g., *?¿A quién vio su madre? ‘Who did her mother see?’).  If this in on the right track, then, accusative doubling clitics must be considered plain pronouns. The fact that the distribution of dative clitic doubling is wider than accusative clitic doubling, allowing, for instance, the doubling of bare wh-phrases (e.g., ¿A quién le diste un libro? ‘Who did you give a book?’), is, consequently, taken by Baker & Kramer as evidence that dative doubling clitics cannot be pronouns, but mere agreement markers. In this reply, I show, mainly based on data from Rioplatense Spanish, that both conclusions are incorrect. Baker & Kramer’s suggestion regarding accusative doubling both overgenerates and undergenerates. What regulates the distribution of doubling clitics in Rioplatense Spanish and beyond is the inflectional makeup of objects. Concretely, direct objects are doubled whenever they bear a [person] feature (Di Tullio et al 2019), whereas indirect objects are doubled by the mere presence of a [D]-feature (Pujalte & Saab 2018). Yet, despite this difference, both are probes for A-movement and predicate-makers at LF, i.e., neither plain pronouns nor mere agreement markers.  

Keywords

clitic doubling, Weak Crossover, probes, agreement, A-movement, Rioplatense Spanish, pronouns

References

Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 491–540. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2014. Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to syntax 1, 519–581. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Baker, Mark & Ruth Kramer. 2008. Doubled clitics are pronouns Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 1035–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9401-8

Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null subjects. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Di Tullio, Ángela, Andrés Saab & Pablo Zdrojewski. 2019. Clitic doubling in a doubling world. The case of Argentinean Spanish reconsidered. In Ángel Gallego (ed.) The syntactic variation of Spanish dialects, 213-242. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190634797.003.0008

Fischer, Susann & Esther Rinke. 2013. Explaining the variability of clitic doubling across Romance: a diachronic account. Linguistische Berichte 236: 455–472.

Fischer, Susann, Mario Navarro & Jorge Vega Vilanova. 2019. The Clitic Doubling Parameter: development and distribution of a cyclic change. In Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth & Lieven Danckaert (eds.) Cycles in Language Change, 52-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0004

Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999. El pronombre personal: formas y distribución. Pronombres átonos y tónicos. In Violeta Demonte & Ignacio Bosque (dirs.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1209-1273. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

Gabriel, Christoph & Esther Rinke. 2010. Information packaging and the rise of clitic doubling in the history of Spanish. In Gisella Ferraresi and Rosemarie Lühr (eds.) Diachronic studies on information structure, 63–86. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110227475.63

Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 1999. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16(4): 315–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/16.4.315

Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: impoverishment and fission. In Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds.) Papers at the Interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: 425-449.

Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hurtado, Alfredo. 1984. On the properties of LF. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 6:121–149.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht Holland: Foris Publications.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 587-622.

Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 20(1):33– 66.

Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Ph.D. thesis, The City University of New York.

Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus 25(2), 301–344.:https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0012

Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4:1–42. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315

Pujalte Mercedes & Andrés Saab. 2018. Interacciones en el filo oracional medio: Doblado de clíticos y movimiento-A. In Bosque, Ignacio, Sylvia Costa & Marisa Malcuori (eds.) Palabras en lluvia minuciosa. Veinte visitas a la gramática del español inspiradas por Ángela Di Tullio, 273-297. Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.

Reich, Ingo. 2004. Association with focus and choice functions. A binding approach. Research on Language and Computation 2: 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-004-0902-8

Rinke, Esther, Judith Wieprecht & Martin Elsig. 2019. Clitic doubling in Peninsular and Rioplatense Spanish: a comparative corpus investigation. Isogloss 5/3: 1-43. https://revistes.uab.cat/isogloss/article/view/83

Rinke, Esther, Sol Lago & Carolina Andrea Gattei. 2023. Diachronic change and variation in use: judgments of clitic doubling in Peninsular vs. Rioplatense Spanish. Isogloss 9(1)/3: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.293

Ruys, Eddy. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3): 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554424

Saab, Andrés. 2008. Hacia una teoría de la identidad parcial en la elipsis Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Saab, Andrés. 2013. Anticoncordancia y sincretismo en español. Lingüística 29(2): 191– 229.

Saab, Andrés. 2022. Clitics as predicate-makers. A case study of clitic doubling in Rioplatense Spanish. Ms., IIF-Sadaf-Conicet and University of Buenos Aires.

Safir, Kenneth. 2004. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133904

Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitics placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1): 79-123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178889

van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement. A case study of Dinka Bor. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Verdecchia, Matías. 2022. Anáforas reflexivas y doblado de clíticos en lenguas romances. Revue Romane 57(2): 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.20018

Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Zdrojewski, Pablo & Liliana Sánchez. 2014. Variation in accusative clitic doubling across three Spanish dialects. Lingua 151: 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.08.003

Published

12-06-2024

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.