Cover not available
Part of
Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In honor of Janez Orešnik
Edited by Franc Lanko Marušič and Rok Žaucer
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 236] 2016
► pp. 283–312

Not two sides of one coin

Clitic person restrictions and Icelandic quirky agreement

 | University of Connecticut
The paper re-examines the relation between the Person-Case Constraint (PCC) – a common restriction on the distribution of person features in clusters of weak pronominal elements – and the ban against 1st and 2nd person nominative objects found in Icelandic. The two phenomena have been argued to result from a Case-checking asymmetry that arises when arguments with inherent case asymmetrically c-command arguments with structural case. I present a previously undiscussed PCC pattern found in Slovenian where the person restriction also occurs on dative clitics asymmetrically c-commanded by an accusative object clitic, which I show requires divorcing the PCC from Case-checking. I propose instead that the PCC arises from the feature underspecification of defective pronouns coupled with the local nature of Agree. This also means that the Icelandic restriction, which occurs on strong pronouns, should be seen as a separate phenomenon. I show that this explains better why it is voided by syncretic inflectional morphology.
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.12ste
References (48)
References
Adger, David & Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Syntax and syncretism of the person case constraint. Syntax 10(1): 2–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical Perspectives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 74], Lorie Heggie & Franciso Ordoñez (eds), 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Řezáč, Milan. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], Ana Teresa Perez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (eds), 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 451–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance languages. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1994. The person-case constraint: A morphological approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 33–52.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2004. On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives. In Balkan Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 67], Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), 269–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 455–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. On unvalued uninterpretable features. In Proceedings of NELS 39, Susan Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds), 109–120. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1994. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 41–109. University of Venice.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erschler, David. 2014. Person Case Constraints beyond the Dative and Accusative: Evidence from Ossetic. Ms, Max Planck Institut/Tübinger Zentrum für Linguistik.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2013. Orphans, doubling, coordination, and phases: On nominal structure in Slovenian. Slovenski Jezik — Slovene Linguistic Studies 9: 55–92.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. In PF: Papers at the Interface [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Abstracting away from abstract case. In Proceedings of NELS 25, Jill Beckman (ed.), 207–221. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Hróarsdóttir, Thórhallur. 2004. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114: 651–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Johannes Gisli. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amsherst.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura & van Urk, Coppe. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(2): 659–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1999. On the subject of infinitives. In Minimalist Analysis, Howard Lasnik (ed.), 7–24. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, Mario. 1984. After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], In honor of Joseph E. Emonds., Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the person-case constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 494–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In Grammar in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, Vol. 2, Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Á. Sigurðsson (eds), 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 1990–1991. Beygingarsamræmi. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði, 12–13; 31–77.Google Scholar
. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.Google Scholar
Stegovec, Adrian. 2015. Now you PCC me, now you don’t. In Proceedings of NELS 45, Vol. 3, Thuy Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds), 107–117. Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Personality Disorders and Missing Persons: Deriving the Person-Case Constraint without Case. Ms, University of Connecticut. <[URL]>
. 2016b. What we aren’t given: The influence of selection on ditransitive passives in Slovenian. Talk given at FASL 25 at Cornell University , May 13.
. In preparation. Locality and passives of ditransitives in Slovenian.
Taraldsen, Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds), 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 1999. Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(1): 85–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Řezáč, Milan. 2004. The EPP. In Breton: An uninterpretable categorial feature. In Triggers, Henk van Riemsdijk & Anne Breitbarth (eds), 451–492. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and Grammatical Function: The Icelandic Passive. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaela, Pak, Miok & Portner, Paul. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1231–1274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Stegovec, Adrian
2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:1 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Franks, Steven L.
2018. Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 63:4 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 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.