Accusative Clitic Doubling in Dominican Spanish, 2014

8/10/2019 Accusative Clitic Doubling in Dominican Spanish, 2014

1/120

Accusative Clitic Doubling in Dominican Spanish

A Thesis

Presented to

The Division of Philosophy, Religion, Psychology, and Linguistics

Reed College

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Arts

Manuel Abreu

May 2014


2/120

Approved for the Division

(Linguistics)

Matt Pearson


3/120

Acknowledgments

Thanks first and foremost to my family. Thanks to my interlocutors in the Bronx.

Thanks to everyone who also loves the Dominican ways of talking. Thanks to my friendswho kept me sane. Thanks for guidance to my adviser Matt Pearson it's been an honor

working with you and I'm grateful for your patience throughout the year. Thanks to my

second reader Katy McKinney-Bock, as well as to my third and fourth readers, Elizabeth

Drumm and Morgan Luker. Thanks to Reed College for what I could say has been a

thoroughly transformative experience.


4/120

Table of Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................10

1.1 What is a clitic?........................................................................................................15

1.2 ACC and DAT clitics...............................................................................................20

1.3 What is clitic doubling? ......................................................................................... 23

1.3.1. Distinguishing doubling from dislocation....................................................... 26

1.4. What is object marker a?........................................................................................ 31

1.4.1. Animacy and definiteness................................................................................ 32

1.4.2. Object marker vs. preposition.......................................................................... 35

1.4.3. Specificity........................................................................................................ 38

1.5. Summary.................................................................................................................41

2. Analyzing DOCD......................................................................................................... 44

2.1. Movement vs. base-generation............................................................................... 45

2.2. Specificity and clitics..............................................................................................52

2.2.1. Partitivity effects..............................................................................................59

2.2.2. Scope and presuppositionality......................................................................... 65

2.3. Modifying Sportiche for my proposal.................................................................... 72

2.4. Summary.................................................................................................................83

3. Dominican Spanish...................................................................................................... 85

3.1. Dominican ACC Clitics.......................................................................................... 85

3.2. Intensionality & mood............................................................................................ 88

3.3. The syntax of DOCD.............................................................................................. 94

3.4. Summary...............................................................................................................101

4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 103

4.1. Summary of the study........................................................................................... 1044.2. A potential alternative...........................................................................................106

4.3. Notes for further research..................................................................................... 109

4.3. Final remarks........................................................................................................ 113

Bibliography................................................................................................................... 115


5/120


6/120

List of Abbreviations

1/2/3 = first-/second-/third- personACC = AccusativeCL = clitic (in syntax trees)CP = Co ple enti!er Phrase"A# = "ative"et = "eter iner"$C" = "irect o%&ect clitic dou%lin'"P = "eter iner Phrase" = "o inican panish

= e ale (as in 3p * 3rd-person plural fe ale)P = unctional Pro&ection+# = uture tense

, P = , perative ood, P. = , personal, = ,nfinitive,$C" = ,ndirect o%&ect clitic dou%lin'0 = 0ayne s enerali!ationL = Lo'ical or

= ale (as in 3s * 3rd-person sin'ular ale)e' = e'ation

$ = $%&ect ar ers or = sin'ularp or PL = pluralP = Phonolo'ical orPP = Prepositional PhraseP 4 = Perfective aspect P. = Pro'ressive aspect P.5 = Present tenseP # = Past tense6P = 6uantifier Phrase. L7 = .eflexive

+89 = u%&unctive ood#P = #ense Phrase4P = 4er% Phrase


7/120

List of Figures


8/120

Abstract

Dominican Spanish violates Kayne's Generalization (Jaeggli 1986) by allo ingclitic !o"bling itho"t a licensing preposition prece!ing the !o"ble! ob#ect$ %hisis notable& since most !ialects o Spanish abi!e by Kayne's Generalization$

"il!ing on investigations into clitics as agreement mar ers ( orer 198*) hichevi!ence speci icity e ects (S"+er 1988)& , a!opt an ,n!epen!ence -ypothesis( leam 1999) hich arg"es there is no ca"sal connection bet een clitic !o"blingan! !i erential ob#ect mar ing. separate grammaticality con!itions license thet o phenomena$ , sho that ob#ect mar er a obligatorily mar s speci ic animateob#ects& that across !ialects clitics are only available or speci ic arg"ments& an!that in Dominican Spanish (DS) clitic !o"bling is optionally available or speci ic!irect ob#ects& both animate an! inanimate$

, arg"e that the ob#ect mar er !oes not assign case& an! that clitics !o notreceive case (S"+er 1988)$ ,nstea!& b"il!ing on S"+er's research on speci icitye ects& , posit that clitics hea! "nctional pro#ections (Sportiche 199/)$ %hir!0person acc"sative clitics hea! one in! o 2 an! other clitics hea! another in!$%he /344 "nctional hea! probes into its c0comman! !omain or an element

hich can lan! in its Spec position an! chec its "ninterpretable eat"res$Do"ble! ob#ects evac"ate the 52 at logical orm ( ) in or!er to ta e 520e7ternal

scope an! th"s speci ic interpretation& an! , arg"e that speci ic arg"ments lan!in the Spec position o the "nctional pro#ection hea!e! by the clitic$

hether the "nctional hea! has any correspon!ing material at phonologicalorm (2 ) is !etermine! by a parameter the settings o hich !i er across

!ialects. so or Stan!ar! Spanish& the clitic only emerges at 2 i it is in anagreement relation ith a :strong prono"n; or empty category (ec)$ Kayne'sGeneralization in this analysis re!"ces to an epiphenomenon o this parameter&an! my arg"ment entails that any time an arg"ment ' ants' speci icinterpretation& the !erivation b"il!s the /344 clitic "nctional pro#ection to

acilitate 520evac"ation& regar!less o hether the "nctional hea! has anycorrespon!ing material at 2 $


9/120

%his thesis is !e!icate! to


10/120

1. Introduction

4litics are ea pronominal elements hich e7press arg"ments an! re>"ire

a!#"nction to a host (%oivonen ?@@?)$ 4litic !o"bling is the co0occ"rrence o a

clitic ith a coin!e7e! arg"ment s"ch that the clitic an! the !o"ble! arg"ment

bear the same arg"ment relation$

,n Stan!ar! Spanish& acc"sative clitic !o"bling is obligatory or strong

prono"ns an! available ith "niversal >"anti ier todos, an! arg"ments mo!i ie!

by it ( ranco ?@@/)& b"t "ngrammatical in all other conte7ts$ ,n !ialects that have

looser restrictions on clitic !o"bling& it is typically only available or animates&

an! beca"se Spanish animates are mar e! by ob#ect mar er a, Kayne notes that

clitic !o"bling is only grammatical hen the !o"ble! ob#ect is prece!e! by a

licensing preposition (a in Spanish) . %his is no n as Kayne's Generalization

(Jaeggli 198?)$

Dominican Spanish is a !ialect o Spanish spo en in the Dominican

=ep"blic$ , elicite! grammaticality #"!gments rom ?1 Dominicans in the

Aor oo! neighborhoo! o the ron7& ranging in age rom 18 to 6@& an! o"n!

that seven spea ers& all "n!er /@& allo e! !o"bling ith !e inite inanimates$

%his grammaticality is notable& since these sentences& as in (1) belo & violate

Kayne's Generalization (Jaeggli 1986)& %h"s Dominican Spanish (DS hence orth)&

li e 2orte+o an! al an lang"ages s"ch as Gree an! 3lbanian& presents

empirical evi!ence against Kayne's Generalization& an! necessitates an analysis

o clitics as agreement mar ers$

, arg"e that a change in progress seems to be occ"rring hich increasingly

allo s acc"sative (344) clitics to !o"ble inanimate ob#ects in Dominican Spanish

1@


11/120

(DS)$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing$ or clarity& the clitic is bol!e! an! the !o"ble!

ob#ect italicize!& an! , ollo this convention thro"gho"t$ 3s ell& the B symbol

is "se! to signi y cross0!ialectal !isagreement ith respect to grammaticality.

(1) B la leC ( a) la revista

/s $344 rea!$1s2S% E< Det$s< magazine

', rea! the magazine$'

(1) is "ngrammatical or ol!er spea ers b"t grammatical or yo"nger spea ers$

eca"se the presence o ob#ect mar er a is "ngrammatical or inanimates& as

in!icate! by the star insi!e the parentheses above& this change in progress

violates Kayne's Generalization$

Kayne's analysis o clitics is that they are arg"ments an! th"s receive case

rom the verb$ %hey are generate! in verbal complement position an! move to

their s"r ace positions beca"se o proso!ic ea ness$ Government o the

!o"ble! ob#ect by the ob#ect mar er licenses !o"bling beca"se the ob#ect mar er

assigns the ob#ect case$ "t i clitics are case0receiving arg"ments& hat licenses

!o"bling or yo"nger DS spea ers in (1) aboveF

Prima facie there are a n"mber o alternative e7planations hich might

or & potentially in tan!em. it co"l! be that the ob#ect mar er !oes not in act

assign case& or that clitics !o not in act absorb case& or that the e7ample in (1)

!oes not constit"te tr"e clitic !o"bling& b"t is an instance o clitic right0

!islocation& in hich the !o"ble! ob#ect is in an a!#"nct position& not an

arg"ment position$ , "ltimately arg"e that (1) above is a case o tr"e clitic

!o"bling& rom my tests in section 1$* belo or !isting"ishing !o"bling rom

!islocation$ ollo ing S"+er (1988)& , arg"e that clitics !o not receive case an!

are not arg"ments$

11


12/120

3s ell& important !ata rom S"+er (1988) sho that DE4D is limite! to

speci ic arg"ments only !e inites& partitives& an! >"anti ier phrases patterning

as HstrongI (in "estion allo s it to$ %h"s& all !ialects

o Spanish employ this means o ma ing speci ic rea!ings available b"t& or

instance& Stan!ar! Spanish only allo s the overt realization o 344 clitics

!o"bling strong prono"ns& an! =ioplatense only allo s the overt realization o

344 clitics !o"bling animates$

,n or!er to present this analysis or the grammaticality o (1) in DS& , m"st

irst !e ine my terms& hich , !o in the ollo ing sections o this chapter. hat

1?


13/120

are clitics& hat in!s are there& hat is clitic !o"bling& an! hat is the role o

the ob#ect mar erF

,n chapter ?& , consi!er ays o analyzing Spanish acc"sative (344)clitics$ 3ss"ming an ,n!epen!ence -ypothesis ( leam 1999) accor!ing to hich

the grammaticality o clitic !o"bling an! the Spanish ob#ect mar er are governe!

by separate sets o con!itions& , revie vario"s theoretical positions an! analytic

in>"iries ith respect to !irect ob#ect clitic !o"bling (DE4D)$

Kayne hol!s that clitics are arg"ments hich move to their s"r ace

positions as verbal a!#"ncts& hile other analyses ( orer 198*& S"+er 1988) hol!that clitics are base0generate! in their s"r ace& a!#"nct positions$ 3pproaches li e

orer's (198*) acco"nt or Kayne's Generalization by hol!ing that clitics receive

case& b"t , !isc"ss the importance o S"+er's HcaselessI approach to clitic

!o"bling$ or her& clitics !o not receive case an! the ob#ect mar er !oes not

assign case$ She sho s evi!ence rom 2orte+o& a !ialect spo en in 3rgentina an!

r"g"ay& hich& li e DS& violates Kayne's Generalization$ -er !ata regar!ing

speci icity e ects& in tan!em ith the proli eration o "nctional pro#ections an!

the e7pansion o ,A & catalyze! ne approaches to clitic !o"bling hich

allo e! or reconciliation o the base0generation an! movement approaches$

3rme! ith a theoretical bac gro"n!& chapter ? concl"!es ith my

proposal ollo ing Sportiche (1996)$ , posit that clitics hea! "nctional

pro#ections& an! license the !o"ble! ob#ect's 'evac"ation' rom complement0to0

verb position to the Speci ier o the "nctional pro#ection hea!e! by the clitic$

%his is hat allo s !o"ble! ob#ects to have a pres"ppositional& speci ic rea!ing$

-o ever& the Spell0o"t o this "nctional hea! (the clitic) across !ialects is s"b#ect

to a parameter regar!ing hich in!s o 0hea!s can have correspon!ing 2

material$

1/


14/120

,n chapter /& , present the !ata rom Dominican Spanish$ DS spea ers only

allo DE4D ith speci ic arg"ments& b"t there are cross0generational

!i erences ith respect to hether animacy is a actor in the grammatically o

the "nctional hea! being spelle! o"t at 2 $ , sho that my proposal rom

chapter ? can acco"nt or both generations o DS !ata. a "nctional hea! licenses

speci ic arg"ments to evac"ate the 52 an! lan! in the speci ier o that hea!'s

"nctional pro#ection& an! the generational !istinction regar!ing the presence o

correspon!ing 2 material is acco"nte! or as a !i erence ith respect to the

H2 parameter$I or ol!er spea ers& only "nctional hea!s in agreement relations

ith :animate; arg"ments can be spelle! o"t at 2 $ ,n this ay& ol!er spea ers

pattern ith =ioplatense spea ers (, !isc"ss this !ialect in !etail later)$ %his is

not the case or yo"nger spea ers& an! the "nctional hea! may optionally be

spelle! o"t at 2 or inanimate speci ics$

4hapter * concl"!es the st"!y ith a s"mmary o the res"lts& a

consi!eration o an alternative analysis& an! some notes or "t"re research$ %he

primary p"rpose o this st"!y is to provi!e !ata or DE4D in Dominican

Spanish& a !ialect hose acc"sative clitic behavior has never been analyze! let

alone presente! be ore$ ven as the DS pattern might seem aberrant& , sho that

my analysis may act"ally acco"nt or DE4D variation across !ialects& as ell as

across generations o DS spea ers& i a "ni icationist approach to the clitic synta7

is a!opte!$ , also consi!er a potential alternative& a variationist acco"nt here

the syntactic stat"s o the clitic changes across !ialects$

Does the !i erence in clitic behaviors& both cross0!ialectally an! ithin

the propose! change in progress or yo"nger DS spea ers& amo"nt to a le7ical

parameter (some !i erence in the eat"ral matri7 speci ications o clitics in

!i erent !ialectal le7icons) or a grammatical parameter (some !i erence in the

1*


15/120

grammars o Spanish !ialects)F %he cross0!ialectal "ni ormity o speci icity

e ects in Spanish lea!s me to ar! a "ni ication approach clitics are the same in

all Spanish !ialects& an! in hich speci icity is grammatically0parametric$ "ence cannot be !isr"pte!N prono"ns nee! not bea!#acent to verb

1O


16/120

4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(/) clitics cannot be coor!inate!

a$ la y lo vC/s $344 an! /s


17/120

3s ell& thir!0person clitics are morphologically0mar e! or case in

Spanish& hile prono"ns are not$ %h"s thir!0person clitics are la/lo or acc"sative

an! le or !ative& hile prono"ns are invariably l/ella. inally& 3nagnastopo"lo"

(?@@O. ?O) points o"t that the clitic05erb se>"ence cannot be interr"pte!& hile

prono"ns have reer or! or!er$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(6) te m"cho >"iero

?s344 very$m"ch ant$1s2= S

', love yo" very m"ch$'

%h"s& ive behavioral !i erences motivate a !istinction clitics an!

prono"ns. clitics cannot be coor!inate!& mo!i ie!& or stresse!N prono"ns& on the

other han!& can$ ,n act& or prono"ns stress is obligatory$ 3s ell& clitics are

mar e! or case& hile prono"ns are not& an! clitics have more rigi! or! or!er

than prono"ns& since clitics m"st appear imme!iately to the le t or right e!ge o

the verb$

,n Spanish& inite verbs re>"ire procliticization (attachment to the le t e!ge

o the verb)& hile non0 inite verbs re>"ire encliticization (attachment to the right

e!ge o the verb) ( ips i 1996)$ -o ever& hen a non0 inite cla"se is selecte! by

a inite higher verb& the clitic may be realize! as either a proclitic or an enclitic$


(R) clitics attach to the left edges of finite verbs

a$ te >"iero

?s344 love$1s2= S', love yo"$'

b$ >"iero 0te

love$1s2= S0?s344

', love yo"$'

1R


18/120

4litics attach to the right e!ges o non inite verbs$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing

e7amples& ith the case o imperatives in (8)& the case o in initives in (9)& an! the

case o progressive participles in (1@).

(8) clitics attach to the right edges of imperatives

a$ cQme 0te 0lo

eat$,


19/120

-o ever& hen a higher verb selects a non0 inite cla"se& a clitic !enoting a

semantic arg"ment o the lo er cla"se can raise to s"r ace attache! to the higher

verb$ %his phenomenon is calle! clitic climbing (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. 1?)$


(11) a$ >"iero comprar0 lo

ant$1s2= S b"y$,A 0/s"iero comprar

/s


20/120


21/120

b$ te M les !ieron

?s344 M ?p344 hit$/p2S%

'%hey hit yo"My'all$'

...are homophonous with 1/2 A! clitics"

c$ me / nos man!aron "n regalo

1sD3% M 1pD3% sen!$/p2S% one gi t

'%hey sent meM"s a gi t$'

!$ te / les man!aron "n regalo?sD3% ?pD3% sen!$/p2S% one gi t

'%hey sent yo"My'all a gi t$'

%hese e7amples !o not motivate positing a case !istinction or Spanish verbal

ob#ects$ "t consi!er the clear phonological !istinction bet een case roles

Spanish ma es in the thir! person& an! that a gen!er !istinction is only

evi!ence! in the thir!0person sing"lar para!igm.

(1/) a$ la / lo / los vieron

/s $344 M /s


22/120

%he 2erson04ase 4onstraint !etermines hat in!s o clitic cl"sters can

occ"r$ ,t pre!ominantly ollo s t o patterns.

, the cl"ster is D3%& 344& then the 344 arg"ment m"st be /r!0person&other ise cl"stering is impossible

all cl"ster combinations are allo e! e7cept or /D3%& 1M?344T

Spanish ten!s more to ar! the irst pattern$ %his is clear beca"se irstMsecon!0

person clitics cannot co0occ"r ith each other& an! beca"se hen the cl"ster is

/D3%& /344& the D3%T ta es the se orm instea! o le. 4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(1*) te me man!aron

?s$344 1s$D3% sen!$/p2S%'%hey sent yo" to me$'


23/120

c$ te me la man!aron

?sD3% 1sD3% /s$344

'%hey sent her to yo" or me$'

3n appeal to a template o three slots or clitics co"l! be ma!e here& here the

re le7iveMimpersonal al ays prece!es the !ative& hich al ays prece!es the

acc"sative& an! some other set o con!itions governs their complementary

!istrib"tion s"ch that cl"sters contain at most t o clitics$ ater& , sho that my

analysis& in hich t o in!s o "nctional pro#ections ith eat"ral !i erences

correspon! to the t o in!s o clitics& acco"nts or this cl"stering ma7im"m$

,n concl"sion& Spanish has 344 an! D3% case roles& b"t only thir!0person

clitics phonologically !isting"ish or 344 an! D3% case& an! only thir!0person

sing"lar clitics bear gen!er eat"res$ 4litics can co0occ"r at a ma7 o t o clitics

per cl"ster& an! cl"sters evi!ence a range o restrictions$ irst& hen 344 clitics

cl"ster& they m"st be /344$ Secon!& irstMsecon!0person clitics cannot co0occ"r

ith each other$ inally& cl"sters evi!ence a strict or!ering o ,


24/120


25/120

(19) a$ lo conozco a $l hombre

/s


26/120

tr"e clitic !o"bling rom clitic le t0 an! right0!islocation in the ne7t section& in

or!er to con irm that phenomena s"ch as in (19)0(?@) are in act instances o clitic

!o"bling$

1.3.1. Distinguishing doubling from dislocation

4litic !islocation is hen a clitic co0occ"rs ith an V2 at the sentential periphery

(3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. O?/)$ 4o0occ"rring ob#ects can be !islocate! to the le t

e!ge as in (?1a)& or to the right e!ge as in (?1b)$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing& in hich

Z is "se! to signi y an intonational brea stran!ing the !islocate! element at the

e!ge o the sentence.

(?1) a$ a J"an Z le man!aron "n regalo

a J"an& /sD3% sen!$/p2S% one gi t

'John& they sent him a gi t$'

b$ le man!aron "n regalo el otro !ia Z a J"an

/sD3% sen!$/p2S% one gi t Det$s< other !ay& E< J"an

'%hey sent him a gi t the other !ay& John$'

Dislocate! elements are o ten analyze! as being in a!#"nct positions& as oppose!

to arg"ment positions (Kayne 19RO)$ ith this in min!& consi!er the ollo ing

minimal pair or Stan!ar! Spanish.

(??) a$ lo leCmos el libro

/s


27/120

eca"se this s"ggests that the grammaticality o (??) or DS involves !islocation&

criteria or !isting"ishing !o"bling rom !islocation become necessary in or!er

to arg"e& as , !o& that !o"ble! ob#ects are in act arg"ments$ %here are o"r ays

to !isting"ish !o"bling rom !islocation.

!islocation re>"ires an intonational brea bet een the !islocate! elementan! the sentential n"cle"s (S"+er 1988. /**)& signi ie! by Z in (?1) above&an! ith commas in the nglish translations

!o"ble! ob#ects can be stresse!N !islocate! ones cannot

!o"ble! ob#ects can prece!e a oc"s phraseN !islocate! ones cannot

!o"ble! ob#ects can prece!e a negative polarity itemsN !islocate! onescannot

3nother ay o !isting"ishing !o"bling rom !islocation is that

!islocate! elements cannot bear stress$ ith stresse! elements "n!erline! an!

intonational brea in!icate! by Z& (?/a) sho s that that a !o"ble! !ative may

carry n"clear stress& hile (?/b) sho s that !islocate! elements cannot be

stresse!$

(?/) a$ se lo enviQ a mam% Z


28/120

3s ell& tr"e !o"ble! arg"ments can prece!e a oc"s phrase (Y"bizarreta 1988)$

4onsi!er the ollo ing$ (?*a) sho s that a !o"ble! acc"sative can prece!e a

right0e!ge oc"s phrase& hile (?*b) sho s that a !islocate! element may not$ ,

in!icate contrastive oc"s ith [ ; in the Spanish& an! ith italics an!

parentheticals in the translation.

(?*) a$ esta ma+ana lo castigQ a l la ma!re

this morning /s


29/120

Ene inal test or !isting"ishing !o"bling rom !islocation is the case o

polarity items$ Generally& polarity items m"st be c0comman!e! by a licensing

operator in or!er to s"r ace grammatically ( a!"sa 19R9)$ %his hol!s tr"e in the

case o Spanish negative0polarity items& hich m"st be license! by no"

(?O) a$ no conozco a na!ie

Aeg no $1s2= S E< no0one

', !on't no anyone$'

b$ conozco a na!ie

no $1s2= S E< no0one

', !on't no anyone$',n ime+o Spanish& spo en in ima (


30/120


31/120

the sentence (S"+er 1988)$ %h"s& having sho n that !o"ble! ob#ects are in non0

!islocate! positions an! that they pattern li e arg"ments& , ass"me !o"ble!

ob#ects are arg"ments$ , go on to !isc"ss the Spanish ob#ect mar er$

1.4. What is object marker a?

,n Spanish& an instance o !i erential ob#ect mar ing (DE


32/120

,n !isc"ssing the ob#ect mar er's properties& , or ar! my investigation

regar!ing hether there is a ca"sal lin bet een the constraints governing

DE4D an! those or DE


33/120

%his apparent optionality is available not only or animates hea!e! by in!e inite

!eterminers& b"t also or animates hea!e! by !i erent sorts o >"anti iers& as

ell as bare pl"rals$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing$ (/?a) sho s that animate bare

pl"rals !o not re>"ire the ob#ect mar er& (/?b) sho s this or animates hea!e! by

car!inal >"anti iers& (/?c) sho s this or animates hea!e! by the e7istential

>"anti ier some & an! (/?!) sho s this or the e7istential >"anti ier man' $

(/?) a$ veo personas

see$1s2= S people

', see people$'

b$ veo (a) !os personas

see$1s2= S E< t o persons

', see t o people$'

c$ veo (a) alg"na0s personas

see$1s2= S E< some02 persons

', see t o people$'!$ veo (a) m"cha0s personas

see$1s2= S E< many02 people

', see many people$'

are pl"rals& car!inal >"anti iers& an! the e7istential >"anti iers as in (/?a0

!) correspon! to hat "anti icational e7pressions$

H ea I e7pressions can occ"r in e7istential cla"ses ('there are$$$')& hile


34/120

(//) wea)* +uantifierscan occur in e istential clauses"

a$ hay personas en el par>"e

3"7$/p2res people in Det$s< par

'%here are people in the par $'

b$ hay alg"nas M!os personas en el par>"e

3"7$/p2= S some Mt o people in Det$s< par

'%here are t o people in the par $'

c$ hay m"chas personas en el par>"e

3"7$/p2= S many people in Det$s< par

'%here are many people in the par $'

(/*) strong* +uantifiers cannot occur in e istential clauses"

a$ hay to!os en el par>"e

3"7$/p2= S all in Det$s< par

'%here are all in the par $'

b$ hay Pl M J"an M las gatas en el par>"e3"7$/p2= S him M J"an M Det$p cats in Det$s< par

'%here is him M J"an M the oman in the par $'

%here ore& ollo ing


35/120

1.4.2. Object marker vs. preposition

%he orma in Spanish mar s certain ob#ects o the verb$ , have sho n that at least

one "se is or animates& tho"gh so ar it seems only obligatory or !e inite

animates$ "t is the ob#ect mar er a prepositionF

Prima facie, it is pla"sible to posit that there are !i erent morphemes

homophono"sly e7presse! as a by consi!ering evi!ence ith respect to

!islocation$ or e7ample& !islocate! goal 22s cannot be core erential ith a clitic&

as in (/Oa) belo & hile in!irect an! !irect ob#ect patients can& as in (/Ob) belo

(3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. O?*).

(/O) a$ a on!res&lo "C

to onon /s"iero man!ar

E< J"an thin $1s2= S 4mpl /sD3% ant$1s2= S sen!$,A

"n gi t

one regalo

'John& , thin , ant to sen! him a gi t$'

c$ a J"an Z creo >"e lo >"iero ver

E< J"an& thin $1s2= S 4mpl /s


36/120

b$ >"eremos a M hacia J"an

ant$1p2= S E< M to ar! J"an

' e ant J"an M e ant to ar! (F) J"an$'

S"+er (1988) points o"t "rther evi!ence o a n"mber o behaviors hich

!isting"ish the ob#ect mar er rom a preposition$ She "ses ,E4D to #"sti y her

claims& an! , procee! ca"tio"sly& since #"st beca"se the a hich mar s in!irect

ob#ects o !itransitives in ,E4D conte7ts is not a preposition& it !oesn't

necessarily ollo that the ob#ect mar er or !irect ob#ects o monotransitives in

DE4D conte7ts isn't a preposition either$ "t the arg"ments are nevertheless

relevant here$ S"+er (1988) sho s that the ob#ect mar er is not a governing

category& an! that the complement o a preposition cannot bin! an anaphor

hich is o"tsi!e the 22 hea!e! by that preposition$

2ronominals hea!e! by tr"e prepositions can be reely coin!e7e!

(in!icate! by s"bscripts in the e7amples belo ) ith s"b#ects o cla"ses& as in

(/Ra)& hile !o"ble! in!irect ob#ect pronominals cannot be coin!e7e! ith

s"b#ects& an! m"st be !is#oint in re erence& as in (/Rb)$

,n (/Ra)& S"+er sho s that the preposition de is a governing category or

the prepositional complement. beca"se l can be bo"n! by the 2=E s"b#ect& it

m"st the that 2=E is o"tsi!e the governing category or l & since the prono"n is

s"b#ect to 2rinciple (a pronominal m"st be ree in its governing category)$ ,n

(/Rb)&ella cannot be bo"n! by -aria, hich means that -ara m"st be insi!e the

governing category or the prono"n$ %his means the ob#ect mar er cannot hea!the governing category or ella, "nli e the preposition de in (/?a)& hich can$ %his

s"ggests that the ob#ect mar er a is not a preposition.

/6


37/120

(/R) a$ ese se+or i n"nca se cansa !e 2=E i hablar

that man never = l7 tire$/s2= S o 2=E spea $,A

22 !e Pl iM# ; o /s


38/120

(/9) 2aco i lo encontrQ a$l profesor viendo

2aco /s


39/120

(*@) a$ b"sco "n hombre >"e sabe rancPs

see $1s2= S one man 4mpl no $/s2= S rench

','m loo ing or a man ho spea s rench (any man)$'

b$ b"sco a "n hombre >"e sabe rancPs

see $1s2= S E< one man 4mpl no $/s2= S rench

','m loo ing or a man ho spea s rench (one in partic"lar)$'

S"+er arg"es that the orm a hich is not a preposition is an ob#ect mar er hich

obligatorily hea!s speci ic animates (S"+er 1988& 3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O& elloro

?@@R)$ y 'speci ic' S"+er means having a partic"lar& re erential entity i!enti iable

in the !isco"rse$ -er hypothesis is that speci icity is a ormal eat"re o the

synta7& enco!e! on animates by ob#ect mar er a. %he imme!iate ass"mption here

o"l! be !e inite animates are inherently speci ic& since they are obligatorily

hea!e! by the ob#ect mar er$ %h"s& a connection to


40/120

%here ore& consi!er the ollo ing$ (*1a) sho s that ' no ' cannot ta e a

complement mo!i ie! by a s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"se (an! that the ob#ect

mar er's presence !oes not save the sentence)& hile (*1b) sho s that 'see &' an

intensional verb& can ta e s"ch a complement.

(*1) a$ conozco (a) "n hombre >"e sepa rancPs

no $1s2= S E< one man 4mpl no $/sS J rench

', no Msee a man ho o"l! no rench$'

b$ b"sco "n hombre >"e sepa rancPs

ant$1s2= S one man 4mpl no $/sS J rench', ant to meet a man ho no s rench$'

3s ell& e can see rom (*?) that the ob#ect mar er cannot grammatically hea!

intensional0verb complements mo!i ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses$

%he intensional verb here is the higher verb ' ant&' hich sets "p a scope !omain

in hich a complement hea!e! by the ob#ect mar er is not grammatical.

(*?) >"iero conocer ( a) "n hombre >"e sepa rancPs

ant$1s2= S no $,A E< one man 4mpl no $/sS J rench

', ant to meet a man ho spea s rench (a partic"lar man)$'

(S"+er 1988. *@@)

,t seems that ob#ects mo!i ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses m"st resi!e

ithin the scopal !omain o their c0comman!ing verb$ , only intensional verbs

can set "p scope !omains& this e7plains the "ngrammaticality o (*1a)& an! hy

the ob#ect mar er is "ngrammatical in (*?)$ %he complements o intensional verbsare there ore not inherently re erential& an! since mo!i ication by a s"b#"nctive

(irrealis) moo! relative cla"se ren!ers s"ch complements nonre erential& these

complements cannot be speci ic$ %his is hy S"+er claims that speci ic

arg"ments m"st be re erential$ 3t least ith respect to animates& this seems to be

tr"e rom (*?)$

*@


41/120

, have sho n that ob#ect mar er a obligatorily hea!s HstrongI e7pressions

(in


42/120

, !isc"sse! the 344 an! D3% clitics& sho ing that only the thir! person

!isting"ishe! or case& an! only the thir!0person sing"lar !isting"ishe! or

gen!er$ , intro!"ce! clitic !o"bling& noting the i!e !ialectal variation

regar!ing the grammaticality o DE4D or certain arg"ments$ eca"se the novel

DS DE4D !ata co"l! be !ismisse! as a case o clitic !islocation& , sho e! o"r

ays in hich !o"bling an! !islocation !i er. !islocate! elements are separate!

rom the rest o the sentence by an intonational brea N !o"ble! ob#ects can bear

stress hile !islocate! elements cannotN !o"ble! ob#ects can !irectly prece!e

oc"se! phrases an! negative polarity items hile !islocate! elements cannot$

%hese !isting"ishing behaviors are the same as those o arg"ments& in!icating

that !o"ble! ob#ects are arg"ments (S"+er 1988)$

ith this in min!& , intro!"ce! the ob#ect mar er a & the ostensible

licensing preposition or DE4D& accor!ing to Kayne$ , sho e! that the ob#ect

mar er is obligatory or !e inite animates$ , !isc"sse! its apparent optionality

ith inanimates& b"t irst !isting"ishe! it rom the homophono"s preposition a

by means o S"+er's (1988) evi!ence that prepositions b"t not the ob#ect mar er

are a governing category& an! that the complement o a preposition cannot bin!

an anaphor hich is o"tsi!e the 22 hea!e! by that preposition& hile the ob#ect

mar er's complement can$ inally& , intro!"ce!


43/120


44/120

2. Analyzing DOCD

arly or on clitics& see ing a "ni ie! analysis o the phenomenon in spite o

the !iverse behaviors o clitics cross0ling"istically& oc"se! on hether they ere

(i) prono"ns hich ere generate! as complements to the verb an!& beca"se o

their proso!ic ea ness& move! "p ar! o"t o their !eep str"ct"re positions to

a!#oin to the verb (Kayne 19RO)& or (ii) in lections hich ere base0generate! in

their s"r ace positions ( orer 198*& Jaeggli 1986& S"+er 1988)$ 2osition (i)& the


45/120

3 ter revie ing the literat"re on clitic !o"bling& , present my analysis$

oc"sing on S"+er's claims abo"t DE4D speci icity e ects& hich hol! tr"e in

DS& , posit an analysis in the minimalist spirit (4homs y 199/) hich might

acco"nt or all o the !i erent behaviors o clitics$


46/120

c$ #e le vois Jean

, /s


47/120

-o ever& the complementary !istrib"tion o clitics an! D2s in rench

!oes not hol! or Spanish& 3lbanian& -ebre & Gree & an! other lang"ages ith

clitic !o"bling (Strozer 19R6& =ivas 19RR& Jaeggli 198?)$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing&

(*Oa) rom =ioplatense Spanish an! (*Ob) rom =omanian.

(*O) a$ lo vimos a #uan =ioplatense

/s


48/120

(*6)

(3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. O/?)

3nalysts arg"ing that clitics are base0generate! in their s"r ace positions

also hol! their positions or non0!o"ble! clitic constr"ctions s"ch as (*/a) above$

%hey posit that the only !i erence is that in non0!o"ble! clitic constr"ctions& the

complement to the verb is an empty category$ ,n both cases& the base0generate!

clitic is coin!e7e! ith complement c0comman!e! by the verb to hich the clitic

is a!#oine!& hether that complement be a "ll D2 or an empty category$

4onsi!er the ollo ing tree (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O)& ith ec signi ying the

empty category.

(*R)

or orer (198*. /O)& the clitic is a spell0o"t o eat"res o the verb an! its

arg"ments (case& L0 eat"res)& an! there ore receives case b"t not a theta role. this

*8


49/120

allo s the !o"ble! ob#ect& in arg"ment position& to be assigne! a theta role in the

normal ay$ Since it seems to capt"re the clitic !o"bling !ata& the base0

generation hypothesis is appealing$ "t hat con!itions the !i erence bet een

lang"ages that allo DE4D li e Spanish& an! those that !o not& li e renchF

Kayne points o"t that even as certain =omance lang"ages !i! allo clitic

!o"bling& DE4D an! ,E4D ere only grammatical i the !o"ble! ob#ect as

prece!e! by a licensing preposition$ ,n (*/) above& these apparent prepositions

are ob#ect mar er a or Spanish (*/a)& an! pe or =omanian (*/b)$ 3s e have

seen& the Spanish ob#ect mar er obligatorily mar s speci ic animate ob#ects$

Dobrovie0Sorin (199*b) ma es the same arg"ment or the =omanian ob#ect

mar er pe.

Kayne's Generalization (Jaeggli 1986)& then& states that clitic !o"bling is

only grammatical hen a licensing preposition hea!s the !o"ble! ob#ect$ or

Spanish& some interaction bet een clitics an! the ob#ect mar er ren!ers most

!ialects s"b#ect to Kayne's Generalization (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O)$ Kayne's

point is to sho that the movement analysis co"l! still apply to cases o clitic

!o"bling. he arg"es that !o"ble! ob#ects& hea!e! by the licensing preposition&

are a!#"ncts$

%his can be sho n in the ollo ing tree& in hich the clitic& an A2 verbal

complement& receives case rom the verb an! a!#oins to it rom proso!ic

ea ness& hile the !o"ble! ob#ect& in a!#"nct position& receives its case rom the

ob#ect mar er an! its theta role rom the verb.

*9


50/120

(*8)

"t , have sho n that the ob#ect mar er is not a preposition& an! that DS an!

2orte+o allo DE4D itho"t the ob#ect mar er in the case o inanimates$ Aot

only !o these t o !ialects o Spanish& as ell as others s"ch as


51/120

b$ la tienen la herramienta


52/120

2.2. Specificity and clitics

,n or!er to better characterize the nat"re o clitics in the ace o the !ialectal

variation& investigating their behaviors more closely becomes necessary$ %his

section !isc"sses S"+er's research into the speci icity e ects o DE4D$ She

arg"es that 344 clitics are :speci ic; in the le7icon& hile D3% clitics are not$

Since a clitic m"st match the eat"res o its associate s"ch that they both bear the

same arg"ment relation& 344 clitics may only !o"ble :speci ic; arg"ments$ ,

sho the evi!ence or s"ch claims an! consi!er the pla"sibility o the claim that

speci icity is a ormal eat"re o the synta7$ 3s ell& , consi!er three phenomena

at play ith respect to DE4D. partitivity& pres"ppositionality& an! scope$

3ny analysis o Spanish hich tries to acco"nt or KG posits a ca"sal

connection bet een clitic !o"bling an! !i erential ob#ect mar ing (DE"estion by

!ialects li e 2orte+o an! Dominican Spanish (DS)& here DE4D is allo e!

itho"t a preposition hea!ing the !o"ble! ob#ect& as in the ollo ing rom

2orte+o (S"+er 1988. /990*@@).

(O@) yolo voy a comprar el diario #"sto

1s /s


53/120

%he grammaticality o s"ch sentences sho s that& at least in 2orte+o& clitics !o

not absorb case& since the !o"ble! ob#ect in (O@) is in arg"ment position& an! is

"ttere!& S"+er claims& ith "nbro en intonation$ 3s ell& (O@) sho s that the

ob#ect mar er !oes not assign case& since it !oes not hea! the !o"ble! ob#ect

(recall that the ob#ect mar er is "ngrammatical ith inanimates)$

7amining !ata rom =ioplatense an! 2orte+o& S"+er (1988) ollo s the

spirit o orer's (198*) analysis& b"t arg"es that clitics !o not receive case or

theta0roles$ S"+er conse>"ently re#ects KG (S"+er 1988. /**)$ , ollo s"it on the

basis o evi!ence rom DS& in 2orte+o an! al an lang"ages li e Gree &

3lbanian& an!


54/120

earlier& verbal complements mo!i ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses are

nonre erential an! there ore cannot be speci ic.

(O1) a$ proper names& !e inite h"mans& an! !e inite animals may be!o"ble!

la oCan a -aria / la ni a

/s $344 hear$/p2S%$2=G E<


55/120


56/120

2erhaps& then& it is animacy hich is the g"i!ing actor or the

obligatoriness o the ob#ect mar er& an! its speci icity e ects are not syntactically

enco!e!& b"t simply arise rom interpretation an! !isco"rse conte7t$ ,n act& the

evi!ence rom (O1c)& (O1!)& an! (O?) is strong s"pport or the ,n!epen!ence

hypothesis ( leam 1999)& as ell as or S"+er's claim that 344 clitics are

Hinherently speci ic$I %he set o constraints !etermining the ob#ect mar er's

grammaticality is separate rom the set or DE4D's grammaticality$

3n! since the DS DE4D !ata ,'m analyzing !oes not involve the ob#ect

mar er& the set o constraints governing its grammaticality (my c"rrent

characterization o hich has been calle! into >"estion by (O/) above) is not

ca"sally relate! to the set o DS DE4D constraints , am analyzing$

(O1c) an! (O1!) in!icate that re erentiality may be necessary (b"t perhaps

not s" icient) or DE4D& hile re erentiality is not necessary or DE


57/120


58/120

allo s DE4D or a h0e7tracte! arg"ment& it is important to consi!er partitivity

ith respect to other arg"ments hich , have sho n cannot be 3440!o"ble!&

s"ch as e7istential >"anti iers$ =ecall that e7istential >"anti iers are H ea I

accor!ing to "anti ie!

e7pression !istinction an! consi!er the ollo ing$ (OR) sho s that in 2orte+o

(S"+er 1988)& DE4D is "ngrammatical ith e7istential ( ea ) >"anti iers hich

!on't appear in a partitive constr"ction& hile (O8) sho s that i the >"anti ier

!oes hea! a partitive constr"ction& the ob#ect may be !o"ble!$ , teste! this or my

DS spea ers an! the #"!gments ere share!. DE4D is only grammatical or

e7istential >"anti iers i they hea! a partitive constr"ction$

(OR) a$ la e7amino a una

/s $344 e7amine$/s2S% E< one

'SMhe e7amine! one$'

O8


59/120

b$ las e7amino a 3 algunas / muchas / varias 4

/s2$344 e7amine$/s2S% E< some M many M vario"s

'SMhe e7amine! some M many M several$'

(O8) a$ la e7amino a una de ellas

/s $344 e7amine$/s2S% E< one o them$

'SMhe e7amine! one o them$'

b$ las e7amino a 3 algunas / muchas / varias 4

/s2$344 e7amine$/s2S% E< some M many M vario"s

de ellaso them$

'SMhe e7amine! some M many M several o them$'

3ll o these& ho ever& are grammatical ith ,E4D& regar!less o hether the

e7istential >"anti ier hea!s a partitive.

(O9) a$ le !ieron "n premio a una (de ellas

/s$D3% give$/p2S% one prize E< one (o them$ )

'%hey gave a prize to one (o them)$'

b$ le !ieron "n premio a 3 algunas / muchas / varias 4

/s$D3% give$/p2S% one prize E< some M many M vario"s

(de ellas

(o them$ )

'%hey gave a prize to someMmanyMseveral o them$'

, both 344 clitics an! partitive constr"ctions are :speci ic;& it ma es sense that

DE4D ith e7istential >"anti iers ( hich are ea an! th"s not inherently

speci ic) o"l! only be grammatical i the >"anti iers hea! partitive e7pressions$

3n! since D3% clitics are not :speci ic; inherently& they H!on't careI abo"t the

O9


60/120

hether the e7istential >"anti ier hea!s a partitive& an! ,E4D is grammatical in

both cases& as (O9) sho s$

irstMsecon!0person clitics may be "se! in con#"nction ith e7istential>"anti iers to constr"ct a partitive rea!ing (-"rta!o 198*)& as in the ollo ing.

(6@) a$ nos e7aminaron a algunos

1p$344 e7amine$/p2S% E< some

'%hey e7amine! some o "s$'

b$ nos e7aminaron a algunos de nosotros

1p$344 e7amine$/p2S% E< some o "s

'%hey e7amine! some o "s$'

%his is also the case or h0e7tracte! ob#ects& hich are grammatical ith

irstMsecon!0person clitics& as in the ollo ing.

(61) ^a +uin nos !ieron el premioF

E< ho ?p344 give$/p2S% Det$s< prize

' hich o "s ill they give the prize toF'(S"+er 1988. *18)

%his can be analyze! as an instance o 'covert partitivity&' tho"gh notably this is

conte7t0contingent$ ttere! itho"t conte7t& (6@a) co"l! be interprete! as

containing a 1pD3% clitic& hich o"l! ren!er the sentence '%hey e7amine!

some or "s&' that is& as a bene active$ 3n e7ample in hich covert partitivity

o"l! be the more clearly0inten!e! rea!ing o"l! be as ollo s.

(6?) vinieron a n"estro p"eblo y nos e7aminaron a algunos

come$/p2S% to o"r village X 1p$344 e7amine$/p2S% E< some

'%hey came to o"r village an! e7amine! some o "s$'

6@


61/120

,n the case o /344 clitics& a covert partitive rea!ing similarly arises in s"ch a

conte7t$ %he ollo ing sentence as #"!ge! grammatical by both generations o

my DS spea ers.

(6/) encontraron cinco monos y los e7aminaron a algunos

in!$/p2S% ive mon eys X /p


62/120

since the partitive complement o a mo!i ying >"anti ier m"st al ays be a strong

e7pression& in


63/120

,n!ee!& i the co0occ"rrence o a clitic ith an e7istential >"anti ier mo!i ying

partitive e7pressions is as in (68) above& Kayne's movement hypothesis becomes

available as a potential analysis$ %his can be seen in the ollo ing tree.

(69)

%h"s& even as an important relationship bet een speci icity an! partitivity !oes

e7ist& in that the partitive complement mo!i ie! by a >"anti ier m"st al ays be a

strong e7pression in


64/120

2.2.2. Scope and presuppositionality

S"+er's research sho e! that in Spanish& in!e inites are ambig"o"s ith respect

to being interprete! as pres"ppositional or e7isential that is& certain in!e inites

pres"ppose the e7istence o an entity& hile other in!e inites assert that entity's

e7istence$ %hose in!e inites hich assert an entity's e7istence are those hich

correspon! to


65/120


66/120

i!e0scope one in hich every voter selects the same set o can!i!ates (S"+er

1988. *?/)$

(R1) ca!a can!i!ato le !i#o la ver!a! a algunos electoresevery can!i!ate /s$D3% say$/s2S% Det$s< tr"th E< some voters

' very can!i!ate tol! the tr"th to some voters$'

a$ Aarro scope. every can!i!ate tol! some voters the tr"th

b$ i!e scope. every can!i!ate tol! the same set o voters the tr"th

(R?) ca!a elector los eligio a algunos candidatosDet$s< voter /p


67/120

(R/) a$ lo b"sco a un doctor +ue sabe

/s


68/120

(R*) a$ lo b"sca a un mdico +ue vino

/s


69/120


70/120

%his is also tr"e or "lgarian ( ranco ?@@@& elloro ?@@R)$ (RR) belo sho s that

pismoto can only be 3440!o"ble! in the ans er i it has been mentione! in the

>"estion& an! is th"s pres"ppose!& that is& not part o the oc"s !omain.

(RR) a$ hat happene!F M hat !i! ,vo !oF

,vo ( go ) napisa pismoto

,vo /s


71/120

arg"ments mo!i ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses& as ell as arg"ments

ithin the oc"s !omain rame! by a >"estion& s"pports this claim$

%h"s one might p"t it in ormally as ollo s. since certain !eterminershave >"anti icational eat"res& it is only hen these >"anti iers scope over a set

o o amiliar or pres"ppose! ob#ects that DE4D is grammatical$ 3n element

achieves pres"ppositionality an! speci icity by evac"ating the 52$ ,n the ne7t

section& , propose my analysis or DE4D& in light o the previo"s literat"re , have

!isc"sse!$

2.3. Modifying Sportiche for my proposal

,n or!er to acco"nt or the DS !ata& an! in hopes o constr"cting the machinery

or !eveloping a "ni ie! analysis o cross0ling"istic DE4D variation& , a!opt

aspects o Sportiche's (199/) Hclitic voicesI proposal$ , arg"e that clitics hea!

"nctional pro#ections$ %he 3cc2 nee!s its "ninterpretable eat"re to be chec e!&

an! it probes its c0comman! !omain or a goal ith a matching interpretable

eat"re hich can lan! in its Speci ier position$ 3long the lines o Sportiche's

Do"bly0 ille! 5oice ilter (199/)& , arg"e that 3cc2 must have its Speci ier

position ille!$ Since only pres"ppose!& re erential e7pressions can ta e a speci ic

interpretation& DE4D is only grammatical ith speci ic arg"ments$ hether the

"nctional hea! o this 3cc2 has correspon!ing 2 material is !etermine! by a

H2 2arameterI hich only allo s the spello"t o hea!s that are in agreementrelations ith arg"ments that have certain in!s o eat"res$ ,n or!er to !evelop

my analysis& , irst !isc"ss Sportiche's (199/)$

,n light o S"+er's or & speci icity becomes the g"i!ing actor or a

"ni ication analysis o cross0!ialectal !i erences in DE4D behavior$ S"+er

R1


72/120

sho e! that regar!less o this !ialectal variation ith respect to hat in!s o

arg"ments co"l! be 3440!o"ble!& DE4D is onl' or speci ic arg"ments$ "rther&

the !evelopment o the theoretical machinery s"ch as 2olloc 's 'e7pansion' o the

,A 0hea! an! the proli eration o "nctional categories (2olloc 1989)& allo e!

or the possibility o (i) reconciling base0generation an! movement approaches

an! (ii) positing 'split' analyses o clitics& here these t o classes constit"te

!i erent syntactic elements ( ranco 199/& riagere a 199O& Gutirrez Rexach 2000 )

in or!er to acco"nt or S"+er's !iscoveries regar!ing speci icity e ects$ % o

in l"ential& contrasting e7amples o reconciling base0generation an! movement

are riagere a's ig D2 hypothesis (199O) an! Sportiche's 4litic 5oices proposal

(1996)$

Aoting the similarities bet een !eterminers an! /344 clitics& riagere a

arg"es that an 344 clitic is a !eterminer hea! ith a pro complement& an! that

the !o"ble! ob#ect is in the speci ier o the D2$ D3% clitics are simply in lections$

oth move "p ar! in the tree !"ring the co"rse o the !erivation$ -e ants to

arg"e that clitics are arg"ments (D0hea!s hich receive case in verbal

complement position)& b"t that !o"ble! ob#ects are not conse>"ently a!#"ncts$

%here ore consi!er the ollo ing trees& the ' ig D2' on the le t an! a reg"lar

!eterminer phrase on the right$ %he !o"ble is parenthetical on the le t to in!icate

that non0!o"ble! clitic constr"ctions "se the same big D2& e7cept ith an empty

Speci ier position$

(R9) a$ b$

R?


73/120

, !o not consi!er this proposal "rther& since , !o not ant to arg"e that clitics

receive case$ ,nstea!& , elaborate on a proposal Sportiche (199/)& the Hclitic

voicesI analysis$

Sportiche (199/) posite! that clitics hea! "nctional pro#ections& an! that

!o"ble! ob#ects move rom complement0to0verb position to the Speci ier position

o the clitic pro#ection$ %he Speci ierMhea! relationship o the clitic0phrase

capt"res the agreement bet een clitic an! !o"ble! ob#ect& an! the pro#ection or

344 clitics (3cc2& let "s say) contains an "ninterpretable eat"re hich Dat2

!oes not have& an! hich the !o"ble! ob#ect chec s by raising into the

Spec2osition$

%h"s& or Sportiche the clitic a!#oins to its s"r ace position beca"se o its

proso!ic ea ness& b"t not rom complement0to0verb position$ ,nstea!& it

originates as the hea! o a "nctional pro#ection$ , a!opt a proposal along similar

lines here& b"t mo!i y it in a n"mber o ays$ , arg"e only the 3cc2 re>"ires its

Speci ier position to be ille! %his is hy only speci ic arg"ments "n!ergo

DE4D& since it is these arg"ments hich nee! to be 520e7ternal to attain their

speci ic interpretation$ %h"s& the !erivation str"ct"res the 3cc2 in or!er to

license speci ic arg"ments to evac"ate the 52& lan!ing in the Speci ier o the

3cc2 to ta e speci ic interpretation$ Sportiche ass"mes& as , !o& the


74/120

(8@) te lo man!amos

?sD3% /s


75/120


76/120


77/120

(8?)

%hereason the clitic is not grammatical here is beca"se its "nctional pro#ection is

not necessary to begin ith& since un libro !oes not nee! to evac"ate the 52. it isnonspeci ic an! novel& not speci ic an! pres"ppose!$ %here ore& the !erivation

crashes beca"se 3cc2 in (8?) above has been generate! b"t can in! nothing ith

hich to ill its Speci ier position& ren!ering the sentence "ngrammatical$

"ire! to license the movement o the !irect ob#ect$ ,n!e inites onlyevac"ate the 52 hen they ta e a speci ic rea!ing& an! clitics ma es this speci ic

(520e7ternal scope) rea!ing "nambig"o"s$ %h"s& non0speci ic in!e inites remain

in the 52& an! the 0hea! is empty$ , posit that the correct tree or (8@) above is as

ollo s.

RR


78/120


79/120

Kayne's Generalization arises as an epiphenomenon o this parameter.

!ialects ith the parameter active happen to abi!e by KG& even tho"gh the

constraints !etermining the grammaticality o DE4D an! DE< are in!epen!ent

( leam 1999)$ 3ss"ming this "ni orm synta7 o DE4D across !ialects& it is air to

ass"me that this H2 parameterI is not active or my yo"nger DS spea ers& or

hom (as , sho in chapter /) DE4D patterns as in 2orte+o$

3s ell& the !i erence bet een 344 an! D3% clitics comes !o n to the

0hea!'s optionality ith respect to its Spec position being ille!. D3% clitics !o

not re>"ire their position to be "ll& hile 344 clitics !o$ 344 clitics are th"s

probes searching or s"itable elements to ill Spec 2& an! arg"ments evac"ating

the 52 to ta e speci ic interpretation serve as prime goals or the probe$ ,n this

ay , can posit& as S"+er !oes& that 344 clitics are 'inherently' speci ic$ hile ,

nee! not commit mysel to the ormal reality o speci icity as a eat"re& , do

ass"me the ormal reality o the "ninterpretable !riving movement$

, posit that the oc"s !omain at consists o 520internal elements$ %he

ollo ing e7amples rom 3lbanian ill"strate my claim ell$ (8*) sho s that in

3lbanian& DE4D is obligatory hen the !irect ob#ect is o"tsi!e the oc"s !omain

(Kall"lli ?@@@& Do e al X Kall"lli ?@1?) that is& hen it is mentione! in the

prece!ing >"estion& an! ren!ere! pres"ppose!$ "t hen the !irect ob#ect is in

the oc"s !omain hen it has not been mentione! in the >"estion it cannot

be clitic0!o"ble!$ %hese e7amples correspon! to the ones , gave rom Gree &

"lgarian& an! =omanian earlier$

(8*) 3. hat !i! 3na !oF M hat !i! 3na rea!F

. 3na ( e) le7oi librin

3na /s


80/120

(8O) 3. ho rea! the boo F

. 3na ( e) le7oi librin$

(86) 3. hat !i! 3na !o ithMto the boo F

. 3na ( e) le7oi librin$

, arg"e that Spanish is similar to 3lbanian in that DE4D is only

grammatical or ob#ects hich are o"tsi!e the oc"s !omain an! there ore

interprete! as pres"ppose!$ "t "nli e 3lbanian& DE4D is not obligatory in

Spanish& only optional an! the phonological realization o the "nctional hea!

(the clitic) varies cross0!ialectally& as !etermine! by the H2 2arameterI settings

in the given !ialect$

%he grammaticality o 3440!o"bling e7pressions hich o"l! normally

remain ithin the 52 an! be interprete! as H ea I (in


81/120

(88) (J"an est] hablan!o con cinco gente)

J"an 3"7$/s2= S spea $2=G ith ive people

y no los conozco a ningunos

an! no /p


82/120


83/120

a!#"ncts& b"t tr"e arg"ments$ %he a that accor!ing to Kayne's Generalization

assigns case is not in act a case assigner& b"t an ob#ect mar er or speci ic

animates& an instance o !i erential ob#ect mar ing$ S"+er instea! p"ts orth an

analysis here clitics are in lections& as in orer (198*)& hich m"st match in

eat"res ith the associates ith hich they orm a chain$ %he relationship

bet een DE< an! DE4D is no longer ca"sal in her analysis$

S"+er points o"t that DE4D is only grammatical ith speci ic arg"ments&

hile ,E4D is grammatical ith nonspeci ic arg"ments$ She posits that 344

clitics are speci ie! in the le7icon as :speci ic; an! may only orm chains ith

arg"ments that match this eat"re$ , !isc"sse! her important claims an! sho e!

!isc"sse! the relationships bet een speci icity& partivitiy& re erentiality& an!

scope$

, posit D2s are interprete! as speci ic hen they ta e 520e7ternal scope

(Diesing 199?& ranco 199/& G"tierrez0=e7ach ?@@@& Kall"lli ?@@1)$ ollo ing

Sportiche's (1996) Hclitic voicesI proposal& , posit that clitics are hea!s o

"nctional pro#ections into hose Speci ier positions !o"ble! ob#ects raise in

or!er to be interprete! as speci ic$ %he overtness o the "nctional hea! is

!etermine! by a parameter hich states that only 0hea!s in agreement relations

ith certain in!s o ob#ects may be phonologically realize!$

, go on to sho in chapter / that this parameter is not active or yo"nger

DS spea ers& an! , sho that my analysis can acco"nt or the DS !ata$ 3 ter

!isc"ssing DS& , try to sho that my analysis may point to ar! a ay o

"ni ying cross0!ialectal Spanish DE4D variation$

8/


84/120

3. Dominican Spanish

3s , sai! in the intro!"ction& , elicite! grammaticality #"!gments rom ?1

spea ers o Dominican Spanish (DS)an! o"n! that there as a change in

progress regar!ing DE4D. the ol!er generation ollo s the =ioplatense Spanish

pattern in allo ing DE4D only ith speci ic animates& hile the yo"nger

generation ollo s the 2orte+o Spanish pattern in allo ing DE4D ith all

speci ics& animate or inanimate$

,n this chapter , present an! !isc"ss the res"lts o my iel! or & then

sho that the analysis , posite! in chapter ? capt"res the !ata$

3.1. Dominican ACC Clitics

DS or ol!er spea ers patterns li e =ioplatense. it abi!es by Kayne's

Generalization& hich means that only !irect ob#ects hea!e! by ob#ect mar er a

can be 3440!o"ble!$ 3s in many other !ialects o Spanish& the ob#ect mar er in

DS is "ngrammatical ith inanimates$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(91) leC ( a) "n libro

rea!$1s2S% E< one boo

', rea! a boo $'hile most o my spea ers abi!e! by Kayne's Generalization& RM?1 o them

allo e! DE4D ith inanimates& violating Kayne's Generalization$ 3ll o them

ere "n!er /@$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing$ %he B signi ies the grammaticality split

bet een yo"nger an! ol!er spea ers.

8*


85/120

(9?) DS re>"ires DE4D ith strong prono"ns& an! allo s it ith propernames an! !e inite animates.

a$ (la) vC a ella

/s $344 see$1s2S% E< her', sa her$'

b$ (la) vC a -arta

/s $344 see$1s2S% E<


86/120

De inite inanimates cannot be 3440!o"ble! or ol!er spea ers o DS& b"t they

can or yo"nger spea ers& or hom DE4D patterns as in 2orte+o.

(9O) B lo leC el libro /s


87/120

(9R) a$ (la) leimos una revista

/s $344 rea!$1p2S% one magazine

' e rea! a magazine$'

b$ ( las ) leimos 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4

/p $344 rea!$1p2S% some M many M several M t o

revistas

magazines

' e rea! someMmanyMvario"sMt o magazines$'

c$ B la leimos una de las revistas/s $344 rea!$/p2S% one o Det$p magazines

' e rea! one o the magazines$'

!$ B las leimos 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4

/p $344 rea!$1p2S% some M many M several M t o

de las revistas

o Det$s magazines' e rea! someMmanyMseveralMt o o the magazines$'

3s e7pecte!& across generations& only e7pressions patterning accor!ing to


88/120

3.2. Intensionality & mood

Ene relevant actor at play ith respect to speci ic rea!ings is intensionality$

,ntensional verbs set "p scope !omains s"ch that complements o intensional

verbs co"nt as intensional conte7ts ith respect to interpreting D2s& an! i the

complement is mo!i ie! by a s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"se& it m"st remain

ithin the scope o the intensional verb& an! th"s ithin the 52$ , this is the

case& DE4D sho"l! be !isallo e! in this conte7t& an! DS spea ers evi!ence!

this grammaticality #"!gment$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(98) ( lo) b"sco a un hombre +ue sepa frances

/s


89/120

Strong evi!ence or the i!ea that intensional verbs set "p scope !omains in

hich in!e inites may remain ithin the 52 an! ta e non0speci ic interpretation

comes rom verbs hich !o not set "p s"ch scope !omains$ %hese in!s o verbs

(He7tensionalI) cannot ta e complements mo!i ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative

cla"ses& sho n belo in (1@1)$ , an arg"ment mo!i ie! by a relative cla"se m"st

stay ithin the narro (e7istential) scope !omain& an! i e7tensional verbs

pres"ppose the e7istence o their complements& then i!e scope is associate!

ith a pres"ppositional rea!ing$ 4onsi!er the ollo ing.

(1@1) conozco (a un hombre +ue sepa frances

no $1s2= S E< one man 4mpl no $/sS J rench

', no a man ho'! no rench$'

3s ell& consi!er that the sentence becomes grammatical i 'to no ' is instea!

containe! ithin a 42 selecte! by a matri7 intensional verb& hich !oes not

pres"ppose its complement's e7istence (yet the ob#ect mar er becomes

obligatory& interestingly).

(1@?) conozco (a un hombre +ue sabe frances

no $1s2= S E< one man 4mpl no $/s2= S rench

', no a man ho no s rench$'

%his is strong evi!ence or the claim that intensional verbs allo their

complements to remain ithin the 52 an! not be interprete! as pres"ppose!&

hile e7tensional verbs en orce s"ch an interpretation. complements o the latter

m"st evac"ate the 52$

%h"s& , Diesing (199?) is correct in arg"ing that speci ic ob#ects 'evac"ate'

the 52& then in!e inites ten! to ar! a nonspeci ic rea!ing& that is& they ten! to

stay ithin the 52$ %his ties into von -e"singer's (?@@/) notion that hat is 520

internal is ne in ormation& hile hat is 52 e7ternal is pres"ppose!$ 3s ell&

ot has been atteste! in the typological literat"re that clitic systems ten! to begin

89


90/120

patterning ith !e inites an! are grammaticalize! !iachronically an! cross0

ling"istically into agreement systems here patterning ith in!e inites becomes

possible ( riagere a 199O. 86)$

hat in!s o ob#ects can e7press a pres"ppose! entityF , have arg"e!

thro"gho"t this paper in the spirit o "anti ie! e7pressions are those hich can be 3440

!o"ble!$ %hose e7pressions hich o"l! pattern li e H ea I >"anti ie!

e7pressions are allo e! by DE4D to pattern li e HstrongI >"anti iers& in that the

3cc2 a or!s a 'lan!ing site' a ter the !o"ble! ob#ect has evac"ate! the 52$

, th"s ass"me an intrinsic relationship bet een DE4D an! e7pressions

that pattern as strong >"anti iers$ DE4D is not possible ith e7pressions

itho"t !eterminers (bare nominals)& an! is only ever possible ith e7pressions

hose !eterminers allo a 520e7ternal scopal rea!ing$ 3n! hile !e inite

!eterminers !o ten! to ar! this rea!ing& this is not al ays the case& as in the

ollo ing& hich sho s that !e inite e7pressions re erring to in!s or concepts

cannot be !o"ble!.

(1@/) ( lo) agra!ezgo el esfuer8o

/s"anti iers are available or DE4D& it is clear that bare pl"rals

m"st al ays stay ithin the 52 to ta e non0speci ic interpretation& since they can

never be 3440!o"ble!.

9@


91/120

(1@*) (las ) vimos a ni+as cantan!o en el par>"e

/p $344 see$1p2S% a girls sing$/2=G in Det$s< par

' e sa girls singing in the par $'

%h"s , arg"e bare pl"rals are never speci ic$ ,n light o my claims regar!ing 520

e7ternal scope en orcing a speci ic rea!ing& consi!er the ollo ing

grammaticality #"!gments rom my DS spea ers$

(1@O) sho s that in situ !o"ble! bare in!e inites cannot ta e i!e scope

over s"b#ects& as in the ollo ing$ %he in!e inite uno is a pronominal anaphor

hose !isco"rse0lin e! antece!ent& here& is cigarillo 'cigarette$'

(1@O) a$ ca!a est"!iante "mQ "no

each st"!ent smo e$/s2S% one

' ach st"!ent smo e! one$'

1$ very W one (each st"!ent smo e! a !i erent one)

?$ Ene W every (one as split among each st"!ent)

%he only rea!ing available here is one here each st"!ent has her o n cigaretteN

uno can never ta e 520e7ternal scope& that is& it can never scope over each student,

in!icating that& as it is nonspeci ic& it m"st remain ithin the 52$ En the other

han!& consi!er the ollo ing& hich sho s that in the case o an 344 clitic

e7pressing the !irect ob#ect arg"ment relation& in hichh the only available

rea!ing is a speci ic one$ "t a scopal ambig"ity is present ith a non0!o"ble!

in!e inite !irect ob#ect.

(1@6) a$ ca!a est"!iante lo "mQ

each st"!ent /s


92/120


93/120

scopal !omain set "p by the verb$


94/120


95/120

others may not$ , mo!i y this to arg"e that the 344 clitic's Speci ier position

must be ille!$ %his 220li e eat"re is not present or D3% clitics$

%his seems to in!icate that 344 clitics can only enter into agreementrelations ith material that& at & is 520e7ternal$ hat this means is that , m"st

ass"me the ollo ing. in non0!o"ble! clitic constr"ctions& the empty category in

complement0to0verb position raises to lan! in the Spec o the 344 clitic's

"nctional pro#ection$

%he phonological realization o the 344 "nctional hea! is !etermine! by

a parameter hich is sensitive to prominence hierarchies s"ch as GivQn's (198*)&sho n in the previo"s chapter$ %his parameter is something li e the ollo ing.

(11@) The PF pa amete

, a "nctional pro#ection's hea! an! Speci ier position are both ille! at &map the "nctional hea! at 2 only i it is$$$

[ :strong prono"n; in Stan!ar! Spanish

[ :animate; in =ioplatense

%his ilter is th"s not active or 2orte+o an! yo"nger DS spea ers$ "rther&

speci icity is not liste! in this parameter beca"se& as , have trie! to sho & speci ic

interpretations arise beca"se an 220li e eat"re on the 344 clitic probe

motivates the goal to move to the Speci ier position o the 3cc2$

, arg"e that the t o in!s o "nctional pro#ections hea!e! by clitics arethose that have an 220li e eat"re hich motivates movement& an! those that

!o not$ Enly /344 clitics hea! the irst in! o pro#ection& as , have sho n

only these in!s o clitics are restricte! s"ch that they may only !o"ble speci ic

arg"ments$ =ecall that irstMsecon!0person clitics are phonologically i!entical in

both case roles& as in the ollo ing.9O


96/120

(111) a$ nos man!aron algo

1pD3% sen!$/p2S% something

'%hey sent "s something$'

b$ nos man!aron a 2ortlan!

1p344 sen!$/p2S% to 2ortlan!

'%hey sent "s to 2ortlan!$'

Since , am arg"ing that irstMsecon!0person clitics& hich are phonologically0

i!entical in both case roles& hea! the same in!s o "nctional pro#ections that

thir!0person !atives !o& this entails that irstMsecon!0person clitics sho"l! be able

to appear ith nonspeci ic arg"ments& hich they can& as in the ollo ing$ 3n

acc"sative interpretation is available in this conte7t "n!er a partitive rea!ing& as

in (11?b)$ ven i the partitive 22 is e7cl"!e!& the sentence may only ta e a

partitive rea!ing$ , sho in (11?a) that the !e a"lt rea!ing o the irstMsecon!0

person clitic hen it !o"bles a nonspeci ic is a bene active one.

(11?) a$ nos mataron a alg"nos

1pD3% ill$/p2S% E< some

'%hey ille! some or "s$'

b$ nos mataron a alg"nos ( de nosotros)

1pD3% ill$/p2S% E< some o "s

'%hey ille! some o "s$'

Since , have arg"e! that covert an! overt partitive constr"ctions s"ch as in (11?b)

are not tr"e cases o clitic !o"bling& since the clitic is associate! ith a partitive

22 a!#oine! to the tree in a non0complement position& (11?) above seems li e

"rther evi!ence that irstMsecon!0person clitics hea! the in! o "nctional

pro#ection that /D3% clitics hea!& as oppose! to the in! that /344 clitics hea!$

96


97/120

,n DS& the 2 2arameter is more active or ol!er spea ers than yo"nger

spea ers$ hat lea!s to !i erent settings o s"ch a parameter& both across

generations o DS spea ers an! cross0!ialectally in the -ispanophone orl!F ,

arg"e that this parameter is simply c"lt"rally0con!itione!. across the boar!&

/344 "nctional hea!s serve the same p"rpose licensing 520evac"ation or

speci ic arg"ments& as ell as see ing to ill their Spec position ith a

>"anti icational phrase to scope over it& given that DE4D is never possible ith

bare nominals an! their phonological realization is con!itione! by stigma$


98/120

or some other restriction& ren!ers the variable phonological realization o the

"nctional hea! across !ialects$

, leave open the >"estion o hether speci icity is a ormal eat"re o thesynta7$ eonetti (?@@/) arg"es against s"ch a proposal& an! my analysis is more

in line ith his claims he says it is not the case that& say& clitics enco!e

speci icity& or !eterminers b"t instea!& a speci ic interpretation is the res"lt o

movement processes motivate! by chec ing o more abstract eat"res$

ven as my proposal ta es !i erent ass"mptions than his& riagere a

(199O) "ltimately ants to ma e arg"ments along similar lines to Diesing (199?)an! eonetti (?@@/)$ -e posits that only an! all material assigne! 520e7ternal

scope is interprete! as speci ic at & s"ch that speci ic syntactic elements al ays

move o"t o the 52$ "rther motivation or s"ch an arg"ment can be seen rom

the act that uno cannot be clitic0le t !islocate!$

%he i!ea here is that movement o"t o the 52 can be phonologically covert

that is& a ter Spell0o"t& s"ch as in cases o speci ic arg"ments hich at 2 arestill or!ere! a ter the verb or scoping o"t o the 52 can happen be ore Spell0

o"t& an! be overt& as in the ollo ing& hich sho s that uno cannot move o"t the

52& signaling that it is nonspeci ic$ ven as !islocate! arg"ments originate in

!i erent positions than !o"ble! ones& (11/) belo sho s that /344 clitics may

nevertheless only enter into agreement relations ith !islocate! arg"ments that

have been establishe! as speci ic$ %h"s& in (11/b)& a partitive conte7t ma es the

sentence grammatical$ %his lea!s me to pres"me (11/b) is not a case o gen"ine

clitic !o"bling& b"t o the clitic entering into an agreement relation ith an overt

or covert partitive 22 a!#"nct$ =ecall that Z signals intonational brea $

as /las gentes/ for la gente) in which an Output-Output correspondence relation in the constraint hierarchycompares speakers' outputs to normative Spanish outputs. A similar constraint at the syntax-phonologyinterface could be in effect with respect to DOCD, which renders the null realization of the functional headinto whose specifier specific double objects raise.

98


99/120

(11/) a$ a 2e!ro M a m"chos M F a "n hombre M a "no T Z

E< 2e!ro M a many M a one man M a one

lo(s) vio

/s(p)


100/120

(11O) a ni+as&las vimos

E< girls Det$p see$1p2S%

'Girls& e sa them$'

%his in!icates that at 2 is it "ngrammatical or a bare pl"ral to be 520e7ternal$

3n! the act that bare pl"rals can never be 344 !o"ble! seems to in!icate that

at & it is also "ngrammatical or a bare pl"ral to be 520e7ternal$ 4onsi!er the

ollo ing& hich sho s that even i it is clear the bare pl"ral is re erential (act"al

girls ere singing in an act"al par )& a speci ic or 520e7ternal interpretation is

not available.

(116) (las) vimos a ni+as cantan!o en el par>"e

/p $344 see$1p2S% E< girls sing$2=G in Det$s< par

' e sa girls singing in the par $'

%he generalization here is that henever an e7pression o"l! normally pattern

as a ea >"anti ie! e7pression& the presence o the /344 clitic may license a

speci ic rea!ing i these e7pression is o the in! that can be pres"ppositional& or

that can hea! a partitive constr"ction$ ,t seems that bare pl"rals can never be

pres"ppositional. m"ch li e nonre erential arg"ments& they m"st stay ithin

verbal scopal !omains$ 3ss"ming the 2 2arameter to be tr"e& , believe that my

analysis o DE4D may be e7ten!e! rom DS to acco"nt or the cross0!ialectal

variation o DE4D behavior in Spanish$

3cross all Spanish !ialects& it seems that henever DE4D is possible& it is

only possible ith arg"ments that ta e a speci ic interpretation$ %he availability

in a given !ialect o overt /344 clitics as !isambig"ators regar!ing the

pres"ppositionality o an e7pression increases as the strictness o that !ialect's

2 0parametric settings !ecreases$ %he parameter seems to ollo an animacy

hierarchy$ %his hierarchy is or!ere! s"ch that the arther le t along it an

arg"ment o"l! be classi ie!& the more li ely the DE4D o that arg"ment is

1@@


101/120

grammatical. at the le tmost& Hmost animateI e!ge& all !ialects obligatorily 3440

!o"ble$

AnimateStrong pronoun Proper name Human Non-insect animals

Fig. 4. Animacy hierarchy.

4ross0!ialectal DE4D behaviors map onto this animacy hierarchy in the

ollo ing ay.

Strong

pronoun

Proper

name

Human Non-insect

animals

Inanimate

Obligatoryfor all

dialects

OK in mostdialects

OK in Rioplatense-like dialects

OK in Porte +o0li e an! DS0li e !ialects

Fig 5. Cross-dialectal DOCD as regards the animacy hierarchy.

%his seems to imply that i one ass"mes a "ni ie! synta7 o DE4D across all

Spanish !ialects& my analysis can e7tent to acco"nt or these !ata$ Aevertheless&

this is not the only available analysis& since instea! o a le7ical parameter li e the

2 2arameter& one co"l! arg"e that both !iachronically an! cross0!ialectally&

Spanish /344 clitics have "n!ergone a grammaticalization process& going rom

phrasal hea!s (as in Kayne's analysis) to in lections (as in orer's analysis)$ %his

in! o grammatical parametrization is not appealing to me& since it o"l! nee!

e7traneo"s ass"mptions to acco"nt orthe "ni ormity o speci icity e ects in

DE4D across !ialects$ 3 "ni ication analysis capt"res this "ni ormity more

elegantly$

,n concl"sion& , have sho n that my analysis& accor!ing to hich clitics

hea! "nctional pro#ections an! /344 clitics m"st have an "ninterpretable

eat"re val"e! against a D2 that raises !"e to this eat"re's 220li e properties&

acco"nts or the DS !ata$ , a 2 2arameter hich operates accor!ing to an

1@1


102/120

animacy hierarchy is ass"me!& my analysis may also posit "ni orm syntactic

stat"s or /344 clitics across !ialects& hile also acco"nting or cross0!ialectal

DE4D variation in Spanish. the !erivation constr"cts the 3cc2 an' time an

arg"ment ta es speci ic interpretation& b"t hether the "nctional hea! has a

correspon!ing 2 realization is !etermine! by the 2 2arameter$ "t , conce!e!

that this as not the only available analysis& an! that a grammatical

parametrization as oppose! to a le7ical one co"l! be p"rs"e!$

3.4. Summary

Dominican Spanish is "n!ergoing a change in progress ith respect to the

grammaticality o the overt realization o /344 clitics$ El!er spea ers employ

DE4D li e =ioplatense spea ers& an! abi!e by Kayne's Generalization& b"t

yo"nger spea ers violate Kayne's Generalization$ "il!ing on S"+er's (1988) !ata

regar!ing speci icity e ects in DE4D& an! or ing ithin her HcaselessI

approach accor!ing to hich clitics !o not assign case& , mo!i ie! a proposal by

Sportiche (199/) to arg"e that clitics hea! "nctional pro#ections o t o in!s. one

hose "ninterpretable eat"re nee!s to be val"e! against a eat"re0matching D2

it c0comman!s& an! another ith no s"ch re>"irement$

/344 clitics& hich may only !o"ble speci ic arg"ments& are o the irst

in!$ , sho e! that this hol!s tr"e in DS or both generations. or ol!er spea ers&

only speci ic animates co"l! be 3440!o"ble!& an! or yo"nger spea ers only

speci ics co"l! be 3440!o"ble! (regar!less o animacy)$


103/120

Spello"t an! overt& as oppose! to post0Spello"t an! covert)& hile in ormation

ithin the 52 is novel$ %h"s speci ic arg"ments are available goals to be probe!

by the "nctional hea! (the clitic)$ Strong evi!ence that a speci ic rea!ing is a 520

e7ternal one comes rom the "ngrammaticality o DE4D ith bare pl"rals an!

intensional0verb complements mo!i ie! by relative cla"ses$

, arg"e! that the generational !i erence in DS can be capt"re! ith a 2

parameter accor!ing to hich only /344 clitics hich ere in agreement

relations ith animates co"l! have correspon!ing 2 material or ol!er spea ers$

%his parameter is inactive or yo"nger spea ers$ "rther& this parameter allo s

or my analysis to acco"nt or the cross0!ialectal Spanish DE4D variation& since

the strictness o the parameter's settings increases along an animacy hierarchy

s"ch that ith strong prono"ns& hich are inherently speci ic (S"+er 1999)&

DE4D is obligatory in all !ialects o Spanish$

1@/


104/120

!. "onclusion

,n this chapter ,

Documents

Accusative Clitic Doubling in Dominican Spanish, 2014