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
Approved for the Division
(Linguistics)
Matt Pearson
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 friends
who 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.
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........................................................................................... 104
4.2. A potential alternative...........................................................................................106
4.3. Notes for further research..................................................................................... 109
4.3. Final remarks........................................................................................................ 113
Bibliography................................................................................................................... 115
List of Abbreviations
1/2/3 = first-/second-/third- person
ACC = Accusative
CL = clitic (in syntax trees)
CP = Copleenti!er Phrase
"A# = "ative
"et = "eteriner
"$C" = "irect o%&ect clitic dou%lin'
"P = "eteriner Phrase
"( = "oinican (panish
) = )eale (as in 3p)* 3rd-person plural feale)
)P = )unctional Pro&ection
)+# = )uture tense
,-P = ,perative ood
,-P.( = ,personal
,/) = ,nfinitive
,$C" = ,ndirect o%&ect clitic dou%lin'
01 = 0ayne2s 1enerali!ation
L) = Lo'ical )or
- = -ale (as in 3s-* 3rd-person sin'ular ale)
/e' = /e'ation
$- = $%&ect -ar3er
s or (1 = sin'ular
p or PL = plural
P) = Phonolo'ical )or
PP = Prepositional Phrase
P)4 = Perfective aspect
P.1 = Pro'ressive aspect
P.5( = Present tense
P(# = Past tense
6P = 6uantifier Phrase
.)L7 = .eflexive
(+89 = (u%&unctive ood
#P = #ense Phrase
4P = 4er% Phrase
List of Figures
Abstract
Dominican Spanish violates Kayne's Generalization (Jaeggli 1986) by alloing
clitic !o"bling itho"t a licensing preposition prece!ing the !o"ble! ob#ect$ %his
is notable& since most !ialects o' Spanish abi!e by Kayne's Generalization$
("il!ing on investigations into clitics as agreement mar)ers ((orer 198*) hich
evi!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 beteen clitic !o"bling
an! !i''erential ob#ect mar)ing. separate grammaticality con!itions license the
to phenomena$ , sho that ob#ect mar)er a obligatorily mar)s speci'ic animate
ob#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 not
receive case (S"+er 1988)$ ,nstea!& b"il!ing on S"+er's research on speci'icity
e''ects& , posit that clitics hea! '"nctional pro#ections (Sportiche 199/)$ %hir!0
person acc"sative clitics hea! one )in! o' 12 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 (61) 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$
8hether the '"nctional hea! has any correspon!ing material at phonological
'orm (21) is !etermine! by a parameter the settings o' hich !i''er across
!ialects. so 'or Stan!ar! Spanish& the clitic only emerges at 21 i' it is in an
agreement relation ith a 9:strong prono"n; or empty category (ec)$ Kayne's
Generalization in this analysis re!"ces to an epiphenomenon o' this parameter&
an! my arg"ment entails that any time an arg"ment 'ants' speci'ic
interpretation& the !erivation b"il!s the /344 clitic '"nctional pro#ection to
'acilitate 520evac"ation& regar!less o' hether the '"nctional hea! has any
correspon!ing material at 21$
%his thesis is !e!icate! to <ichael =aven$ =est in 2oer& brother$
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 (1ranco ?@@/)& 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 )non 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
Aoroo! neighborhoo! o' the (ron7& ranging in age 'rom 18 to 6@& an! 'o"n!
that seven spea)ers& all "n!er /@& alloe! !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
allos acc"sative (344) clitics to !o"ble inanimate ob#ects in Dominican Spanish
1@
(DS)$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing$ 1or 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 (Da) la revista
/s1$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$* belo 'or !isting"ishing !o"bling 'rom
!islocation$ 1olloing S"+er (1988)& , arg"e that clitics !o not receive case an!
are not arg"ments$
11
3s ell& important !ata 'rom S"+er (1988) sho that DE4D is limite! to
speci'ic arg"mentsG only !e'inites& partitives& an! >"anti'ier phrases patterning
as HstrongI (in <ilsar)'s terms) may be 3440!o"ble!$ DS spea)ers "se the ob#ect
mar)er in similar ays to "ses o' it atteste! in the literat"re (it obligatorily hea!s
speci'ic animates)& an! even tho"gh DS violates KG& it only allos !o"bling ith
speci'ic arg"ments$
,n light o' this , posit that clitics hea! '"nctional pro#ections an! !o not
absorb case$ %he Spec position o' the 344 clitic's '"nctional pro#ection m"st be
'ille!& in or!er 'or it to receive gen!er 'eat"res 'rom its associate& an! since only
520e7ternal arg"ments are interprete! as speci'ic& the !o"ble! arg"ment moves
into the Spec position o' the 344 clitic$ D3% '"nctional hea!s !o not have a
similar re>"irement on their Speci'iers being 'ille!$
%he phonological realization o' the 344 '"nctional hea! is !etermine! by
a parameter hich only allos 344 clitics o' certain 'eat"res to be overt at 21$
(y positing that the overt realization o' clitics is an aspect o' the phonology an!
not the synta7& , ass"me here that the 344 '"nctional pro#ection is alays
present hen a speci'ic0interprete! arg"ment is present in the tree& in or!er to
motivate raising o' that arg"ment& b"t that this '"nctional hea! is only
phonologically realize! i' the parameter in >"estion allos it to$ %h"s& all !ialects
o' Spanish employ this means o' ma)ing speci'ic rea!ings availableG b"t& 'or
instance& Stan!ar! Spanish only allos the overt realization o' 344 clitics
!o"bling strong prono"ns& an! =ioplatense only allos 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 'olloing sections o' this chapter. hat
1?
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$ 1or her& clitics !o not receive case an! the ob#ect mar)er !oes not
assign case$ She shos evi!ence 'rom 2orte+o& a !ialect spo)en in 3rgentina an!
Jr"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' ,A16& catalyze! ne approaches to clitic !o"bling hich
alloe! 'or reconciliation o' the base0generation an! movement approaches$
3rme! ith a theoretical bac)gro"n!& chapter ? concl"!es ith my
proposal 'olloing 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 allos !o"ble! ob#ects to have a pres"ppositional& speci'ic rea!ing$
-oever& the Spell0o"t o' this '"nctional hea! (the clitic) across !ialects is s"b#ect
to a parameter regar!ing hich )in!s o' 10hea!s can have correspon!ing 21
material$
1/
,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 21$ , 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 21 material is acco"nte! 'or as a !i''erence ith respect to the
H21 parameter$I 1or ol!er spea)ers& only '"nctional hea!s in agreement relations
ith 9:animate; arg"ments can be spelle! o"t at 21$ ,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 21 '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$ Kven 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*
grammars o' Spanish !ialects)F %he cross0!ialectal "ni'ormity o' speci'icity
e''ects in Spanish lea!s me toar! a "ni'ication approach clitics are the same in
all Spanish !ialects& an! in hich speci'icity is grammatically0parametric$ <y
arg"ment is th"s that the role o' animacy ith respect to the 21 realization o'
clitics is le7ically0parametric across !ialects$ ("t , note in chapter * that the
variationist hypothesis is nevertheless available$ , concl"!e the pro#ect ith some
notes 'or '"rther research& !isc"ssing clitic cl"stering an! climbing behaviors
along ith ling"istic i!eology$
1.1 What is a clitic?
4litics are syntactic elements hich enco!e an arg"ment's L0'eat"res (gen!er&
person& n"mber) an! attach to some proso!ic or phonological host (%oivonen
?@@?. ?@*)$ ,n Spanish& clitics attach to the e!ges o' verbs$ Jnli)e ,talian& Spanish
!oes not have s"b#ect clitics& only ob#ect an! re'le7ive clitics (Gerlach ?@@?. 8/)$
Enly thir!0person acc"sative clitics enco!e gen!er& as in the 'olloing.
(?) lo / la conozco
/s<$344 M /s1$344 )no$1s2=KS
', )no himMher$'
Kven as clitics act li)e prono"ns in that they e7press arg"ments& e can
!isting"ish the to in 'ive ays.
clitics cannot be coor!inate!N prono"ns can
clitics cannot be mo!i'ie!N prono"ns can
clitics cannot bear stressN prono"ns are inherently stresse!
clitics are morphologically mar)e! 'or caseN prono"ns are not
the clitic05erb se>"ence cannot be !isr"pte!N prono"ns nee! not be
a!#acent to verb
1O
4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(/) clitics cannot be coor!inate!
a$ D la y lo vC
/s1$344 an! /s<$344 )no$1s2S%
', sa him an! her$'
b$ ella y Pl salieron tar!e
she an! he leave$/p2S% late
'She an! he le't late$'
(*) clitics cannot be mo!i'ie!
a$ Pl solo sobreviviQ
he alone s"rvive$/s2S%
'-e alone s"rvive!$'
b$ D lo solo vimos
/s<$344 alone sa$/p2S%
'8e sa only him$'
3nother !i''erence beteen clitics an! prono"ns is that the latter are
inherently stresse! (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O)$ ,n 'act& stress is necessary to
!isting"ish the male prono"n 'rom the male !e'inite !eterminer in !isco"rse$
4litics& on the other han!& cannot bear stress$ %h"s& consi!er the 'olloing.
(O) a$ D el '"e
Det$s< go$/s2S%
'-e ent$'
b$ D l conozco
/s<$344 )no$1s2=KS
', )no him$'
16
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. 1inally& 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 'olloing.
(6) D te m"cho >"iero
?s344 very$m"chant$1s2=KS
', love yo" very m"ch$'
%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) (6ips)i 1996)$ -oever& 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$
4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(R) clitics attach to the left edges of finite verbs
a$ te >"iero
?s344 love$1s2=KS
', love yo"$'
b$ D >"iero 0te
love$1s2=KS0?s344
', love yo"$'
1R
4litics attach to the right e!ges o' non'inite verbs$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing
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$,<20?sD3%0/s<$344
'Kat it' (comman!)$
b$ D te lo cQme
?sD3% /s<$344 eat$,<2
'Kat it' (comman!)$
(9) clitics attach to the right edges of infinitives
a$ para enten!er 0lo& "no tiene >"e$$$
4mpl "n!erstan!$,A10/s<$344 one m"st 4mpl
',n or!er to "n!erstan! it& one m"st$$$'
b$ D para lo enten!er "no tiene >"e$$$
4mpl /s<$344 "n!erstan!$,A1 one m"st 4mpl
',n or!er to "n!erstan! it& one m"st$$$'
(1@) clitics attach to the right edges of participles
a$ miran!o 0lo es !i'Ccil
loo)$2=G0/s<$344 be$/s2=KS !i''ic"lt
'6oo)ing at it is !i''ic"lt$'
b$ D lo miran!o es !i'Ccil
/s<$344 loo)$2=G be$/s2=KS !i''ic"lt
'6oo)ing at it is !i''ic"lt$'
18
-oever& hen a higher verb selects a non0'inite cla"se& a clitic !enoting a
semantic arg"ment o' the loer cla"se can raise to s"r'ace attache! to the higher
verb$ %his phenomenon is calle! clitic climbing (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. 1?)$
4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(11) a$ >"iero comprar0lo
ant$1s2=KS b"y$,A10/s<$344
', ant to b"y it$'
b$ lo >"iero comprar
/s<$344 ant$1s2=KS b"y$,A1
c$ D para lo >"erer comprar
4mpl /s<$344 ant$,A1 b"y$,A1
'%o ant to b"y it$$$'
(11a0b) sho that #"st in case a higher verb selects a non0'inite cla"se& a clitic may
variably realize as a proclitic or an enclitic$ (11c) shos that the matri7 verb m"st
be 'inite 'or HclimbingI to be grammatical$
%h"s& investigating the properties o' clitics allos them to be
!isting"ishe! 'rom prono"ns& b"t also calls into >"estion the syntactic stat"s o'
the clitic$ %hey have both the properties o' bare hea!s or a''i7esG proso!ic
ea)ness& inability to be coor!inate!& mo!i'ie!& or bear stressG an! at least one
property o' hea!s o' phrases G hea!0to0hea! movement as evi!ence! by clitic
climbing$ 3s , !isc"ss in chapter ?& m"ch past research regar!ing the synta7 o'
clitics has been split along these lines. either clitics are phrasal arg"ments that
move to their s"r'ace position& or they are base0generate! a''i7es$ (e'ore !elving
into these analyses as ell as my on 'or DS& , 'irst !isc"ss the to )in!s o'
19
Spanish clitics (1$?)& !e'ine clitic !o"bling (1$/)& an! !e'ine ob#ect mar)er a an! its
properties (1$*)$
1.2 ACC and DAT clitics
Spanish has to )in!s o' clitics. acc"sative (344) an! !ative (D3%)$ %his
!istinction is only phonologically realize! 'or thir!0person clitics$ Enly in the
thir!0person sing"lar !oes a gen!er !istinction emerge$ 4l"sters may contain at
most to clitics& an! i' an 344 clitic is present it m"st be thir!0person$ 1inally&
cl"sters 'ollo a strict ,<20D3%0344 or!er$%he !ata are capt"re! in the
'olloing table& an! , go on to give e7amples o' the para!igms.
DAT ACC
SG PL SG
1 me nos 1 me
2 te les 2 te
3 lo los 3MASC lo
3 la las 3FEM la
RFLX/
IMPRS
se
Fig. 1. Spanish clitics
(1?) belo shos that 'irst0 an! secon!0person clitics are homophono"s in both
344 an! D3% roles$ (1/) shos that thir!0person clitics phonologically
!isting"ish case roles& an! that thir!0person sing"lar clitics !isting"ish gen!er
'eat"res$
(1?) 1/2ACC clitics...
a$ me Mnos !ieron
1s344M1p344 hit$?s2S%
'%hey hit meM"s$'
?@
b$ te M les !ieron
?s344 M ?p344 hit$/p2S%
'%hey hit yo"My'all$'
...are homophonous with 1/2A! 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 beteen 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
/s1$344 M /s<$344 M /p344 see$/p2S%
'%hey sa herMhimMthem$'
b$ le M les !ieron "n regalo
/sD3% M /pD3% give$/p2S% one gi't
'%hey gave herMhimMthem a gi't$'
,t is this !istinction hich motivates labeling 'irstMsecon!0person clitics as
344MD3% base! on sentential conte7t& as in (1?)$ %his !istinction can be teste!
by consi!ering clitic co0occ"rrence restrictions (1ranco ?@@/& 3nagnostopo"lo"
?@@O)$
?1
%he 2erson04ase 4onstraint !etermines hat )in!s o' clitic cl"sters can
occ"r$ ,t pre!ominantly 'ollos to patterns.
,' the cl"ster is D3%& 344& then the 344 arg"ment m"st be /r!0person&
otherise cl"stering is impossible
all cl"ster combinations are alloe! e7cept 'or S/D3%& 1M?344T
Spanish ten!s more toar! 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
S/D3%& /344& the D3%T ta)es the se 'orm instea! o' le. 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(1*) D te me man!aron
?s$344 1s$D3% sen!$/p2S%
'%hey sent yo" to me$'
<y Dominican spea)ers share! this #"!gment$ %hir!0person clitics can& hoever&
co0occ"r ith homophono"s clitics$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(1O) me lo man!aste
1s$D3% /s<$344 sen!$?s2S%
'Uo" sent me it$'
%here is a strict or!ering to this occ"rrence s"ch that the 'irstMsecon!0person clitic
m"st alays prece!e the thir!0person clitic (16a)& an! the re'le7ive m"st prece!e
the !ative (16b)$ 3s ell& Spanish allos no more than to clitics to a cl"ster& as
in (16c) ((elloro ?@@R)$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(16) a$ D lo me man!aste
/s<$344 1s$D3% sen!$?s2S%
'Uo" sent me it$'
b$ D me se olvi!Q
1
1s344 /,<2=S 'orget$/s2S%
',t as 'orgotten by me$'
1 Compare with se me olvid
??
c$ D 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 alays prece!es the !ative& hich alays 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 to clitics$ 6ater& , sho that my
analysis& in hich to )in!s o' '"nctional pro#ections ith 'eat"ral !i''erences
correspon! to the to )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' to clitics
per cl"ster& an! cl"sters evi!ence a range o' restrictions$ 1irst& hen 344 clitics
cl"ster& they m"st be /344$ Secon!& 'irstMsecon!0person clitics cannot co0occ"r
ith each other$ 1inally& cl"sters evi!ence a strict or!ering o' ,<2=SM=16V
WD3%W344$ %hese rigi! or!ering properties seem to in!icate that clitics are non0
pro#ecting hea!s hich a!#oin to their hosts& b"t their movement properties& as
shon by clitic climbing& s"ggest that they are phrasal hea!s$
-aving consi!ere! the 344MD3% !istinction& , !isc"ss the to )in!s o' clitic
!o"bling in the ne7t section$
1.3 What is clitic doubling?
4litic !o"bling is the co0occ"rrence o' a clitic ith a co0in!e7e! nominal
arg"ment s"ch that they e7press the same arg"ment relation$ ,n the larger
ling"istic conte7t& clitic !o"bling has been atteste! in =omance& Semitic& Slavic&
?/
3lbanian& an! Gree) (3o"n 1981N Jaeggli 198?& 1986N (orer 198*N S"+er 1988N
Jriagere)a 1988N 3nagnostop"lo" 199*& ?@@ON Kall"lli X %asmos)i ?@@8)$
,n Spanish& in!irect ob#ect clitic !o"bling (,E4D) an! !irect ob#ect clitic
!o"bling (DE4D) are atteste!$ ',E' an! 'DE' respectively correspon! to my
D3%M344 categorization in section 1$?$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing& ith the !o"ble!
ob#ect italicize!.
(1R) a$ lo vC a #uan
/s<$344 see$1s2S% E< J"an
', sa J"an$'
b$ le man!P "n regalo a #uan
/sD3% sen!$1s2S% one gi't E< J"an
', sent J"an a gi't$'
,E4D is alays an "nmar)e! option in most !ialects o' Spanish& b"t DE4D& in
contrast& is m"ch more restricte! (Jaeggli 1981. 11& 1ontana 199/. ??1)$ ,n the
strictest !ialects o' Stan!ar! Spanish& DE4D is "ngrammatical in all conte7ts the
case o' strong prono"ns& in hich case DE4D is obligatory$ 4onsi!er the
'olloing& hich shos that itho"t lo, the sentence is "ngrammatical.
(18) D (lo) vC a l
/s<$344 see$1s2S% E< him
', sa him$'
<ost !ialects o' Spanish allo DE4D ith proper names (6ips)i 1996& Yagona
?@@?)& an! , later analyze !ialects ith a '"rther 'loosening' o' !o"bling
constraints. these !ialects allo DE4D ith animate nominal e7pressions&
incl"!ing those !enoting nonh"man animals$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing& 'rom
=ioplatense Spanish& spo)en in 3rgentina an! Jr"g"ay (Jaeggli 1986& S"+er
1988& (leam 1999& G"tiPrrez0=e7ach ?@@@& (elloro ?@@R).
?*
(19) a$ lo conozco a $l hombre
/s<$344 )no$1s2=KS E< 0Det$s< man
', )no the man$'
b$ lo conozco a 0l perro
/s<$344 )no$1s2=KS E< 0Det$s< !og
', recognize the !og$'
Dominican Spanish (DS) proves even more ra!ical ith respect to DE4D& in
alloing it ith inanimates$ 4onsi!er (1) again& repeate! as (?@) belo.
(?@) la leC (Da) la revista
/s1$344 rea!$1s2S% E< Det$s< magazine
', rea! the magazine$'
<ost !ialects abi!e by Kayne's Generalization (KG)& hich arg"es that clitic
!o"bling is only grammatical hen the !o"ble! ob#ect is prece!e! by a
preposition (Jaeggli 1986)$ Dominican Spanish& li)e 2orte+o& violates KG$
4onsi!er the 'olloing brie' typology o' cross0!ialectal grammaticality variation
in Spanish DE4D (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O)$ %he 'eat"ral val"es note! 'or each
pattern are obligatory 'or clitic !o"bling to be an option$
Strict Standard Standard Spanish Rioplatense
Porteo/DS
[+strong pronoun]
[+specific]
[+human]
[+specific]
[+animate]
[+specific]
[+specific]
Fig. 2. Typology of Spanish DOCD.
,n or!er to !elve into the behaviors note! in 1ig$ ? in more !etail& , m"st
consi!er this apparent instance o' Kayne's licensing preposition in Spanish&
ob#ect mar)er a (section 1$*)$ ("t be'ore this , o''er !iagnostics 'or !isting"ishing
?O
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 'olloing& 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$ D 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)$ 8ith this in min!& consi!er the 'olloing
minimal pair 'or Stan!ar! Spanish.
(??) a$ D lo leCmos el libro
/s<$344 see$1p2S% Det$s< boo)
'8e rea! the boo)$'
b$ lo leCmos Z el libro
/s<$344 see$1p2S% Det$s< boo)
'8e rea! it& the boo)$'
(??) shos that 'or Stan!ar! Spanish& !o"bling abi!es by Kayne's Generalization
in most !ialects& hile !islocation !oes not (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O. O?9)$
?6
(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) beteen the !islocate! element
an! the sentential n"cle"s (S"+er 1988. /**)& signi'ie! by Z in (?1) above&
an! ith commas in the Knglish 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! ones
cannot
3nother ay o' !isting"ishing !o"bling 'rom !islocation is that
!islocate! elements cannot bear stress$ 8ith stresse! elements "n!erline! an!
intonational brea) in!icate! by Z& (?/a) shos that that a !o"ble! !ative may
carry n"clear stress& hile (?/b) shos that !islocate! elements cannot be
stresse!$
(?/) a$ se lo enviQ a mam% Z <arCa Z el
/,<2=S /s<$344 sen!$/s2S% to mama <aria Det$s<
regalo
gi't
'She sent it to mom& <aria& the gi't$'
b$ D se lo enviQ a mam% Z <arCa Z el
/,<2=S /s<$344 sen!$/s2S% to mama <aria Det$s<
gi't
regalo
'She sent it to mom& <aria& the gi't$'
?R
3s ell& tr"e !o"ble! arg"ments can prece!e a 'oc"s phrase (Y"bizarreta 1988)$
4onsi!er the 'olloing$ (?*a) shos that a !o"ble! acc"sative can prece!e a
right0e!ge 'oc"s phrase& hile (?*b) shos that a !islocate! element may not$ ,
in!icate contrastive 'oc"s ith 9
1
[ ; in the Spanish& an! ith italics an!
parentheticals in the translation.
(?*) a$ esta ma+ana lo castigQ a l 9
1
la ma!re
this morning /s<$344 p"nish$/s2S% E< him Det$s< mother
!e J"an;
o' J"an
'#uan&s mother (an! no0one else) p"nishe! him this morning$'
b$ D esta ma+ana lo castigQ Z a l 9
1
la
this morning /s<$344 p"nish$/s2S% E< him Det$s<
ma!re !e J"an;
mother o' J"an
'#uan&s mother (an! no0one else) p"nishe! him this morning$'
(Y"bizarreta 1988. 186)
3ss"ming the 'oc"se! phrase is not !islocate!& the !o"ble! DE prece!ing it
m"st also not be !islocate!$ 3n! there is goo! reason to believe 'oc"se! phrases
aren't !islocate!. (?*b) shos that 'oc"se! phrases cannot be separate! 'rom the
sentence by an intonational brea)& hich means that 'oc"se! phrases are not
themselves !islocate!$ %h"s& !o"ble! arg"ments have the same intonation an!
!istrib"tion as arg"ments& can ta)e n"clear stress& an! can prece!e a 'oc"s
phrase& hile !islocate! elements cannot be stresse!& cannot prece!e a 'oc"s
phrase an! m"st be separate! 'rom the rest o' the sentence ith an intonational
brea)$
?8
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 (6a!"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=KS E< no0one
', !on't )no anyone$'
b$ D conozco a na!ie
)no$1s2=KS E< no0one
', !on't )no anyone$'
,n 6ime+o Spanish& spo)en in 6ima (<ayer ?@@8)& the negative polarity item can
be clitic0!o"ble! i' a partitive !isco"rse conte7t is establishe! s"ch that nadie
>"anti'ies over a !e'inite larger set o' entities (, !isc"ss partitivity in more !etail
later)$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(?6) no lo vieron a nadie en esta playa
no /s<$344 see$/p2S% E< no0one in this beach
'%hey !i!n't see any o' them at this beach$'
Given that a nadie o"l! be o"tsi!e o' the c0comman! !omain o' the licensing
operator no i' it ere !islocate!& the grammaticality o' (?6) is goo! evi!ence that
the !o"ble! negative polarity item is in a non0!islocate! position$
<ayer (?@@8) '"rther notes that the marginality o' (?6) i' "ttere! ith an
intonational brea) separating the negative polarity item 'rom the 'irst part o' the
sentence& as in the 'olloing.
(?R) FD no lo vieron Z a nadie en esta playa
no /s<$344 see$/p2S% E< no0one in this beach
'%hey !i!n't see any o' them at this beach$'
?9
,' one !e!"ces 'rom (?6)0(?R) that negative polarity items are in non0
!islocate! positionsG since !islocate! elements are a!#"ncts an! negative
polarity items m"st resi!e in the c0comman! !omains o' their licensing
operatorsGthen a !o"ble! ob#ect prece!ing a negative polarity item is also in a
non0!islocate! position$ %his means that in the 'olloing sentence& hich as
grammatical 'or my yo"nger DS spea)ers& the !irect ob#ect el libro is in a non0
!islocate! position.
(?8) no se lo !imos el libro a nadie
no /,<2=S /s<$344 give$1p2S% Det$s< boo) E< no0one
'8e !i!n't give the boo) to anyone$'
3n! as '"rther evi!ence that both the !o"ble! ob#ect an! the negative polarity
item are in non!islocate! positions& my cons"ltants agree! ith <ayer's !ata 'or
6ime+o ith respect to the marginality o' separating the negative polarity item
'rom the rest o' the sentence ith an intonational brea).
(?9) FD no se lo !imos Z el libro a nadie
no /,<2=S /s<$344 give$1p2S% Det$s< boo) E< no0one
'8e !i!n't give the boo) to anyone$'
,n s"mmary& , have shon that there are '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$ %he behavior that
!isting"ishes !o"bling 'rom !islocation are similar to the behavior o' arg"ments&
hich can also bear stress& prece!e 'oc"se! phrases an! negative polarity items&
an! are "ttere! ith an "nbro)en intonational c"rve ith respect to the rest o'
/@
the sentence (S"+er 1988)$ %h"s& having shon 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<) is atteste!$ DE< is
the morphological mar)ing o' certain )in!s o' arg"ments base! on their 'eat"res$
%he Spanish ob#ect mar)er a obligatorily mar)s speci'ic animate arg"ments
(S"+er 1988)$
, shoe! in the last section that !o"ble! ob#ects are not !islocate!$
-oever& this !oes not a"tomatically imply that they are arg"ments& even
tho"gh , ass"me this to be so$ ,t co"l! be& as Kayne o"l! have it& that !o"ble!
ob#ects are non0!islocate! a!#"ncts$ %his ass"mes& 'or !ialects that abi!e by KG
(accor!ing to hich !o"bling is only grammatical i' the !o"ble! ob#ect is hea!e!
by a preposition)& that the preposition hea!ing the !o"ble! ob#ect is a case0
assigner$ ,s this soF
,t is the ob#ect mar)er hich is an ostensible instance o' a licensing
preposition 'or DE4D (Jaeggli 198?)$ Data 'rom 2orte+o an! DS strongly
motivate an analysis in hich the ob#ect mar)er is not a case assigner& since in
these !ialects DE4D is grammatical itho"t DE<$ ,n this section& , consi!er this
ostensible licensing preposition '"rther& , 'irst !isc"ss the roles o' animacy an!
!e'initeness in DE<$ %hen , go on to sho that it can be !isting"ishe! 'rom the
homophono"s preposition a. 1inally& , intro!"ce the notion o' speci'icity an!
!isc"ss its role in DE<$
/1
,n !isc"ssing the ob#ect mar)er's properties& , 'orar! my investigation
regar!ing hether there is a ca"sal lin) beteen the constraints governing
DE4D an! those 'or DE<& as in KG& or i' there is no ca"sal relationship beteen
the to constraint sets& as in the ,n!epen!ence -ypothesis ((leam 1999)$ ,
"ltimately 'ollo the latter$
1.4.1. Animacy and definiteness
,t o"l! seem at 'irst glance that the ob#ect mar)er is obligatory 'or animate
ob#ects an! "ngrammatical 'or inanimate ob#ects$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(/@) a$ ob#ect mar)er a is obligatory 'or animates
vC D(a) J"an M la perra
see$1s2S% E< J"an M Det$s< !og$'
', sa J"anMthe !og$'
b$ ob#ect mar)er a is "ngrammatical 'or inanimates
compramos (Da) la mesa
b"y$1p2S% E< Det$s1 table
'8e bo"ght the table$'
-oever& not all animates ta)e the ob#ect mar)er$ (/1) belo shos that the
ob#ect mar)er is not obligatory 'or in!e'inite animates& an! an analysis becomes
necessary 'or the apparent optionality o' the ob#ect mar)er ith respect to
in!e'inite animates.
(/1) b"sco (a) "na m"#er
see)$1s2S% E< one oman
','m loo)ing 'or a oman$' (S"+er 1988)
/?
%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 'olloing$ (/?a) shos that animate bare
pl"rals !o not re>"ire the ob#ect mar)er& (/?b) shos this 'or animates hea!e! by
car!inal >"anti'iers& (/?c) shos this 'or animates hea!e! by the e7istential
>"anti'ier some& an! (/?!) shos this 'or the e7istential >"anti'ier man'$
(/?) a$ veo personas
see$1s2=KS people
', see people$'
b$ veo (a) !os personas
see$1s2=KS E< to persons
', see to people$'
c$ veo (a) alg"na0s personas
see$1s2=KS E< some026 persons
', see to people$'
!$ veo (a) m"cha0s personas
see$1s2=KS E< many026 people
', see many people$'
(are pl"rals& car!inal >"anti'iers& an! the e7istential >"anti'iers as in (/?a0
!) correspon! to hat <ilsar) (19R*) calls Hea)I >"anti'icational e7pressions$
H8ea)I e7pressions can occ"r in e7istential cla"ses ('there are$$$')& hile <ilsar)'s
HstrongI e7pressions G "niversal >"anti'iers& proper names& strong prono"ns&
an! !e'inite e7pressionsG cannot occ"r in e7istential cla"ses (in Spanish& haber
cla"ses)$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
//
(//) (wea)* +uantifiers can 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$/p2=KS some Mto people in Det$s< par)
'%here are to people in the par)$'
c$ hay m"chas personas en el par>"e
3"7$/p2=KS many people in Det$s< par)
'%here are many people in the par)$'
(/*) (strong* +uantifiers cannot occur in e,istential clauses"
a$ D hay to!os en el par>"e
3"7$/p2=KS all in Det$s< par)
'%here are all in the par)$'
b$ D hay Pl M J"an M las gatas en el par>"e
3"7$/p2=KS him M J"an M Det$p1 cats in Det$s< par)
'%here is him M J"an M the oman in the par)$'
%here'ore& 'olloing <ilsar)'s terminology& HstrongI e7pressionsG the
e7pressions mo!i'ie! by the "niversal >"anti'ier& strong prono"ns& proper
names& an! !e'inite e7pressionsG obligatorily ta)e the ob#ect mar)er& hile the
ob#ect mar)er is not obligatory 'or Hea)I e7pressionsG bare pl"rals along ith
e7pressions mo!i'ie! by car!inal an! e7istential >"anti'iers$ (e'ore consi!ering
the nat"re o' this apparent optionality& , 'irst !isting"ish the ob#ect mar)er a 'rom
the homophono"s preposition a.
/*
1.4.2. Object marker vs. preposition
%he 'orm a in Spanish mar)s certain ob#ects o' the verb$ , have shon 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$ 1or 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$ D a 6on!res& lo '"C
to 6onon /s<$344 go$1s2S%
'%o 6on!on& , ent$'
b$ a J"an Z creo >"e le >"iero man!ar
E< J"an thin)$1s2=KS 4mpl /sD3% ant$1s2=KS sen!$,A1
"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=KS 4mpl /s<$344 ant$1s2=KS see$,A1
'John& , thin) , ant to see him$'
1"rther& the 'orm in (/Oa)& hich prece!es goal 22s& can in 'act be grammatically
replace! ith other prepositions$ Aot so 'or the 'orm in (/Ob)0(/Oc) prece!ing
animate patients& as (/6b) belo shos.
(/6) a$ '"imos a M hacia J"an
go$1p2S% to M toar! J"an
'8e ent to M toar! J"an$'
/O
b$ >"eremos a M D hacia J"an
ant$1p2=KS E< M toar! J"an
'8e ant J"an M 8e ant toar! (F) J"an$'
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) shos 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 shos 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
(/R) a$ ese se+or
i
n"nca se cansa !e 2=E
i
hablar
that man never ='l7 tire$/s2=KS o' 2=E spea)$,A1
9
22
!e Pl
iM#
;
9 o' /s<;
'%hat man never gets tire! o' spea)ing abo"t himMhimsel'$'
b$ <aria
i
le
#
aceptQ la invitaciQn
<aria/s$D3% accept$/s2S% Det$s1 invitation
9a ella
#MDi
;
9E< /s1 ;
'<aria accept the invitation 'rom herMDhersel'$'
1"rther& the complement o' a preposition cannot bin! an anaphor hich is
o"tsi!e the 22 hea!e! by that preposition& as in (/8a)$ ,n!irect ob#ects mar)e! by
ob#ect mar)er a are not restricte! in this ay& as in (/8b).
(/8) a$ 2aco
i
hablQ con el pro'esor
#
!e sC mismo
iMD#
2aco spea)$/s2S% ith Det$s< pro'essor abo"t himsel'MDhim
'2aco tal)e! ith the pro'essor abo"t himsel'$'
b$ 2aco
i
le hablQ a0l pro'esor
#
!e
2aco /s$D3% spea)$/s2S% E<0Det$s< pro'essor abo"t
sC mismo
iM#
himsel'Mhim
'2aco tal)e! ith the pro'essor abo"t himsel'$'
((elloro ?@@R. ??)
%his test act"ally or)s 'or DE4D as ell& as , 'o"n! ith my spea)ers$ (/9)
belo shos that an anaphor can ta)e bath core'erence an! !is#oint re'erence
ith respect to the clitic0!o"ble! arg"ment.
/R
(/9) 2aco
i
lo encontrQ a$l profesor
.
viendo
2aco /s<$344 'in!$/s2S% E<0Det$s< pro'essor atch$2=G
la pelicula de s/ mismo
iM#
Det$s1 movie o' himsel'Mhim
'2aco 'o"n! the pro'essor atching the movie abo"t himsel'Mhim$'
1rom her governing category an! anaphor tests S"+er concl"!es that the ob#ect
mar)er a is not& in 'act& a preposition& since it patterns !i''erently 'rom them$ ,
a!opt her proposal& accor!ing to hich there are at least to a morphemes. one
hich mar)s goals s"ch as locations an! selecte! by verbs o' motion& an! one
hich mar)s speci'ic animate arg"ments$
,n concl"sion& , have shon evi!ence that the ob#ect mar)er is not a
preposition$ -oever& it is important to point o"t that even i' the ob#ect mar)er
can be shon not to be a preposition& an! even as S"+er's approach is HcaselessI
(as , later !isc"ss)& the above evi!ence !oes not necessarily sho that ob#ect
mar)er a is not a case0assigner. S"+er's insights !o not necessarily contra!ict
Kayne's proposal& b"t they !o motivate '"rther analysis$ ,n the 'olloing
s"bsection , consi!er the role o' speci'icity ith respect to the ob#ect mar)er$
1.4.3. Specificity
Speci'icity is an important 'actor at play in DE4D as ell as in DE<& an! ,
!isc"ss it in more !etail later$ 1or my !isc"ssion o' DE< a brie' overvie ill
s"''ice$
S"+er (1988. /9R) provi!es evi!ence 'rom =ioplatense spea)ers o' the
'olloing minimal pair$ She arg"es that 'or her spea)ers& (*@a) !i! not re'er to a
partic"lar man ho spea)s 1rench& hile (*@b) !i!$ , teste! this pair 'or DS
spea)ers an! their #"!gments aligne! ith those o' S"+er's spea)ers$
/8
(*@) a$ b"sco "n hombre >"e sabe 'rancPs
see)$1s2=KS one man 4mpl )no$/s2=KS 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a man ho spea)s 1rench (any man)$'
b$ b"sco a "n hombre >"e sabe 'rancPs
see)$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/s2=KS 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a man ho spea)s 1rench (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 <ilsar)'s strongMea)
!istinction emerges. strong e7pressions pattern li)e speci'ics$
8ea) e7pressions& on the other han!& are not inherently speci'ic& an! this
is hy the ob#ect mar)er is optional 'or animates hea!e! by in!e'inites an!
car!inal >"anti'iers. it is precisely the presence o' a that ren!ers these arg"ments
ith a speci'ic interpretation$ 1or S"+er& then& speci'icity is a 'ormal 'eat"re o'
the synta7& an! in Spanish it is enco!e! ith a (she as ell arg"es that it is
enco!e!& in!epen!ently& by clitics& as , !isc"ss later)$
S"+er says speci'ic e7pressions are re'erential$ 8hat 'actors might be
relevant ith respect to re'erentialityF %here are at least to. moo! an!
intensionality$ (roa!ly spea)ing& Spanish has three moo!s. imperative& realis
(in!icative) an! irrealis (s"b#"nctive)$ ,ntensional verbs s"ch as see) set "p scope
!omains in hich complements mo!i'ie! by relative cla"ses in the s"b#"nctive
moo! can resi!e$ Enly intensional verbs can ta)e these )in!s o' complements$
/9
%here'ore& consi!er the 'olloing$ (*1a) shos 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) shos that 'see)&' an
intensional verb& can ta)e s"ch a complement.
(*1) a$ D conozco (a) "n hombre >"e sepa 'rancPs
)no$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J 1rench
', )noMsee a man ho o"l! )no 1rench$'
b$ b"sco "n hombre >"e sepa 'rancPs
ant$1s2=KS one man 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J 1rench
', ant to meet a man ho )nos 1rench$'
3s ell& e can see 'rom (*?) that the ob#ect mar)er cannot grammatically hea!
intensional0verb complements mo!i'ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses$
%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 (Da) "n hombre >"e sepa 'rancPs
ant$1s2=KS )no$,A1 E< one man 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J 1rench
', ant to meet a man ho spea)s 1rench (a partic"lar man)$'
(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 verbs
are 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 (*?)$
*@
, have shon that ob#ect mar)er a obligatorily hea!s HstrongI e7pressions
(in <ilsar)'s sense)$ ,t !isting"ishes speci'ic in!e'inites 'or nonspeci'ic ones$ 3s
ell& , have shon that speci'icity& hich , !isc"ss in m"ch more !etail later& is
available only 'or re'erential arg"ments$ Aonre'erential ones cannot& as , shoe!
ith the case o' intensional0verb complements mo!i'ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo!
relative cla"ses$ , leave open 'or no the >"estion o' hether the ob#ect mar)er
assigns case& since this >"estion is not relevant 'or instances o' grammatical
DE4D itho"t the ob#ect mar)er& as in DS an! 2orte+o$
1.5. Summary
Kayne's Generalization (KG) posits that clitic !o"bling is only grammatical i' the
!o"ble! ob#ect is hea!e! by a licensing preposition (Jaeggli 198?)$ Dominican
Spanish (DS) violates KG& an! in or!er to analyze this phenomenon& in chapter 1
, intro!"ce! the terms o' analysis in this paper. clitics& DE4D& DE<& an!
speci'icity e''ects$
4litics enco!e L0'eat"res o' an arg"ment$ 4litics can be !isting"ishe!
'rom prono"ns& hich also enco!e arg"mental 'eat"res in 'ive ays. clitics are
proso!ically ea) an! m"st be !irectly a!#acent to their verbal host& hile
prono"ns re>"ire no proso!ic hostN clitics cannot be stresse!& coor!inate! or
mo!i'ie!& hile prono"ns can (Yic)y an! 2"ll"m 198/)N an! clitics are
morphologically mar)e! 'or case& hile prono"ns are not$ %hese 'o"r behaviors
ma)e them pattern li)e non0pro#ecting hea!s& b"t their clitic climbing properties
(hea!0to0hea! movement) ma)e them seem li)e phrasal hea!s (hea!s o' V2s)$
*1
, !isc"sse! the 344 an! D3% clitics& shoing 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& , shoe! '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)$
8ith this in min!& , intro!"ce! the ob#ect mar)er a& the ostensible
licensing preposition 'or DE4D& accor!ing to Kayne$ , shoe! 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$ 1inally& , intro!"ce! <ilsar)'s strongMea) e7pression
!istinction. the latter can appear in e7istential cla"ses& hile the 'ormer cannot$
Jsing this 'rameor) , !isc"sse! DE< speci'icity e''ects& shoing that 'or
Hea)I animate e7pressions s"ch as those hea!e! by in!e'inite !eterminers an!
car!inal an! e7istential >"anti'iers& the ob#ect mar)er enco!es speci'icity$ Speci'ic
interpretation is only available 'or re'erential ob#ects$
1or no , leave open >"estions o' hether the ob#ect mar)er assigns case
or hether speci'icity is a 'ormal 'eat"re o' the synta7 (as oppose! to an
*?
emergent& synta70!etermine! semantic0pragmatic interpretation)$ Given DS an!
2orte+o e7amples o' DE4D itho"t a, hoever& it seems clear that the ob#ect
mar)er's '"nction is to mar) speci'ic animates& not assign caseG tho"gh this
leaves open the possibility that there is another homophono"s& case0assigner a,
since ,E4D alays abi!es by Kayne's Generalization (S"+er 1988)$
8ith c"rsory !e'initions o' the terms o' analysis in min!& in the ne7t
section , revie the literat"re on DE4D an! its cross0!ialectal variation in
Spanish$
*/
2. Analyzing DOCD
Karly 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! "par! 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
<ovement hypothesis& analyze! !o"ble! ob#ects as a!#"ncts& hile position (ii)&
the (ase0generation hypothesis& analyze! them as arg"ments$
1or both o' these early approaches& clitics recive! case 'rom the verb$
Kayne's Generalization note! that clitic !o"bling as only grammatical i' the
!o"ble! ob#ect as hea!e! by a licensing preposition$ %he "n!erlying
ass"mption here as that this 'licensing preposition' assigne! the ob#ect case$
1"rther research !evelopments move! aay 'rom 4ase0theoretic
approaches$ ,n a HcaselessI analysis accor!ing to hich clitics here agreement
a''i7es an! !o"ble! ob#ects ere arg"ments& S"+er (1988) shoe! evi!ence o'
speci'icity e''ects ith respect to Spanish DE4D& an! not in ,E4D$ , !isc"ss
some phenomena relevant to speci'icity s"ch as partitivity& re'erentiality& an!
most importantly& scope$ ("il!ing on S"+er's !ata& later 'mi7e!' analyses o' clitic
!o"bling arg"e that the !i''erent properties o' DE4D as oppose! to ,E4D
motivate analysis o' 344 an! D3% clitics as !i''erent syntactic elements. 'or
e7ample& Jriagere)a's (ig D2 hypothesis (199O) posits that 344 clitics are
!eterminers& hile D3% clitics are in'lections ((leam 1999)$
**
3'ter revieing the literat"re on clitic !o"bling& , present my analysis$
1oc"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$ <y analysis b"il!s on
Sportiche's (199/) Hclitic voices&I proposal& accor!ing to hich clitics hea!
'"nctional pro#ections$ , arg"e 344 clitics enter the !erivation ith an
"ninterpretable 'eat"re that m"st be val"e! against a D2$ %he clitic probes its c0
comman! !omain 'or a goal ith matching 'eat"res hich can len! in its
Speci'ier position& b"t the clitic can only select as a goal an arg"ment that see)s
to raise o"t o' the 52 to ta)e speci'ic interpretation (520e7ternal scope)$ , arg"e
that this '"nctional pro#ection is alays present i' an e7pression has a speci'ic
interpretation& b"t that hether the '"nctional hea! has any correspon!ing 21
material is !etermine! by the H21 parameterI hich only lets 10hea!s in
agreement relations ith certain )in!s o' hea!s be spelle! o"t at 21$
2.1. Movement vs. base-generation
Kayne (19RO) shoe! that in 1rench& clitics an! non0clitic arg"ments are in
complementary !istrib"tion (they cannot co0occ"r)$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(*/) a$ #e le vois
, /s<$344 see$1s2=KS
', see him$'
b$ #e vois Jean
, see$1s2=KS Jean
', see Jean$'
*O
c$ D #e le vois Jean
, /s<$344 see$1s2=KS Jean
', see Jean$'
%he morpheme le patterns as a cliticG it cannot be stresse!& coor!inate!& or
mo!i'ie!& an! nothing can interr"pt the clitic0verb se>"ence (Kayne 19RO. 8/)$ %o
acco"nt 'or the complementarity o' clitics an! non0clitic arg"ments in 1rench&
Kayne posits the <ovement hypothesis. clitics are generate! as complements to
the verb& receiving case in that position& an! move "par! to a!#oin to the verb
beca"se o' their proso!ic ea)ness$
Since clitics originate as hea!s o' phrasal complements an! receive case&
this entails that case is not available 'or its nominal co"nterpart& at least not 'rom
the verbG hence the "ngrammaticality o' (*/c)$ 1or Kayne& then& clitics are
pronominal hea!s o' phrases& an! receive case an! theta0role assignment as
verbal complements$ %hey a!#oin to the verb beca"se they are proso!ically ea)$
%his acco"nts 'or 1rench$ %he 'olloing tree ill"strates Kayne's analysis.
(**)
*6
-oever& the complementary !istrib"tion o' clitics an! D2s in 1rench
!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 'olloing&
(*Oa) 'rom =ioplatense Spanish an! (*Ob) 'rom =omanian.
(*O) a$ lo vimos a #uan =ioplatense
/s<$344 see$1p2S% E< J"an
'8e sa J"an$'
b$ l 0 am v\z"t pe Popescu =omanian
/s<$3440 3"7$1p2S% see$215 E< 2opesc"
', have seen 2opesc"$'
%he e7istence o' clitic !o"bling challenges the "niversality o' a movement
hypothesis 'or clitics$ ,n or!er to reconcile this !ata ith a movement
e7planation& analysts li)e 3o"n (1981) posite! that !o"ble! ob#ects ere
a!#"ncts& not arg"ments$ Kayne arg"e! this as ell& shoing that clitic !o"bling
as only grammatical in =omance hen a !o"bling0licensing preposition
prece!e! the !o"ble! ob#ect (Kayne's Generalization)$
3s e have seen& hoever& !o"ble! ob#ects pattern li)e arg"ments$
3rg"ing against 3o"n (1981) an! Kayne (19RO)& an! ith the vie that !o"ble!
ob#ects ere arg"ments& (orer (198*) an! Jaeggli (1986) posit that the clitic as
base0generate! in its s"r'ace position as an a!#"nct to 5$ %hese analyses acco"nt
'or Kayne's Generalization by arg"ing& li)e <ovement analyists& that the clitic is
a case0absorber& hich motivates the presence o' the licensing preposition& hich
is a case0assigner$ %he 'olloing tree capt"res the base0generation approach to
clitic !o"bling.
*R
(*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 'olloing tree (3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O)& ith ec signi'ying the
empty category.
(*R)
1or (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
allos 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 beteen
lang"ages that allo DE4D li)e Spanish& an! those that !o not& li)e 1renchF
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$ 1or
Spanish& some interaction beteen 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 shon in the 'olloing 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
(*8)
("t , have shon 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 to !ialects o' Spanish& as ell as others s"ch as <i7oachan
Spanish (2ar!o X Santa 3nna ?@@?)& optionally allo s"ch violations o' Kayne's
Generalization& b"t Gree) in 'act systematically violates it$ 4onsi!er the
'olloing$ (*9a) is 'rom DS& a variation 'rom (1) earlier in this paperN (*9c) is 'rom
<i7oachan SpanishN an! (*9c) is 'rom Gree)$ %he Gree) e7ample !i''ers 'rom the
Spanish ones in that the verbal complement is animate& b"t all three e7amples are
nevertheless violations o' KG.
(*9) a$ lo leC el libro Dominican Spanish
/s<$344 rea!1s2S% Det$s< boo)
', rea! the boo)$'
O@
b$ la tienen la herramienta <i7oachan Spanish
/s1$344 have$/p2=KS Det$s1 tool
'%hey have the tool$'
c$ ton i!ame to 0annis Gree)
/s<$344 see$1p2S% Det$s< ,annis
', sa John$'
3 movement analysis o' Spanish clitics& here clitics are case0absorbing hea!s o'
phrasal complements to the verb& !epen!s on interpreting the ob#ect mar)er a as
a case0assigner$ -oever& (*9) presents a clear challenge to the movement
hypothesis& an! prima facie motivates a pre'erence 'or the base0generation
hypothesis$ ("t para!o7ically& (*9) also calls into >"estion base0generation
hypotheses along the lines o' (orer (198*)& here clitics are case0absorbers$ ,'
clitics absorb case& ho !o the !o"ble! ob#ects in (*9) get their caseF
Kven i' one propose! that the !o"ble! ob#ects are arg"ments an! the
'licensing preposition' 'or DE4D is not in 'act a preposition& b"t assigns the
!o"ble! ob#ect case by some other means& ob#ect mar)er a is not available to
assign case 'or !o"ble! inanimates& since it only mar)s speci'ic animate ob#ects$
, have shon here that lang"ages s"ch as 1rench here clitics an! !irect
ob#ects are in complementary !istrib"tion s"pport movement hypotheses& hile
lang"ages ith clitic !o"bling hich abi!es by KG s"pport certain base0
generation hypotheses$ -oever& instances o' DE4D hich violate KG present a
problem 'or both approaches$ (e'ore consi!ering a sol"tion& , 'irst !isc"ss
S"+er's gro"n!brea)ing research into DE4D speci'icity e''ects& hich move!
or) on clitics aay 'rom case0theoretic approaches$
O1
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 9: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 9: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 beteen clitic !o"bling an! !i''erential ob#ect mar)ing (DE<). clitic
!o"bling can only ever occ"r in a s"bset o' the environments in hich
!i''erential ob#ect mar)ing occ"rs& since the latter licenses the 'ormer$
3n! this seems to acco"nt 'or the 'acts in stan!ar! Spanish an! !ialects
li)e =ioplatense hich& as , ill sho& allo !o"bling only 'or speci'ic animates$
-oever& connection beteen DE4D an! DE< is calle! into >"estion by
!ialects li)e 2orte+o an! Dominican Spanish (DS)& here DE4D is alloe!
itho"t a preposition hea!ing the !o"ble! ob#ect& as in the 'olloing 'rom
2orte+o (S"+er 1988. /990*@@).
(O@) yo lo voy a comprar el diario #"sto
1s /s<$344 go$1s2=KS to b"y$,A1 Det$s< nespaper #"st
antes !e s"bir
be'ore o' rise$,A1
','m going to b"y the nespaper right be'ore coming "p$'
O?
%he grammaticality o' s"ch sentences shos that& at least in 2orte+o& clitics !o
not absorb case& since the !o"ble! ob#ect in (O@) is in arg"ment position& an! is
"ttere!& S"+er claims& ith "nbro)en intonation$ 3s ell& (O@) shos 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)$
K7amining !ata 'rom =ioplatense an! 2orte+o& S"+er (1988) 'ollos 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! <ace!onian (Kall"lli ?@@1& 3nagnastopo"lo" ?@@O& Kall"lli X
%asmos)i ?@@8)$ (leam !"bs this the ,n!epen!ence -ypothesis (1999)G clitic
!o"bling an! !i''erential ob#ect mar)ing are not inherently connecte!$
,nstea! S"+er posits that clitics are agreement a''i7es base0generate! in
their s"r'ace positions hich m"st match in 'eat"res ith coin!e7e! !o"ble!
ob#ects s"ch that they bear the same arg"ment relation (the <atching 2rinciple)$
,n e7amples li)e (O@) above& beca"se the clitic !oes not receive case& the !o"ble!
ob#ect's case is chec)e! as it o"l! hen the clitic is not present$ 3s a res"lt&
S"+er arg"es against the proposal that the ob#ect mar)er is a case0assigner$
1inally& she arg"es that 344 clitics& "nli)e D3% clitics& are inherently
speci'ic$ %here'ore& 344 clitics cannot !o"ble 90speci'ic; ob#ects$ 4onsi!er the
'olloing 'rom =ioplatense Spanish& spo)en in 3rgentina$ (O1a) shos that
DE4D is grammatical ith proper names an! !e'inite animates (h"man an!
non0h"man)$ (O1b) shos it is grammatical ith in!e'inite animates establishe!
as speci'ic. i' the ob#ect mar)er a is absent& the sentence is "ngrammatical$ (O1c)
an! (O1!) sho that regar!less o' the ob#ect mar)er's presence& DE4D is
"ngrammatical ith alguien an! !e'inite non0speci'ics& since as , !isc"sse!
O/
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 S -aria / la ni1a
/s1$344 hear$/p2S%$2=G E< <aria M Det$s1 girl
/ la gata T
M Det$s1 cat T
'%hey hear! <aria M the girl M the cat$'
b$ in!e'inite animates establishe! as speci'ic may be !o"ble!
!iariamente& la esc"chaba D(a2 una mu.er +ue
!aily /s1$344 hear$/s2S%$2=G E< one oman ho
cantaba tangos
sing$/s2S% tangos
'Daily& sMhe hear! a oman ho sang tangos$'
c$ alguien cannot be !o"ble!
(Dlo) b"scaban a alguien
/s<$344 see)$/p2S%$2=G E< someone
'%hey ere loo)ing 'or someone$'
!$ !e'inite non0speci'ics cannot be !o"ble!
(Dla) alabar]n a la ni1a +ue
/s1$344 orship$/p1J% E< Det$s1 girl 4mpl
termine primero
'inish$/s2=KS$SJ(J 'irst
'%hey ill praise the girl ho 'inishes 'irst$'
O*
,E4D& on the other han!& is grammatical ith alguien an! ob#ects in s"b#"nctive0
moo! cla"ses.
(O?) a$ le !ar]n algo a alguien
/sD3% give$/p1J% something E< someone
'%hey ill give something to someone$'
b$ le !ar]n algo a$l ni1o +ue
/sD3% give$/p1J% something E<0Det$s< boy 4mpl
termine primero
'inish$/s2=KS$SJ(J 'irst
'%hey ill give a prize to the boy ho 'inishes 'irst$'
(O1) shos !e'initeness cross0c"ts speci'icity& so to spea). Spanish can have
!e'inite speci'ics as in (O1a)& in!e'inite speci'ics as in (O1b) (an! conversely&
in!e'inite nonspeci'ics& as (O1b) itho"t the ob#ect mar)er a o"l! be
"ngrammatical)& an! !e'inite nonspeci'ics& as in (O1!)$ ("t these !ata are also
problematic in that they call into >"estion the notion o' the ob#ect mar)er as an
enco!er o' speci'icity in the synta7& since the presence o' it in (O1c) an! (O1!)
!oes not ren!er these sentences grammatical& an! the ob#ect mar)er is obligatory
'or the grammatical& non0!o"ble! co"nterparts o' these& as in the 'olloing.
(O/) a$ b"scaban a alguien
see)$/p2S%$2=G E< someone
'%hey ere loo)ing 'or someone$'
b$ alabar]n a la ni1a +ue
orship$/p1J% E< Det$s1 girl 4mpl
termine primero
'inish$/s2=KS$SJ(J 'irst
'%hey ill praise the girl ho 'inishes 'irst$'
OO
2erhaps& then& it is animacy hich is the g"i!ing 'actor 'or the
obligatoriness o' the ob#ect mar)er& an! its speci'icity e''ects are not syntactically
enco!e!& b"t simply arise 'rom interpretation an! !isco"rse conte7t$ ,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<$
1olloing S"+er's claim& this means that the le7ical entry 'or the 344 clitics
contains 9:speci'ic;& hile the le7ical entry 'or D3% clitics !oes not$
1"rther evi!ence that speci'icity is at play ith respect to DE4D is the
'olloing& hich shos that h0e7traction o' a !o"ble! ob#ect is "ngrammatical
"nless the !o"ble! ob#ect is a partitive constr"ction$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(O*) a$ ^a +uin (Dlo) entrevistaronF
E< ho /s<$344 intervie$/p2S%
'8ho !i! they intervieF'
b$ ^a cu%l candidato (Dlo) entrevistaronF
E< hich can!i!ate /s<$344 intervie$/p2S%
'8hich can!i!ate !i! they intervieF'
c$ ^a cu%l de los candidatos lo entrevistaronF
O6
E< hich o' Det$p< can!i!ates /s<$344 intervie$/p2S%
'8hich o' the to can!i!ates !i! they intervieF'
-oever& ,E4D is per'ectly grammatical 'or h0e7tracte! ob#ects.
(OO) a$ ^a +uin le !ieron el premioF
E< ho /sD3% give$/p2S% Det$s< prize
'%o hom !i! they give the prizeF'
b$ ^a cu%l candidato le !ieron el premioF
E< hich can!i!ate /sD3% give$/p2S% Det$s< prize
'8hich can!i!ate !i! they intervieF'
c$ ^a cu%l de los candidatos le !ieron
E< hich o' Det$p< can!i!ates /sD3% give$/p2S%
el premioF
Det$s< prize
'8hich o' the to can!i!ates !i! they intervieF'
Jn!er the ass"mption that partitive constr"ctions are inherently speci'ic&
analyzing 344 clitics as 9:speci'ic; an! D3% clitics as "n!erspeci'ie! 'or
speci'icity capt"res these !ata nicely$ Does partitivity ma)e DE4D o' h0
e7tracte! arg"ments grammatical& as (O*c) seems to shoF %he relationship
beteen speci'icity an! partitivity can be '"rther el"ci!ate! by consi!ering
>"anti'iers$ , !o so brie'ly in the 'olloing s"bsection$
2.2.1. Partitivity effects
, have shon that DE4D is only grammatical ith 'or h0e7tracte! arg"ments i'
they are partitive& hile no s"ch restriction on ,E4D e7ists$ 3ss"ming that
partitive constr"ctions are inherently speci'ic& an! since it seems that partititvity
OR
allos DE4D 'or a h0e7tracte! arg"ment& it is important to consi!er partitivity
ith respect to other arg"ments hich , have shon cannot be 3440!o"ble!&
s"ch as e7istential >"anti'iers$ =ecall that e7istential >"anti'iers are Hea)I
accor!ing to <ilsar)'s !istinction& an! that these )in!s o' e7pressions cannot be
3440!o"ble!$ , sho belo that an 344 clitic may only be present ith
e7istential >"anti'iers i' they hea! overt or covert partitive e7pressions& #"st li)e
h0e7tracte! arg"ments$ -oever& , "ltimately go on to arg"e that this 3440
partitive constr"ction is not an instance o' clitic !o"bling$
3s , previo"sly mentione!& DE4D is optional ith the "niversal
>"anti'ier an! e7pressions hea!e! by it across all Spanish !ialects (1ranco 199/&
3nagnostopo"lo" ?@@O).
(O6) a$ los vimos a todos
/p<$344 see$1p2S% E< all
'8e sa them all$'
b$ los vimos a to!os los hombres
/p<$344 see$1p2S% E< all Det$s< men
'8e sa all the men$'
8hat abo"t other >"anti'iersF =ecall <ilsar)'s strongMea) >"anti'ie!
e7pression !istinction an! consi!er the 'olloing$ (OR) shos 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) shos 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$ D la e7amino a una
/s1$344 e7amine$/s2S% E< one
'SMhe e7amine! one$'
O8
b$ D 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
/s1$344 e7amine$/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 ellas
o' them$'
'SMhe e7amine! some M many M several o' them$'
3ll o' these& hoever& 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 ellas2
/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 ellas2
(o' them$')
'%hey gave a prize to someMmanyMseveral o' them$'
,' both 344 clitics an! partitive constr"ctions are 9: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 9:speci'ic; inherently& they H!on't careI abo"t the
O9
hether the e7istential >"anti'ier hea!s a partitive& an! ,E4D is grammatical in
both cases& as (O9) shos$
1irstMsecon!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 'olloing.
(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$'
%his is also the case 'or h0e7tracte! ob#ects& hich are grammatical ith
'irstMsecon!0person clitics& as in the 'olloing.
(61) ^a +uin nos !ieron el premioF
E< ho ?p344 give$/p2S% Det$s< prize
'8hich o' "s ill they give the prize toF'
(S"+er 1988. *18)
%his can be analyze! as an instance o' 'covert partitivity&' tho"gh notably this is
conte7t0contingent$ Jttere! 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 'ollos.
(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$'
6@
,n the case o' /344 clitics& a covert partitive rea!ing similarly arises in s"ch a
conte7t$ %he 'olloing 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<$344 e7amine$/p2S% E< some
'%hey 'o"n! 'ive mon)eys an! e7amine! some o' them$'
%his covert partitivity in (6?) an! (6/) can be analyze! as an instance o' the clitic
!o"bling a partitive empty category (the complement to the e7istential
>"anti'ier) hich occ"pies the same position that the analogo"s& e7plicit partitive
22 (de nosotros 'o' "s' an! de elllos 'o' them'& respectively) occ"pies$ Since the
ass"mption here is that this position is an a!#"nct one& (O8)& (6?) an! (6/) are not
instances o' tr"e clitic !o"bling$ %here'ore& consi!er the 'olloing$ (6*) shos the
coin!e7ation relationship 'or the clitic an! its associate 'or (6?)& an! (6O) shos it
'or (6/)$ e here signi'ies an empty category$
(6*) a$ nos
i
e7aminaron a 9
_2
alg"nos

9
22
de nosotros
i
; ;
'%hey e7amine! some o' "s$'
b$ nos
i
e7aminaron a 9
_2
alg"nos

9 e
i
; ;
'%hey e7amine! some o' "s$'
(6O) a$ los
i
e7aminaron a 9
_2
alg"nos

9
22
de ellos
i
; ;
'%hey e7amine! some o' them$'
b$ los
i
e7aminaron a 9
_2
alg"nos

9
22
e
i
; ;
'%hey e7amine! some o' them$'
%his means that partitivity& hether overt or covert& can ren!er the presence o'
an 344 clitic grammatical$ ("t beca"se the associate o' the clitic in s"ch partitive
e7amples is an a!#"nct complement to a _2& these e7amples are not instances o'
tr"e DE4D& b"t more li)e !islocation$ %he relationship is nevertheless telling&
61
since the partitive complement o' a mo!i'ying >"anti'ier m"st alays be a strong
e7pression& in <ilsar)'s terms$ %his can be seen in the 'olloing.
(66) a$ three 9o' 9the boys;; !$ D three 9o' 9some boys;;
b$ three 9o' 9these boys;; e$ D three 9o' 9'eMmany boys;;
c$ three o' 9my 'rien!s;; '$ D three 9o' 9boys;;
Since this is a general property o' partitives& the same strongMea) contrast
appears in Spanish$
(6R) a$ tres 9!e 9los ni+os;; !$ D tres 9!e 9alg"nos ni+os;;
b$ tres 9!e 9estos ni+os;; e$ D tres 9!e 9pocosMm"chos ni+os;;
c$ tres 9!e 9mis amigos;; '$ D tres 9!e 9ni+os;
,n s"mmary& , have shon that in the case o' ea) >"anti'ie! e7pressions& covert
or overt partitivity allos a clitic to coin!e7 ith the _2 complement$ ("t , re#ect
these cases as instances o' !islocation& not !o"bling& since the element ith
hich the clitic bears the same arg"ment relation is in an a!#"nct position& not an
arg"ment position$ ,n or!er to ma)e this clearer& consi!er the 'olloing tree& in
hich the verb !oes not select a complement& an! the _2 is attache! to the tree
in an a!#"nct position.
(68)
6?
,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 'olloing tree.
(69)
%h"s& even as an important relationship beteen speci'icity an! partitivity !oes
e7ist& in that the partitive complement mo!i'ie! by a >"anti'ier m"st alays be a
strong e7pression in <ilsar)'s sense& these constr"ctions seem more li)e
e7amples o' clitic !islocation than clitic !o"bling& an! my goal in this section as
to sho that partitivity is not a "se'"l test 'or the role o' speci'icity in DS DE4D$
("t there are other 'actors at play !etermining speci'ic interpretation$ ,n
the ne7t s"bsection& , consi!er the relationship beteen speci'icity&
pres"ppositionality& an! scope$
6/
2.2.2. Scope and presuppositionality
S"+er's research shoe! that in Spanish& in!e'inites are ambig"o"s ith respect
to being interprete! as pres"ppositional or e7isentialG 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 <ilsar)'s ea) >"anti'ie! e7pressions& hile in!e'inites hich
pres"ppose an entity's e7istence correspon! to <ilsar)'s strong >"anti'ie!
e7pressions$ S"+er's claim is that 344 clitics are 9:speci'ic;& an! the presence o'
an 344 clitic is hat gives an e7pression that o"l! otherise pattern as ea) a
strong interpretation$ 8ith this in min!& consi!er the 'olloing minimal pair$
(R@) a$ lo he visto a un marinero.
/s<$344 3"7$1s2S% see$215 E< one sailor
', have seen one o' the sailors$'

b$ he visto a un marinero.
3"7$1s2S% see$215 E< one sailor
', have seen a sailor$'
3s in!icate! by the glosses& the !o"ble! re'erent in (R@a) is a member o' an
alrea!y0intro!"ce! !isco"rse set. the e7istence o' the !o"ble! ob#ect is
pres"ppose!$ %his ma)es sense i' partitives are 9:speci'ic;& as , have mentione!
be'ore$ 1ranco (199/) analyzes this minimal pair as 'ollos& in the spirit o' S"+er
(1988). since most !ialects o' Spanish hich allo !o"bling abi!e by Kayne's
Generalization& it is only in the case o' h"man in!e'inites here DE4D has
interpretive e''ects& serving as a !isambig"ator beteen e7istential an!
pres"ppositional rea!ings$ 3n!& in 'act& later or) by S"+er (1999) arg"es that
DE4D is obligatory 'or strong prono"ns in stan!ar! Spanish precisely beca"se
6*
strong prono"ns re'er to pres"ppose! entities ((elloro ?@@R)$ 3s 'or the ob#ect
mar)er& 1ranco posits that its central role is mar)ing animacy& not speci'icity$
-o is it that the clitic in!icates the pres"ppositionality o' the !o"ble!
ob#ect (R@a)F 1irst& given that it is only grammatical in a 'elicitio"s !isco"rse
conte7t& , arg"e that pres"ppositionality can be activate! by !isco"rse0lin)ing&
later going on to sho that the anser to a >"estion may contain a !o"ble!
ob#ect i' that ob#ect is mentione! in the >"estion& th"s ren!ering it
pres"ppositional by !isco"rse0lin)ing$
, also arg"e that a speci'ic interpretation emerges 'rom 520e7ternal scope$
1olloing Diesing's <apping -ypothesis (199?)& , arg"e that 520internal
in'ormation is novel an! 'oc"se!& hile 520e7ternal in'ormation is pres"ppose!$
%here'ore& speci'ic D2s m"st be pro#ecte! e7ternal to the 52 at 61 in or!er to
licitly map to semantic representations (Diesing 199?)$ %he non0!o"ble! verbal
complement in (R@b) above is novel in'ormation beca"se it remains ithin the
scope o' the verb (von -e"singer ?@@/)$ DE4D is available in this conte7t
beca"se the verb is not intensional an! th"s !oes not set "p a scope !omain& an!
, arg"e that in (R@a) the ob#ect has evac"ate! the 52 in or!er to ta)e i!e scope
an! th"s a pres"ppositional& speci'ic (partitive) rea!ing$ E' co"rse& i' , am right
that covert partitives li)e (R@a) are not instances o' clitic !o"bling& then in or!er
to consi!er my claim regar!ing scope an! pres"ppositionality , m"st loo) at
scopal interactions beteen arg"ments& not a!#"ncts$ , !o so belo$
1olloing -"rta!o 198*& S"+er claims that >"anti'ie! ,E4D constr"ctions
are ambig"o"s beteen a i!e an! narro scope rea!ing as in (R1)& hile
>"anti'ie! DE4D constr"ctions only receive i!e scope interpretation as in (R?)$
%here'ore& in (R?b) belo& the only interpretation available to the sentence is the
6O
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 electores
every can!i!ate /s$D3% say$/s2S% Det$s< tr"th E< some voters
'Kvery can!i!ate tol! the tr"th to some voters$'
a$ Aarro scope. every can!i!ate tol! some voters the tr"th
b$ 8i!e scope. every can!i!ate tol! the same set o' voters the tr"th
(R?) ca!a elector los eligio a algunos candidatos
Det$s< voter /p<$344 elect$/s2S% E< some can!i!ates
'Kvery voter electe! some o' the can!i!ates$'
5 a$ Aarro scope. Kvery voter has electe! some s"bset o' the set o'
can!i!ates
b$ Kvery voter has selecte! the same s"bset o' can!i!ates
8hy is it that the 3440!o"ble! _2 in (R?) m"st ta)e i!e scopeF , posit that it is
beca"se speci'ic arg"ments m"st 'evac"ate' the 52& lan!ing in the Spec o' the
'"nctional pro#ection hea!e! by the clitic in or!er to ta)e 520e7ternal scope$
("t only certain )in!s o' ob#ects can ta)e 520e7ternal scope$ Ethers m"st
stay ithin the scope !omain set "p by the verb$ =ecall my earlier !isc"ssion
regar!ing verbal complements mo!i'ie! by relative0moo! s"b#"nctive cla"ses$
3s evi!ence 'or this consi!er S"+er's !ata regar!ing the e''ect that cla"sal moo!
has on the availability o' DE4D$ She shos that in =ioplatense& in!e'inite
inanimates mo!i'ie! by a relative cla"se may "n!ergo DE4D only i' that relative
cla"se is in the in!icative moo!$ <y DS spea)ers also share! these #"!gments$
4onsi!er the 'olloing (6eonetti ?@@R).
66
(R/) a$ lo b"sco a un doctor +ue sabe
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< one !octor 4mpl )no$/s2=KS
francs
1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a !octor ho spea)s 1rench$'
b$ D lo b"sco a un doctor +ue sepa
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< one !octor 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J
francs
1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a !octor ho spea)s 1rench$'
3 s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"se !oes not pres"ppose the e7istence o'
the re'erent it mo!i'ies (beca"se it is nonre'erential)& hile an in!icative0moo!
relative cla"se !oes$ %hat is& the !o"ble! arg"ment in (R/a) has a re'erent& an!
beca"se its e7istence is pres"ppose! , ta)e this arg"ment to have evac"ate! the
52$ DE4D is "ngrammatical in (R/b) beca"se 'or vario"s reasons& the !o"ble!
arg"ment m"st stay ithin the 52. it is novel in'ormation an! is mo!i'ie! by a
s"b#"nctive0moo! relative cla"se& th"s m"st remain in the scopal !omain set "p
by its c0comman!ing verb$ %here'ore only re'erential& pres"ppositional
arg"ments can "n!ergo DE4D in or!er to ta)e a speci'ic rea!ing$ %his rea!ing is
achieve! by evac"ating the 52 to ta)e 520e7ternal scope$ 3s s"ch& consi!er the
'olloing$ Kven tho"gh the in!e'inite animates are mo!i'ie! by in!icative0moo!
relative cla"ses& the D2s cannot scope o"t o' the 52 beca"se the in'ormation is
novel& an! not pres"ppose!.
6R
(R*) a$ D lo b"sca a un mdico +ue vino
/s<$344 see)$/s2=KS E< one !octor ho come$/s2S%
de 67 a'er
'rom AU yester!ay
'SMhe is loo)ing 'or a !octor that came 'rom A$U$ yester!ay$'
b$ D lo b"sca a un hombre +ue lleva
/s<$344 see)$/s2=KS E< one man ho ear$/s2=KS
camisa a8ul
shirt bl"e
'SMhe is loo)ing 'or a man earing a bl"e shirt$'
%o acco"nt 'or these 'acts& an! in the spirit o' <ilsar) 19RR an! Diesing's 199?
<apping -ypothesis& 1ranco claims that DE4D is "se! as a !isambig"ating
mechanism in the case o' arg"ments hea!e! by ea) >"anti'iers s"ch as un,
unos, alguno, etc (that is& those hich are 'nonspeci'ic' in that they can appear in
e7istential cla"ses as e have previo"sly !e'ine!)$ %hese )in!s o' arg"ments are
ambig"o"s ith respect to hether they are to be interprete! as
pres"ppositional or not& an! the DE clitic serves to enco!e pres"ppositionality$
%h"s& 1ranco's arg"ment (199/& ?@@/) is that clitics g"arantee that an
arg"ment cannot be interprete! e7istentially& only pres"ppositionally$
G"tirrez0=e7ach (?@@1) an! Kall"lli X %asmos)i (?@@8)& 'or Spanish an!
(al)an lang"ages respectively& sho that pres"ppositionality an! 'oc"s are
m"t"ally e7cl"sive$ %here'ore& 'ocalize! arg"ments (i$e$& 1oc"s 2hrases) cannot
"n!ergo DE4D$ , b"il! on this claim 'or my analysis o' DS& since
pres"ppositionality seems li)e a re>"irement 'or arg"ments hich see) to
evac"ate the 52 in or!er to ta)e a speci'ic interpretation$
68
Kvi!ence o' pres"ppositionality being a prere>"isite 'or DE4D can be
seen 'rom (al)an an! Slavic lang"ages$ ,n the 'olloing e7amples& , sho that in
3lbanian an! Gree)& DE4D is only grammatical i' the !o"ble! ob#ect is
pres"ppose! an! th"s not in the 'oc"s !omain$ ,n (RO)& the >"estion 'rames the
'oc"s as the occ"rring event. the anser to the >"estion (that is& hat is in the
'oc"se! phrase) cannot "n!ergo clitic !o"bling$ -oever& , sho in (R6) that
DE4D is per'ectly grammatical in 3lbanian an! Gree) (itho"t an ob#ect
mar)er& notably) i' the >"estion mentions the anser's !o"ble! ob#ect& hich
ren!ers it pres"ppositional.
(RO) 8hat happene!F M 8hat !i! Jan !oF
a$ Jan0i (Di) h`ngri fasule$t 3lbanian
Jan0AE< /p<$344 eat$/s2S% beans0Det$p
'Jan ate the beans$'
b$ o U]nnis (Dta) P'aye ta fas9lia Gree)
Det$s< Uannis /p1$344 eat$/s2S% Det$p1 beans
'Uannis ate the beans$'
3gain& DE4D is grammatical i' the >"estion mentions the ob#ect !o"ble! in the
anser& ren!ering it pres"ppositional an! th"s m"t"ally e7cl"sive ith the 'oc"s
!omain (hich in this case is the i!entity o' the agent o' the pres"ppose! action).
(R6) 8ho rea! the boo)F M 8hat !i! 3na !o ith the boo)F
a$ 3na e le7oi libr$in 3lbanian
3na /s<$344 rea!$/s2S% boo)0Det$344
'3na rea! the boo)$'
b$ i 3na to !iavase to vivlio Gree)
Det$s1 3na /s<$344 rea!$/s2S% Det$s< boo)
'3na rea! the boo)$'
69
%his is also tr"e 'or ("lgarian (1ranco ?@@@& (elloro ?@@R)$ (RR) belo shos that
pismoto can only be 3440!o"ble! in the anser 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$ 8hat happene!F M 8hat !i! ,vo !oF
,vo (Dgo) napisa pismoto
,vo /s<$344 rite$/s2S% letter$344
a,vo rote the letter$b
b$ 8hat happene! to the letterF M 8ho rote the letterF
,vo (go) napisa pismoto
,vo /s<$344 rite$/s2S% letter$344
a,vo rote the letter$b
1inally& =omanian presents similar 'acts (Gierling 199R. 6R).
(R8) a$ 8hat are yo" !oingF
D il ca"t pe John
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< John
','m loo)ing 'or John$'
b$ 8ho are yo" loo)ing 'orF M 8here's JohnF
(il) ca"t pe John
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< John
','m loo)ing 'or John$'
,n concl"sion& speci'ic interpretation (i!e or 520e7ternal scope) is only
available to re'erential& pres"ppositional arg"ments$ 2res"ppositionality is o'ten
activate! by !isco"rse0lin)ing$ %he reason only pres"ppositional arg"ments
may be speci'ic is beca"se novel in'ormation remains ithin the 52& an! th"s
this novel in'ormation cannot evac"ate the 52 in or!er to ta)e 520e7ternal scope
(speci'ic interpretation)$ Kvi!ence shoing the "ngrammaticality o' DE4D 'or
R@
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 'ollos. since certain !eterminers
have >"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"bly01ille! 5oice 1ilter (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$ 8hether the
'"nctional hea! o' this 3cc2 has correspon!ing 21 material is !etermine! by a
H21 2arameterI hich only allos the spello"t o' hea!s that are in agreement
relations 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
shoe! 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$ 1"rther&
the !evelopment o' the theoretical machinery s"ch as 2olloc)'s 'e7pansion' o' the
,A160hea! an! the proli'eration o' '"nctional categories (2olloc) 1989)& alloe!
'or the possibility o' (i) reconciling base0generation an! movement approaches
an! (ii) positing 'split' analyses o' clitics& here these to classes constit"te
!i''erent syntactic elements (1ranco 199/& Jriagere)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 Jriagere)a's (ig D2 hypothesis (199O) an! Sportiche's 4litic 5oices proposal
(1996)$
Aoting the similarities beteen !eterminers an! /344 clitics& Jriagere)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 "par! 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 'olloing 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?
, !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 beteen 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 <apping
hypothesis (Diesing 199?)& hich posits that speci'ic D2s m"st be pro#ecte!
e7ternal to the 52 in or!er to licitly map to semantic representations (at 6ogical
1orm or 61)$
Sportiche arg"es that in non0!o"ble! clitic constr"ctions& the synta7 is the
same& e7cept that the complement to the verb is an empty category$ %o ill"strate
this& , present a tree belo 'or the 'olloing sentence.
R/
(8@) te lo man!amos
?sD3% /s<$344 sen!$1p2S%
'8e sent it to yo"$'
,n (81) belo& , ta)e the to '"nctional pro#ections to be beteen the %ense hea!
an! the 5 hea!& since Spanish verbs raise to % an! pres"mably this is here
clitics a!#oin to their verbal hosts$ %he or!ering o' the '"nctional pro#ection
sre'lects the rigi! or!ering o' clitic cl"stering& i' yo"'ll recall 'rom chapter 1.
,<2M=16VWD3%W344$
,n this tree& the empty category (ec) in the D2 raises to the Speci'ier
position o' the 3cc2 to chec) the 3cc hea!'s "ninterpretable 'eat"re (in!icate! by
'"1')$ %his 'eat"re m"st be val"e! against a D2$ %he pronominal s"b#ect (in
parentheses beca"se Spanish is pro0!rop) raises 'rom 520internal Speci'ier
position to Spec%2& 'olloing 6arson's 520internal s"b#ect hypothesis (, !o not
sho the movement line 'or aesthetic p"rposes)$ %he 5 hea! raises to % an! the
clitics 'ollo s"it 'rom proso!ic ea)ness$
R*
(81)
3s , ill"strate above& , am arg"ing that movement to Spec3cc2& !riven by
'eat"re0chec)ing& occ"rs even hen the 344 clitic !oesn't !o"ble anything$ %his
is& in a sense& hat S"+er (1988) means hen she arg"es that 344 clitics are
Hinherently speci'ic$I Since D3% clitics !o not re>"ire s"ch movement an! th"s
!o not re>"ire their !o"bles to be speci'ic& hen D3% clitics occ"r in "n!o"ble!
constr"ctions& there is no V2 associate! ith the Dat2$
1olloing Diesing's (199?) <apping -ypothesis& , arg"e that the !e'a"lt
position o' in!e'inites at 61 mirrors their 21 position. they remain in
complement0to0verb position as novel in'ormation$ , posit that speci'ic
arg"ments evac"ate the 52 to lan! in the speci'ier o' the '"nctional pro#ection
hea!e! by the clitic$ ,n (8?) belo& , sho that movement o"t o' the 52 is not
RO
possible 'or the in!e'inite D2 un libro, beca"se it cannot ta)e a speci'ic
interpretation& hich arises 'rom D2s ta)ing 520e7ternal scope$
("t 'irst& hy is DE4D "ngrammatical ith ob#ects that stay insi!e the
52 to receive non0speci'ic interpretationF , arg"e along the lines o' Sportiche's
Do"bly01ille! 5oice 1ilter (199/)$ Sportiche's 1ilter is a cross0ling"istic parameter
hich !etermines hether a 4litic 5oice can have its -ea! an! Spec positions
sim"ltaneo"sly 'ille!$ -e arg"es that in lang"ages itho"t DE4D& the Do"bly0
1ille! 5oice 1ilter is in e''ect 'or the 344 4litic 5oice& hile in lang"ages ith
DE4D& the 1ilter is not active$
1olloing Sportiche's line o' analysis& , posit that Spanish /344 clitics
hea! '"nctional pro#ections hose Spec positions must be 'ille! in or!er to chec)
an "ninterpretable 'eat"re ith a matching interpretable 'eat"re$ %he '"nctional
hea! probes its c0comman! !omain 'or a goal ith matching 'eat"res$
8ith this in min!& consi!er the 'olloing tree$ %he M M signi'y
"navailability o' movement& since at 61 the in!e'inite m"st remain 520internal to
allo a non0speci'ic interpretation an! '"nction as novel in'ormation$ %his ma)es
sense i' one consi!ers that generally& in!e'inites are "se! to intro!"ce ne
in'ormation into !isco"rse (Kall"lli X %asmos)i ?@@8)$ ,t is only hen
!isco"rse allos them to ta)e a speci'ic& 520e7ternal interpretation that they can
lan! in the Speci'ier o' the '"nctional pro#ection hea!e! by the clitic$ 8hen the
ob#ect m"st stay ithin the 52& s"ch as in the case o' (8?) belo here un libro is
intro!"cing novel in'ormation& DE4D is "ngrammatical$
R6
(8?)
%he reason 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 is
nonspeci'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$
<y proposal& then& is that 'or sentences li)e (5lo2 lei un libro& the 3cc2 is
simply not present. it is not entere! into the !erivation !"ring n"meration& since
it is not re>"ire! to license the movement o' the !irect ob#ect$ ,n!e'inites only
evac"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 10hea! is empty$ , posit that the correct tree 'or (8@) above is as
'ollos.
RR
(8/)
1"rther& , posit that this synta7 is "ni'orm across !ialects. any time a Spanish
e7pression has a speci'ic interpretation& the !erivation 'or that e7pression
constr"cts a '"nctional hea! ith an "ninterpretable 'eat"re hich nee!s to be
chec)e!$ %his 'eat"re0chec)ing motivates the !o"ble's raising in or!er to ta)e
speci'ic& 520e7ternal interpretation$ 8hat !i''ers across !ialects is not& , arg"e&
the grammatical stat"s o' the clitic& in hich case the variation o"l! be a case o'
grammaticalization aay 'rom clitics being prono"ns& as in stan!ar! Spanish& to
clitics being agreement mar)ers& as in 2orte+o or DS$ ,nstea!& , posit that 'or
certain !ialects a parameter is active hich only allos 3cc2 to s"r'ace i'
Spec3cc2 is 'ille! by an empty category& a strong prono"n& or certain )in!s o'
animates (!epen!ing on the strictness o' the !ialect& the parameter ill have
!i''erent settings)$ %here'ore& in stan!ar! Spanish the parameter only allos the
3cc hea! to be spelle! o"t at 21 i' the '"nctional pro#ection is in an agreement
relation ith a strong prono"n or an empty category$ 3n! since 2orte+o allos
DE4D #"st in case the arg"ment is speci'ic& this parameter is not active 'or these
spea)ers$
R8
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 H21 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 beteen 344 an! D3% clitics comes !on to the
10hea!'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 Spec12& 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$ 8hile ,
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 61 consists o' 520internal elements$ %he
'olloing e7amples 'rom 3lbanian ill"strate my claim ell$ (8*) shos that in
3lbanian& DE4D is obligatory hen the !irect ob#ect is o"tsi!e the 'oc"s !omain
(Kall"lli ?@@@& Doce)al X Kall"lli ?@1?)G 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 !omainG hen it has not been mentione! in the >"estionG it cannot
be clitic0!o"ble!$ %hese e7amples correspon! to the ones , gave 'rom Gree)&
("lgarian& an! =omanian earlier$
(8*) 3. 8hat !i! 3na !oF M 8hat !i! 3na rea!F
(. 3na (De) le7oi librin
3na /s<$344 rea!$/s2S% boo)$the
a3nna rea! the boo)$b
R9
(8O) 3. 8ho rea! the boo)F
(. 3na D(e) le7oi librin$
(86) 3. 8hat !i! 3na !o ithMto the boo)F
(. 3na D(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 optionalG an! the phonological realization o' the '"nctional hea!
(the clitic) varies cross0!ialectally& as !etermine! by the H21 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 Hea)I (in <ilsar)'s terms) is ma!e
possible by their e7cl"sion 'rom the 'oc"s !omain by !isco"rse& an! the presence
o' Spec3cc2 allos the normally0ea) e7pression to evac"ate the 52$
, teste! hether !isco"rse co"l! ren!er a negative polarity item s"ch as
nadie available 'or a speci'ic rea!ing thro"gh DE4D$ , 'o"n! that 3440!o"bling
nadie as grammatical only is a partitive conte7t as establishe! in a previo"s
cla"se.
(8R) D(J"an est] hablan!o con cinco gente)
J"an 3"7$/s2=KS spea)$2=G ith 'ive people
y no lo conozco a nadie
an! no /s<$344 )no$1s2=KS E< nobo!y
'J"an is spea)ing ith 'ive people an! , !on't )no anyone (@ o' O)$'
3t least on the s"r'ace this loo)s similar to the 'olloing.
8@
(88) D(J"an est] hablan!o con cinco gente)
J"an 3"7$/s2=KS spea)$2=G ith 'ive people
y no los conozco a ningunos
an! no /p<$344 )no$1s2=KS E< none
'J"an is spea)ing ith 'ive people an! , !on't )no any o' them$'
3n! prima facie one o"l! arg"e that this is an e7ample o' covert partitivityG
that is& that the clitics in (8R)G(88) above are not !o"bling nadie/ninguno, b"t are
in an agreement relation ith a partitive empty category hich the negative
polarity items mo!i'y$ Ene sho"l! e7pect that the to e7amples above
correspon! to analogo"s e7amples ith overt partitives$ ("t& as , sho in (9@)&
(8R) above is not in 'act grammatical ith an overt partitive& in!icating that (8R) is
an instance o' tr"e clitic !o"bling.
(89) 9 no 9los conozco 9a 9ningunos 9 !e ellos ;
(9@) D 9 no 9los conozco 9a 9nadie 9 !e ellos ;
%here'ore& (8R) act"ally provi!es goo! evi!ence 'or the importance o'
!isco"rse0lin)ing as regar!s the grammaticality o' DE4D$ ,t is only hen the
!isco"rse conte7t ren!ers a partitive semantic conte7t (hich (9@) above shos
!oes not nee! to have a phrasal co"nterpart& at least not a partitive 22) that the
negative polarity item nadie can evac"ate the 52 to lan! in 3cc2 an! ta)e speci'ic
interpretation$
,n s"mmary& , am proposing that clitics hea! '"nctional pro#ections hich
!i''er in at least one ay. 3cc2 re>"ires its Speci'ier position to be 'ille! by a D2
to val"e against its "ninterpretable 'eat"re& an! the 3cc hea! (the clitic) probes
its c0comman! !omain 'or an available goal$ Since arg"ments see)ing speci'ic
interpretation m"st be 520e7ternal by 61& i' the 'eat"res o' s"ch an arg"ment can
chec) the "ninterpretable on the '"nctional hea!& then the ob#ect lan!s in
Spec3cc2$ , '"rther arg"e that 3cc2 is alays constr"cte! in the !erivation& both
81
hen an 344 clitic occ"rs in a non0!o"ble! constr"ction& an! hen a speci'ic
arg"ment appears itho"t a clitic$ %he grammaticality o' the 3cc2 hea! being
spelle! o"t at 21 is !etermine! by a parameter that only allos the spelling o"t
o' 3cc2 hea!s in agreement relations ith certain )in!s o' arg"mentsG empty
categories an! strong prono"ns in stan!ar! Spanish& 'or e7ample$
2.4. Summary
,n this chapter , presente! previo"s analyses o' DE4D& moving 'rom early case0
theoretic !ebates beteen movement vs$ base0generation hypotheses to S"+er's
HcaselessI approach 'oc"sing on the speci'icity e''ects at play in DE4D$ ,
intro!"ce! Sportiche's Hclitic voicesI proposal (199/) an! mo!i'ie! it to present
my on analysis& hich in the 'olloing chapter ill be teste! against !ata 'rom
DS$
%he complementary !istrib"tion o' clitics an! nominals in 1rench an!
,talian le! Kayne (19RO) to posit that clitics ere generate! as complements to the
verb& receiving case in this position& an! raising to a!#oin to the verb beca"se o'
their proso!ic ea)ness$ -oever& the e7istence o' clitic !o"bling phenomena
challenge! this hypothesis& lea!ing analysts li)e (orer (198*) an! Jaeggli (1986)
to posit that clitics ere base0generate! as a!#"ncts to the verb$ 4litics absorbe!
case an! !o"ble! ob#ects receive! case 'rom the preposition that hea!e! them.
Kayne's Generalization posits that clitic !o"bling is only grammatical hen the
!o"ble! ob#ect is prece!e! by a preposition$
S"+er (1988) points o"t that in 2orte+o& DE4D as grammatical itho"t
s"ch a preposition$ She posits that clitics are not arg"ments an! !o not receive
case$ Do"ble! ob#ects pattern !i''erently 'rom !islocate! ones& an! th"s are not
8?
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
beteen 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 9:speci'ic; an! may only 'orm chains ith
arg"ments that match this 'eat"re$ , !isc"sse! her important claims an! shoe!
!isc"sse! the relationships beteen speci'icity& partivitiy& re'erentiality& an!
scope$
, posit D2s are interprete! as speci'ic hen they ta)e 520e7ternal scope
(Diesing 199?& 1ranco 199/& G"tierrez0=e7ach ?@@@& Kall"lli ?@@1)$ 1olloing
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 10hea!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 toar! a ay o'
"ni'ying cross0!ialectal Spanish DE4D variation$
8/
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 'ollos the =ioplatense Spanish
pattern in alloing DE4D only ith speci'ic animates& hile the yo"nger
generation 'ollos the 2orte+o Spanish pattern in alloing 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 'olloing.
(91) leC (Da) "n libro
rea!$1s2S% E< one boo)
', rea! a boo)$'
8hile most o' my spea)ers abi!e! by Kayne's Generalization& RM?1 o' them
alloe! DE4D ith inanimates& violating Kayne's Generalization$ 3ll o' them
ere "n!er /@$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing$ %he B signi'ies the grammaticality split
beteen yo"nger an! ol!er spea)ers.
8*
(9?) DS re>"ires DE4D ith strong prono"ns& an! allos it ith proper
names an! !e'inite animates.
a$ D (la) vC a ella
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< her
', sa her$'
b$ (la) vC a -arta
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< <arta
', sa <arta$'
c$ (la) vC a 3 la mu.er / la gata 4
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< Det$s1 oman M Det$s1 cat
', sa the oman M the cat$'
3s ell& ol!er spea)ers allo !o"bling ith many !i''erent )in!s o' animates&
b"t at a certain point along the Hanimacy hierarchyI DE4D becomes
"ngrammatical& since 'spi!er' cannot be 3440!o"ble!.
(9/) la vC a 3 la ave / la rana / 5 la ara1a 4
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< Det$s1 bir! M Det$s1 toa! M Det$s1 spi!er
', sa the bir!Mthe toa!Mthe spi!er$
Aone o' my spea)ers alloe! DE4D ith bare pl"rals or in!e'inite animates
"ttere! itho"t !isco"rse conte7t.
(9*) a$ (Dlas) vC a ni1as
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< girls
', sa girls$'
b$ (Dla) vC a una ni1a
/s1$344 see$1s2S% E< one girl
', sa a girl$'
8O
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<$344 rea!$1s2S% Det$s< boo)
', rea! the boo)$'
1or 1RM?1 o' my interloc"tors& in!e'inite animates ith a speci'ic rea!ing can be
!o"ble!$ %his rea!ing can be achieve! thro"gh a !e'inite partitive 22 mo!i'ying
the in!e'inite arg"ment$ %h"s& consi!er the 'olloing.
(96) a$ (Dla) vimos a una mu.er
/s1$344 see$1p2S% E< one oman
'8e sa a oman$'
b$ (Dlas) vimos a 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4
/p1$344 see$1p2S% E< some M many M vario"sM to
mu.eres
omen
'8e sa someMmanyMvario"sMto omen$'
c$ la vimos a una de las mu.eres
/s1$344 see$1p2S% E< one o' Det$p1 omen
'8e sa one o' the omen$'
!$ las vimos a 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4
/p1$344 see$1p2S% E< some M many M vario"sM to
de las mu.eres
o' Det$p1 omen
'8e sa someMmanyMseveralMto o' the omen$'
%he analogo"s inanimate e7amples ere only grammatical 'or yo"nger DS
spea)ers.
86
(9R) a$ (Dla) leimos una revista
/s1$344 rea!$1p2S% one magazine
'8e rea! a magazine$'
b$ (Dlas) leimos 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4
/p1$344 rea!$1p2S% some M many M several M to
revistas
magazines
'8e rea! someMmanyMvario"sMto magazines$'
c$ B la leimos una de las revistas
/s1$344 rea!$/p2S% one o' Det$p1 magazines
'8e rea! one o' the magazines$'
!$ B las leimos 3 algunas / muchas / varias / dos 4
/p1$344 rea!$1p2S% some M many M several M to
de las revistas
o' Det$s1 magazines
'8e rea! someMmanyMseveralMto o' the magazines$'
3s e7pecte!& across generations& only e7pressions patterning accor!ing to
<ilsar)'s notion o' HstrongI >"anti'iers can be 3440!o"ble! in DS$ , arg"e that
strong >"anti'iers are those hich raise o"t o' the 52 to ta)e i!e scope& an! be
interprete! pres"ppositionally$ 1actors at play ith respect to this are
intensionality an! moo! o' relative cla"se$ , consi!er these as regar!s DS in the
ne7t section$
8R
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 !isalloe! in this conte7t& an! DS spea)ers evi!ence!
this grammaticality #"!gment$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(98) (Dlo) b"sco a un hombre +ue sepa frances
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a man ho'! )no 1rench$'
8hen the relative cla"se mo!i'ying the !irect ob#ect as in!icative& the sentence
as grammatical& hich in!icates that at 61& the DE has raise! o"t o' the 52$ ,
posit that it lan!s in the Spec position o' the '"nctional pro#ection hea!e! by the
clitic$
(99) (lo) b"sco a un hombre +ue sabe frances
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/s2=KS 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a man ho )nos 1rench$'
Uo"nger DS spea)ers share! this #"!gment split 'or inanimates (as e7pecte!&
ol!er spea)ers 'o"n! both "ngrammatical).
(1@@) a$ (Dlo) b"sco un libro +ue sea en frances
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS one boo) 4mpl be$/sSJ(J in 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a boo) that'! be in 1rench$'
b$ (lo) b"sco un libro +ue sea en frances
/s<$344 see)$1s2=KS one boo) 4mpl be$/sSJ(J in 1rench
','m loo)ing 'or a boo) that's in 1rench$'
88
Strong evi!ence 'or the i!ea that intensional verbs set "p scope !omains in
hich in!e'inites may remain ithin the 52 an! ta)e non0speci'ic interpretation
comes 'rom verbs hich !o not set "p s"ch scope !omains$ %hese )in!s o' verbs
(He7tensionalI) cannot ta)e complements mo!i'ie! by s"b#"nctive0moo! relative
cla"ses& shon 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 'olloing.
(1@1) D conozco (a2 un hombre +ue sepa frances
)no$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/sSJ(J 1rench
', )no a man ho'! )no 1rench$'
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 (a2 un hombre +ue sabe frances
)no$1s2=KS E< one man 4mpl )no$/s2=KS 1rench
', )no a man ho )nos 1rench$'
%his is strong evi!ence 'or the claim that intensional verbs allo their
complements to remain ithin the 52 an! not be interprete! as pres"ppose!&
hile e7tensional verbs en'orce s"ch an interpretation. complements o' the latter
m"st evac"ate the 52$
%h"s& ,' Diesing (199?) is correct in arg"ing that speci'ic ob#ects 'evac"ate'
the 52& then in!e'inites ten! toar! 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
patterning ith !e'inites an! are grammaticalize! !iachronically an! cross0
ling"istically into agreement systems here patterning ith in!e'inites becomes
possible (Jriagere)a 199O. 86)$
8hat )in!s o' ob#ects can e7press a pres"ppose! entityF , have arg"e!
thro"gho"t this paper in the spirit o' <ilsar) (19R*) that those ob#ects hich
pattern li)e HstrongI >"anti'ie! e7pressions are those hich can be 3440
!o"ble!$ %hose e7pressions hich o"l! pattern li)e Hea)I >"anti'ie!
e7pressions are alloe! 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 beteen 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! toar! this rea!ing& this is not alays the case& as in the
'olloing& hich shos that !e'inite e7pressions re'erring to )in!s or concepts
cannot be !o"ble!.
(1@/) (Dlo) agra!ezgo el esfuer8o
/s<$344 appreciate$1s2=KS Det$s< e''ort
', appreciate e''ort$'
%h"s& , can posit that nonspeci'ic interpretation arises 'rom inhabiting the
52& hile speci'ic interpretation arises 'rom 520evac"ation$ ,n terms o' hat
)in!s o' ea) >"anti'iers are available 'or DE4D& it is clear that bare pl"rals
m"st alays stay ithin the 52 to ta)e non0speci'ic interpretation& since they can
never be 3440!o"ble!.
9@
(1@*) (Dlas) vimos a ni+as cantan!o en el par>"e
/p1$344 see$1p2S% a girls sing$/2=G in Det$s< par)
'8e sa girls singing in the par)$'
%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 'olloing
grammaticality #"!gments 'rom my DS spea)ers$
(1@O) shos that in situ !o"ble! bare in!e'inites cannot ta)e i!e scope
over s"b#ects& as in the 'olloing$ %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$/s2S% one
'Kach st"!ent smo)e! one$'
1$ Kvery W one (each st"!ent smo)e! a !i''erent one)
?$ D Ene W every (one as split among each st"!ent)
%he only rea!ing available here is one here each st"!ent has her on 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 'olloing& hich shos 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<$344 smo)e$/s2S%
'Kach st"!ent smo)e! it$'
1$ D Kvery W one
?$ Ene W every
91
b$ ca!a est"!iante '"mQ "n cigarillo
each st"!ent smo)e$/s2S% one cigarette
'Kach st"!ent smo)e! a cigarette$'
1$ Kvery W one
?$ Ene W every
("t i' this in!e'inite nominal is 3440!o"ble! only the i!e0scope rea!ing is
available& as in the 'olloing.
(1@R) !$ ca!a est"!iante lo '"mQ un cigarillo
each st"!ent /s<$344 smo)e$/s2S%
1$ D Kvery W one
?$ Ene W every
Since clitics are not >"anti'icational an! !o not ta)e scope& hat this co"l! mean
is that the presence o' the clitic ta)es an arg"ment li)e un cigarillo o"t o' hat
o"l! be its normal scopal interaction$ %his e7pression hich o"l! normally
pattern as a Hea)&I nonspeci'ic e7pression (that is& as a >"anti'ier being scope!
over by some i!e0scope >"anti'ier)& to pattern li)e a HstrongI speci'ic
e7pression s"ch as a !e'inite !eterminer or a strong prono"nG precisely the
)in! o' e7pression hich !oes not ta)e scope& an! th"s can only be interprete!
as speci'ic$ Since strong e7pressions are 520e7ternal& they !o not ta)e part in 520
internal scopal relations s"ch as those set "p by intensional verbs$ 4onse>"ently&
'or my yo"nger DS spea)ers& DE4D is "ngrammatical ith hen the
complement o' an intensional verb is mo!i'ie! by a s"b#"nctive0moo! relative
cla"se$
4onsi!er the 'olloing variation on (1@R)& here , change 'smo)e' to an
intensional verb& 'loo) 'or&' an! mo!i'y the complement ith a s"b#"nctive moo!
relative cla"se& hich i' yo" ill recall 'orces the e7pression to stay ithin the
9?
scopal !omain set "p by the verb$ <y yo"nger DS spea)ers 'o"n! this sentence
to be "ngrammatical.
(1@8) D ca!a est"!iante lo b"sca un cigarillo +ue
each st"!ent /s<$344 see)$/s2=KS one cigarette 4mpl
sea ro.o
be$/sSJ(J re!
'Kach st"!ent is loo)ing 'or a cigarette that o"l! be re!$'
Similar grammaticality #"!gments ere atteste! by my DS spea)ers 'or car!inal
>"anti'ier dos$ , teste! the 'olloing sentences 'rom G"tiPrrez0=e7ach (?@@@. //6)&
an! yo"nger DS spea)ers atteste! that i!e0scope rea!ing as the only one
available 'or dos libros hen it as 3440!o"ble!$ 4onsi!er the 'olloing.
(1@9) a$ tres est"!iantes leyeron !os libros
three st"!ents rea!$/p2S% to boo)s
'%hree st"!ents rea! to boo)s$'
1$ %hree st"!ents each rea! to boo)s (a !i''erent set 'or
each)$
?$ D %here ere to boo)s that three st"!ents rea!$
b$ tres est"!iantes los leyeron dos libros
three st"!ents /p<$344 rea!$/p2S% to boo)s
'%hree st"!ents rea! the to boo)s$'
1$ D %hree st"!ents rea! to boo)s (a !i''erent set 'or each)$
?$ %here ere to boo)s that three st"!ents rea!$
,n concl"sion& , have shon that in DS& as in other Spanish !ialects& intensional0
verb complements mo!i'ie! by relative cla"ses m"st stay ithin the scopal
!omain the intensional verb sets "p$ (eca"se their 520internality ren!ers them
nonspeci'ic& DE4D is "ngrammatical ith s"ch arg"ments$ %hese !ata provi!e
evi!ence 'or an analysis o' clitics as '"nctional hea!s hich license the !o"ble!
ob#ect to raise o' the 52 into the Speci'ier position o' the '"nctional pro#ection$
9/
3rg"ments that m"st stay 520internalG those hich are nonre'erential& or
hich m"st remain ithin the scopal !omains set "p by intensional verbs& or
novel in'ormationG are not available as goals 'or the '"nctional hea!& hich
probes into its c0comman! !omain 'or a D2 against hich to val"e its
"ninterpretable 'eat"re$ ,n light o' this& in the ne7t section , '"rther !isc"ss my
analysis o' the synta7 o' DE4D an! sho that it acco"nts 'or the DS !ata$ ,
consi!er hether it may be e7ten!e! to acco"nt 'or the cross0!ialectal DE4D
variation in Spanish$
3.3. The syntax of DOCD
S"+er (1988) says that DE4D is only grammatical ith speci'ic arg"ments& hile
this is not the case 'or ,E4D$ She posits speci'icity as a 'ormal 'eat"re in the
synta7. 344 clitics are speci'ie! as 9:speci'ic; in the le7icon& an! their !o"ble!
associates m"st match in 'eat"res$ , essentially agree& b"t , 'ollo an approach
more along the lines o' Diesing (199?) approach. speci'icity is an interpretation
that res"lts 'rom syntactic str"ct"re s"ch that at 61& 520internal arg"ments are
interprete! as non0speci'ic& hile 520e7ternal arg"ments are interprete! as
speci'ic$
%h"s& speci'ic interpretation is hat motivates 520evact"ation o' 3440
!o"ble! ob#ects$ 8hat motivates the probe (the clitic) to search 'or the goal in the
'irst placeF , arg"e that the "ninterpretable 'eat"re on the '"nctional hea! has
something li)e an K22 'eat"re on it& hich re>"ires that its Speci'ier position be
'ille!$ %his is along the lines o' Sportiche's (199/) Do"bly 1ille! 5oice 1ilter&
accor!ing to hich certain Hclitic voicesI ('"nctional pro#ections hea!e! by
clitics) may have their Spec an! -ea! positions sim"ltaneo"sly 'ille!& hile
9*
others may not$ , mo!i'y this to arg"e that the 344 clitic's Speci'ier position
must be 'ille!$ %his K220li)e 'eat"re is not present 'or D3% clitics$
%his seems to in!icate that 344 clitics can only enter into agreement
relations ith material that& at 61& is 520e7ternal$ 8hat this means is that , m"st
ass"me the 'olloing. 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*)&
shon in the previo"s chapter$ %his parameter is something li)e the 'olloing.
(11@) The PF paamete
,' a '"nctional pro#ection's hea! an! Speci'ier position are both 'ille! at 61&
map the '"nctional hea! at 21 only i' it is$$$
[ 9:strong prono"n; in Stan!ar! Spanish
[ 9:animate; in =ioplatense
%his 'ilter is th"s not active 'or 2orte+o an! yo"nger DS spea)ers$ 1"rther&
speci'icity is not liste! in this parameter beca"se& as , have trie! to sho& speci'ic
interpretations arise beca"se an K220li)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 to )in!s o' '"nctional pro#ections hea!e! by clitics are
those that have an K220li)e 'eat"re hich motivates movement& an! those that
!o not$ Enly /344 clitics hea! the 'irst )in! o' pro#ection& as , have shonG
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 'olloing.
9O
(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 'olloing$ 3n
acc"sative interpretation is available in this conte7t "n!er a partitive rea!ing& as
in (11?b)$ Kven 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
,n DS& the 21 2arameter is more active 'or ol!er spea)ers than yo"nger
spea)ers$ 8hat 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"rposeG 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 Gan! their phonological realization is con!itione! by stigma$
<any o' my ol!er interloc"tors mentione! that DE4D ith inanimates
as not '"ngrammatical' G people 'spea) that ay&' the interloc"tors sai!& b"t it
as mala forma 'ba! 'orm', or pleonasmo 'pleonasm$' 2roscriptive #"!gments
"n!o"bte!ly a''ect spea)er behaviors& an! in the -ispanophone orl!& lang"age
is a signi'icant mar)er o' i!entity (("lloc) X %oribio ?@@R)$ Dominican speech is
stigmatize!& an! Dominicans themselves have reporte! shame or !isapproval
regar!ing o"r on ays o' spea)ing (3lba ?@@@& %oribio ?@@@b& S"]rez
(d!enben!er ?@1@)$
%here'ore one o' the ass"mptions o' my arg"ment is that the 344
'"nctional hea! is alays active in the synta7 in the case o' speci'ic0interprete!
ob#ects& hich evac"ate the 52 to ta)e a speci'ic rea!ing$ %he !erivation creates
the '"nctional pro#ection& hose probe has an "ninterpretable 'eat"re& the
chec)ing o' hich motivate the goal's movement o"t o' the 52$ Since only
pres"ppose! arg"ments may raise o"t o' the 52& it is these arg"ments hich the
probe selects as a goal to lan! in the Speci'ier o' the '"nctional pro#ection hea!e!
by the clitic$ ("t the 21 2arameter& hich co"l! be an E"tp"t0E"tp"t constraint
2
&
2 Bradley (2006) and Bradley & Willis (2012) put forth an optimality-theoretic analysis of Dominican /s/-
hypercorrection (briefly, due to coda lenition, speakers sometimes add /s/ where it should not go, because
of their insecurities with respect to not knowing where /s/ is and is not present thus, las personas is often
phonologically realized as /lah persona/, and Bradley & Willis 2012 attest hypercorrection examples such
9R
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' the
synta7$ 6eonetti (?@@/) arg"es against s"ch a proposal& an! my analysis is more
in line ith his claimsG he says it is not the case that& say& clitics enco!e
speci'icity& or !eterminersG b"t instea!& a speci'ic interpretation is the res"lt o'
movement processes motivate! by chec)ing o' more abstract 'eat"res$
Kven as my proposal ta)es !i''erent ass"mptions than his& Jriagere)a
(199O) "ltimately ants to ma)e arg"ments along similar lines to Diesing (199?)
an! 6eonetti (?@@/)$ -e posits that only an! all material assigne! 520e7ternal
scope is interprete! as speci'ic at 61& s"ch that speci'ic syntactic elements alays
move o"t o' the 52$ 1"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
G that is& a'ter Spell0o"t& s"ch as in cases o' speci'ic arg"ments hich at 21 are
still or!ere! a'ter the verb G or scoping o"t o' the 52 can happen be'ore Spell0
o"t& an! be overt& as in the 'olloing& hich shos that uno cannot move o"t the
52& signaling that it is nonspeci'ic$ Kven as !islocate! arg"ments originate in
!i''erent positions than !o"ble! ones& (11/) belo shos 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 hierarchy
compares speakers' outputs to normative Spanish outputs. A similar constraint at the syntax-phonology
interface could be in effect with respect to DOCD, which renders the null realization of the functional head
into whose specifier specific double objects raise.
98
(11/) a$ a S 2e!ro M a m"chos M F a "n hombre M Da "no T Z
E< 2e!ro M a many M a one man M a one
lo(s) vio
/s(p)<$344 see$/s2S%
'2e!ro M many M a man M oneN he sa himMthem$'
b$ D (se !esaparecieron cinco hombres)
=16V !isappear$/p2S% 'ive men
y a "no ( !e ellos) Z lo vimos
X E< one ( o' them) /s<$344 see$1p2S%
'1ive men !isappeare!& an! one (o' them)& e sa him$'
E' co"rse& this !oes not give any insight into where the clitic is in the tree& b"t it
signals that only ob#ects that are o"tsi!e the 52 at 61 can be 3440!o"ble!$
8hat this pre!icts is that certain )in!s o' ob#ects nee! to remain 520
internal (at 61 an! 21)$ , have alrea!y shon this ith intensional0verb
complements mo!i'ie! by s"#b"nctive0moo! relative cla"ses. these )in!s o'
arg"ments cannot be 3440!o"ble!$ 4onsi!er '"rther !islocation regar!ing bare
pl"rals$ 3t 21& bare in!e'inite !irect ob#ects cannot be le't0!islocate!$ 4onsi!er
the 'olloing.
(11*) D ni+as& las vimos
girls Det$p1 see$1p2S%
'Girls& e sa them$'
E' co"rse& this sentence is per'ectly grammatical i' ni1as is meant as a )in! o'
vocative& to get the girls' attention$ ,t is "ngrammatical hen the le't0!islocate!
element bears the same arg"ment relation as the clitic& an! this is shon by the
'act that the ob#ect mar)er !oes not improve this sentence.
99
(11O) D a ni+as& las vimos
E< girls Det$p1 see$1p2S%
'Girls& e sa them$'
%his in!icates that at 21 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 61& it is also "ngrammatical 'or a bare pl"ral to be 520e7ternal$ 4onsi!er the
'olloing& hich shos 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) D (las) vimos a ni+as cantan!o en el par>"e
/p1$344 see$1p2S% E< girls sing$2=G in Det$s< par)
'8e 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 21 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
210parametric 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@@
grammatical. at the le'tmost& Hmost animateI e!ge& all !ialects obligatorily 3440
!o"ble$
Animate
Strong pronoun Proper name Human Non-insect animals
Fig. 4. Animacy hierarchy.
4ross0!ialectal DE4D behaviors map onto this animacy hierarchy in the
'olloing ay.
Strong
pronoun
Proper
name
Human Non-insect
animals
Inanimate
Obligatory
for all
dialects
OK in most
dialects
OK in Rioplatense-
like dialects
OK in Porte+o0li)e an! DS0
li)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
21 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 shon 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 K220li)e properties&
acco"nts 'or the DS !ata$ ,' a 21 2arameter hich operates accor!ing to an
1@1
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 21 realization is !etermine! by the 21 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' to )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!$ , shoe! 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)$ <y analysis hol!s that
speci'ic or pres"ppose! arg"ments are those hich are 52 e7ternal at 61 (also
optionally at 21& tho"gh that is neither necessary nor s"''icient& simply pre0
1@?
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 21
parameter accor!ing to hich only /344 clitics hich ere in agreement
relations ith animates co"l! have correspon!ing 21 material 'or ol!er spea)ers$
%his parameter is inactive 'or yo"nger spea)ers$ 1"rther& this parameter allos
'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@/
!. "onclusion
,n this chapter , brie'ly s"mmarize the res"lts o' my research an! spec"late on
'"rther research possibilities$ ,n this pro#ect , set o"t to 'in! an alternative to
Kayne's Generalization in or!er to acco"nt 'or !ata 'rom Dominican Spanish
hich violate KG$ 8or)ing 'rom previo"s analyses by S"+er (1988) an!
Sportiche (199/)& , arg"e! that clitics hea! '"nctional pro#ections$ /344 clitics
hea! '"nctional pro#ections hich m"st have their Speci'ier positions 'ille! by a
D2 hose interpretable 'eat"res can chec) the "ninterpretable 'eat"re on the
'"nctional hea!$ , arg"e! that this '"nctional pro#ection is alays present
henever an arg"ment ta)es speci'ic interpretation& hich arises as a res"lt o'
the arg"ment ta)ing 520e7ternal scope by raising to the Speci'ier o' the 3cc2's
'"nctional pro#ection$ %he synta7 o' speci'icity is cross0!ialectally invariant& b"t
hether the '"nctional hea! that licenses speci'icity has correspon!ing 21
material is !etermine! by the H21 2arameter$I
1"rther research into both DS DE4D an! cross0!ialectal Spanish DE4D
variation sho"l! consi!er the role o' parameterization$ Karlier , !isc"sse! that
both le7ical an! grammatical parametric analyses o' DE4D are available 'or
Spanish$ %he 'ormer is pre!icate! on a "ni'ication analysis o' DE4D synta7 an!
the latter on a variationist level$ %h"s& in my analysis& /344 clitics are the same
)in!s o' syntactic ob#ects across !ialects& an! the parametric variation only
a''ects 21& not 61$ -oever& other analyses are available$ , consi!er one in the
'olloing section$ ,n the 'inal to sections& , concl"!e by some possibilities 'or
'"rther research an! en! the paper an! o''ering some closing remar)s$
1@*
!.1. Summa# o$ the stud#
Dominican Spanish violates Kayne's Generalization (KG)& calling into >"estion
KG's entailment o' a ca"sal relationship beteen DE4D an! DE<$ DS also calls
into >"estion the notions that clitics are arg"ments& or that they receive case& as
ell as the notion that ob#ect mar)er a assigns case$ , a!vance an alternative
analysis in the spirit o' S"+er's (1988) HcaselessI approach. clitics !o not receive
case& an! the ob#ect mar)er !oes not assign case$ 4litics hea! '"nctional
pro#ections ith !istinct properties$ /344 clitics hea! one )in!& the rest hea!
another )in!$
4litics enco!e verbal arg"ments li)e prono"ns& b"t can be !isting"ishe!
'rom them$ %hey sho mi7e! properties& hoever& acting li)e phrasal hea!s in
some cases (s"ch as in the hea!0to0hea! movement o' clitic climbing) an! acting
li)e non0pro#ecting hea!s in other cases (rigi! or!ering in clitic cl"stersN inability
to be stresse!& coor!inate!& or mo!i'ie!)$ %hese mi7e! behaviors motivate!
many !i''erent analyses ith respect to clitic !o"bling& hich is the co0
occ"rrence o' a clitic an! a coin!e7e! nominal s"ch that both bear the same
arg"ment relation$ , shoe! that clitic !o"bling can be !isting"ishe! 'rom clitic
le't0 an! right0!islocation in a n"mber o' ays$
%he complementarity o' clitics an! '"ll A2s in 1rench le! Kayne (19RO) to
posit that clitics are arg"ments that originate in verbal complement position&
receive case an! theta0role& an! move to a!#oin to the verb beca"se o' their
proso!ic ea)ness$ 4litic !o"bling is !isalloe! in 1rench beca"se no case0
assigning preposition e7ists s"ch that the clitic may be coin!e7e! ith a 22
a!#"nct$ ("t Spanish has s"ch a preposition& Kayne arg"esG ob#ect mar)er a.
Kayne's Generalization (Jaeggli 198?) hol!s that clitic !o"bling is only
1@O
grammatical i' the !o"ble! ob#ect is hea!e! by a licensing preposition hich
assigns it case$
,n or!er to reconcile KG ith the 'act that !o"ble! ob#ects !o not pattern
li)e !islocate! onesG that is& !o"bles pattern more li)e arg"ments than a!#"ncts
Ganalysts li)e (orer (198*) hol! that clitics are in'lections hich are base0
generate! as a!#"ncts to the verb an! !o receive case& b"t not theta0role& hich is
instea! assigne! to the ob#ect& hea!e! by the ob#ect mar)er (hich assigns case)$
Aevertheless& both the movement an! base0generation hypotheses in their
!i''erent varieties 'ail to acco"nt 'or !ialects li)e DS an! 2orte+o& hich violate
KG in alloing DE4D itho"t a licensing preposition$
,n my st"!y , then consi!ere! S"+er's gro"n!brea)ing research regar!ing
the speci'icity e''ects o' DE4D$ She shoe! that /344 clitics may only ever
!o"ble speci'ic arg"ments& an! that an analysis o' DE4D !oes not nee! to posit
a ca"sal relationship beteen DE4D an! DE<$ (leam (1999) !"bs this the
,n!epen!ence -ypothesis& hich , 'ollo here$ ,nvestigating partitivity&
intensionality& moo!& !e'initeness& an! animacy& , concl"!e! that a speci'ic or
pres"ppose! interpretation on an arg"ment res"lts 'rom that arg"ment being
520e7ternal at 61$
,nspire! by S"+er's claim that /344 clitics are Hinherently speci'ic&I ,
!isc"sse! Sportiche's (199/) Hclitic voicesI proposal an! presente! my
mo!i'ication o' it in or!er to analyze the DS !ata$ , arg"e! that /344 clitics hea!
'"nctional pro#ections speci'ie! in the n"meration o' the !erivation ith an
"ninterpretable 'eat"re& ca"sing the '"nctional hea! to probe its c0comman!
!omain 'or a D2 in hich it can enter into an arg"ment relation s"ch that it may
'attract' it to Spec3cc2$ , shoe! that novel in'ormation& as ell as non0re'erential
arg"ments& m"st remain ithin the 52& an! th"s cannot be /3440!o"ble!$
1@6
Strong >"anti'ie! e7pressions may ta)e speci'ic& pres"ppose! interpretations&
hich may e7plain hy they cannot occ"r in e7istential constr"ctions$ Enly
ea) >"anti'ie! e7pressions hich may evac"ate the 52 are available 'or DE4D&
an! , shoe! that bare pl"rals may never be 3440!o"ble!& an! th"s must stay
ithin the scopal !omain set "p by their c0comman!ing verbs$ En the other en!
o' this spectr"m& regar!ing arg"ments hich must alays be 520e7ternal an! are
th"s inherently speci'ic& S"+er (1988) arg"es that DE4D is obligatory ith strong
prono"ns in all Spanish !ialects precisely 'or this reason. they can only ever re'er
to some pres"ppose!& partic"lar entity in the !isco"rse$
, shoe! that my proposal may be e7ten!e! 'or a "ni'ication analysis 'or
the synta7 o' DE4D across !ialects as possible i' , ass"me that the 3cc2
'"nctional pro#ection is alwa's present #"st in case an arg"ment see)s speci'ic
interpretation& an! that its correspon!ing 21 material may only be realize!
accor!ing to a H21 2arameter$I %his parameter capt"re! the DS generational
!i''erence& since it is active 'or ol!er spea)ers$ %he parameter !ictates that the
3cc2 '"nctional hea! may only be spelle! o"t at 21 i' it is in an agreement
relation ith a 9:animate; arg"ment or an empty category$ %his parameter can
capt"re cross0!ialectal variation& since the strictness o' the 'eat"ral criteria
!etermining hether spell0o"t at 21 is grammatical is !ialect0speci'ic$ %h"s& in
stan!ar! Spanish only /344 clitics in agreement relations ith empty categories
an! strong prono"ns can (an! m"st& in the latter case) be spelle!0o"t
phonologically$ ("t this is not the only analysis available& an! in the ne7t section
, consi!er an analysis here the variation is not in the le7ical speci'ications o' the
21 parameter& b"t in the syntactic stat"s o' the clitic across !ialects$
1@R
!.%. & potential altenati'e
Kven as the !ata !o allo 'or the !escriptive a!e>"acy o' my analysis& both
cross0generationally in DS an! cross0!ialectally in Spanish& the !ata as ell allo
alternative analyses$ Ene s"ch approach& hich as my initial stance hen ,
began this pro#ect& is that the parametric !i''erences are not le7ical (as my 21
parameter is) b"t grammatical. in this line o' analysis& the synta7 o' /344 clitics
is !i''erent across !ialects$ 4litics may !iachronically an! cross0!ialectally be
reanalyze! as agreement a''i7es$ %h"s !ialects hich more restrictive DE4D
have 344 clitics that behave more li)e '"ll arg"ments& hile !ialects ith looser
DE4D ('sli!ing !on' along the animacy hierarchy) have 344 clitics that
pattern more li)e non0pro#ecting hea!s& that is& in'lections$
%his type o' approach is possible b"t re>"ires e7tra ass"mptions to
e7plain hy& even ithin the !ialects that abi!e by KG& certain !ialects s"ch as
strict stan!ar! Spanish only allo DE4D in the obligatory conte7t& that is& ith
strong prono"ns$ Aevertheless& this grammaticalization processG 'rom ea)
prono"ns to a''i7es G is atteste! (Jriagere)a 199O)$ %h"s the arg"ment is orth
consi!ering '"rther& since even as , !o not arg"e that this )in! o'
grammaticalization is hat is synchronically occ"rring in Spanish& , leave open
the >"estion o' hether reanalysis 'rom ea) prono"ns to a''i7es is a !iachronic
possibility 'or Spanish$
,t is interesting to note that a variationist syntactic analysis o' DE4D ten!s
toar! a parameterization o' the relationship beteen DE4D an! DE<$ ,n an
analysis here /344 clitics are o' !i''erent syntactic categories in !i''erent
!ialects& the more pronominal the clitic is in a given !ialect& the more li)e a case0
assigner the ob#ect mar)er acts in that lang"age$ ("t this is here the problem
1@8
'or s"ch an analysis arises. i' in a given !ialect& /344 clitics are pronominal& then
!o"ble! ob#ects m"st receive case 'rom some case0assigner hea!ing them$
Granting that& hy is the presence o' this case0assigner not s"''icient to ren!er
DE4D grammatical 'or& say& !e'inite h"man e7pressions in Stan!ar! SpanishF
%he theorist's proposal sho"l! be "ni'orm. approaches here& say& in a
pronominal0clitic !ialect& the ob#ect mar)er assigns case in one conte7t (s"ch as
DE4D) b"t not another (s"ch as non0!o"ble! constr"ctions) seem prima facie
inelegant$ 4an the variationist analysis acco"nt 'or s"ch behavior itho"t
something along the lines o'& say& a 21 parameter 'or the ob#ect mar)erF
%hat is& the problem ith a variationist alternative to the synta7 o' DE4D
is that it m"st in t"rn acco"nt 'or the uniformit' o' DE4D behaviors across
!ialects& !isregar!ing the variation on restrictions. henever DE4D occ"rs& it
onl' occ"rs ith speci'ic arg"ments$ ,t seems more int"itive to base an analytic
approach on this evi!ence& b"t the variationist co"l! reply along the 'olloing
lines. even as the semantics o' speci'icity are the same across !ialects& an! even i'
all acc"sative clitics are inherently speci'ic& this !oes not precl"!e the possibility
that they have !i''erent syntactic stat"ses across !ialects$ ,'& !iachronically& clitics
HstartI as pronominal arg"ments& the variationist can act"ally acco"nt 'or the
"ni'ormity o' speci'icity by means o' an arg"ment 'rom "ni'icationist DE4D
analysis. S"+er (1999) arg"es that strong prono"ns are inherently speci'ic$
,' so& then clitics have not lost this inherent speci'icity& the variationist
o"l! sayN b"t their syntactic stat"s has ero!e! across time an! across !ialects&
s"ch that in !ialects li)e DS an! 2orte+o& they are simply agreement mar)ers&
available 'or all speci'ics$ %his nicely capt"res !ialectal variation& since as /344
clitics become less pronominal they may& ith increasing grammaticality& !o"ble
!i''erent )in!s o' non0pronominal speci'ic arg"ments& b"t it opens "p a !i''erent
1@9
can o' orms& since the inherent speci'icity o' /344 clitic across all !ialects
there'ore has a !i''erent syntactic str"ct"re 'or each syntactic category o' /344
clitic$ %ho"gh , !o not consi!er it '"rther& Jriagere)a's (199O) claim that /344
clitics are !eterminers may 'it in nicely here& since as /344 clitics go 'rom being
prono"ns to !eterminers& they may also allo 'or a i!er variety o' associates
ith hich they can grammatically 'orm agreement relations$
%here'ore& even as , am motivate! by a goal to "ni'y the synta7 o' clitics
across !ialects an! !o this by means o' arg"ing 'or caseless clitics an! !o"ble!
ob#ects as tr"e arg"ments& , have note! in this section that this is not the only
viable analysis 'or the !ata$ 3n analysis positing cross0!ialectal an! !iachronic
clitic reanalysis 'rom ea) prono"ns to a''i7es is also available$ ,t is "nclear
hether this is any a priori evi!ence 'or pre'erring one over the other& tho"gh 'or
me& the caseless "ni'ication approach ith a slightly0a! hoc 21 2arameter is more
elegant$ ,n the ne7t section& , consi!er '"rther research possibilities$
!.3. (otes $o $uthe eseach
=egar!less o' hether one ta)es a "ni'icationist or variationist approach to the
synta7 o' DE4D& , have shon that st"!y o' Dominican Spanish Havails a vie
o' 9DS; as a so"rce o' 'acts appropriate to a theory o' lang"age& rather than as a
pec"liar ling"istic ob#ect that !eviates 'rom the$$$ stan!ar!I (%oribio ?@@@. /16)$
DS DE4D is able to she! light on the nat"re o' cross0!ialectal Spanish DE4D
variation$ %hat being sai!& m"ch remains to be !one& an! , !isc"ss some goals 'or
'"t"re research here& partic"larly as regar!s clitic cl"stering an! or!ering
behavior along ith ling"istic i!eology$
11@
1irst an! 'oremost& more research regar!ing Dominican Spanish nee!s to
be !one$ %he !ialect is severely "n!erst"!ie! !espite evi!encing some notable
properties hich co"l! she! light on )ey iss"es in syntactic theory& s"ch as DS
/344 clitic behavior& as , have shon$ Ether e7amples o' notable syntactic
behavior incl"!e overt s"b#ect prono"ns& overt e7pletives& an! lac) o' h0
inversion (%oribio ?@@@b)$ %he DE4D behavior an! the increasing n"mber o'
grammatical conte7ts 'or overt 3cc2 hea!sGor& i' yo" rather& the reanalysis 'rom
ea) prono"n to a''i7G may be analyze! in comparison ith the change in
progress in DS in hich the !ialect is moving aay 'rom being pro0!rop$
,nstea!& Dominicans pre'er overt pronominal s"b#ects (%oribio ?@@@b. //9)$ 4o"l!
this have anything to !o ith the increasing grammaticality in DS o' overt
'"nctional hea!s 'or arg"ments ''"rther !on' the animacy hierarchyF
8ith respect to my '"nctional pro#ection proposal& is there any reason to
pre'er either a "ni'ication or a variationist hypothesisF 1irst& the strongest
evi!ence 'or a grammaticalization process ith respect to DE4D o"l! be a
spea)er 'or hom DE4D is obligator' in 'or all speci'ic arg"ments (agreement
a''i7es are generally obligatory)$ , have not seen s"ch !ata or enco"ntere! s"ch a
spea)er& hoeverN henever DE4D is alloe! in a non0strong prono"n conte7t&
it is only ever optional, not obligatory$
Secon!& more research into clitic cl"stering an! climbing behaviors may
reveal insights regar!ing the precise locations o' these '"nctional pro#ections in
the tree$ 3s ell& it is possible that !eeper )nole!ge o' clitic cl"stering may
provi!e a basis 'or !iscerning hether there e7ists any a priori evi!ence 'or
pre'erring a "ni'icationist or a variationist acco"nt 'or the synta7 o' DE4D$
8hy !o , thin) this is the caseF 3ll o' my yo"nger DS spea)ers an! many
o' my ol!er spea)ers evi!ence! a slight pre'erence 'or proclisis over enclisis& as
111
ell a slight pre'erence 'or cl"stering clitics (as oppose! to procliticizing D3%
an! encliticizing 344)$ %hey #"!ge! that o' the 'olloing& (11Ra) as pre'erre!&
an! (11Rb) as marginal$ 1"rther& my spea)ers evi!ence! a #"!gment split ith
regar! to (1RRc)& ith 8M?1 hol!ing that it as "ngrammatical$ %his set incl"!e!
some b"t not all o' my yo"nger DS spea)ers$ %he rest simply state! that it as
marginal or H!i!n't so"n! >"ite right$I
(11R) a$ ^me lo vas a contarF
1sD3% /s<$344 go$?s$2=KS to tell$,A1
'3re yo" going to tell it to meF'
b$ FD ^vas a cont]r0me0loF
go$?s2=KS to tell$,A101sD3%0/s<$344
'3re yo" going to tell me itF'
c$ B ^me vas a contar0loF
1sD3% go$?s2=KS to tell$,A10/s<$344
'3re yo" going to tell me itF'
<y spea)ers 'or hom DE4D ith inanimates as grammatical atteste! similar
pre'erences as in (11R) above 'or the analogo"s 3440!o"ble! e7amples& e7cept
that (118c) as #"!ge! o"tright grammatical by all o' them.
(118) a$ ^me lo vas a contar el cuentoF
1sD3% /s<$344 go$?s$2=KS to tell$,A1 Det$s< story
'3re yo" going to tell me the storyF'
b$ FD ^vas a cont]r0me0lo el cuento:
go$?s2=KS to tell$,A101sD3%0/s<$344 Det$s< story
'3re yo" going to tell me the storyF
11?
c$ B ^me vas a contar0lo F
1sD3% go$?s2=KS to tell$,A10/s<$344
'3re yo" going to tell me the storyF
-o !o my spea)ers' pre'erences regar!ing proclisis an! cl"stere! clitics play
into arg"ing in 'avor o' a reanalysis or a "ni'ication arg"mentF , leave this
>"estion open 'or no& simply noting that it is potentially 'r"it'"l ith respect to
the analysis o' /344 clitics in DS an! in Spanish more generally$
1inally& socioling"istic research sho"l! be con!"cte! regar!ing ho
Dominican i!entity is in!icate! by or in!e7e! to certain 'eat"res$ DS is
stigmatize! in the -ispanophone orl! (S"]rez (d!enben!er ?@1@)& an!
Dominicans have internalize! !isapproval o' their !ialects& as atteste! by
phenomena li)e MsM0hypercorrection ((ra!ley ?@@6& ("lloc) X %oribio ?@@R)$ ("t
this broa!er stigmatization is #"7tapose! ith a high !egree o' covert prestige
among Dominicans regar!ing partic"lar 'eat"res$ 1or e7ample& (ra!ley X 8illis
(?@1?) sho that lamb!acism (hen MrM s"r'aces as MlM) is associate! ith the
capital& Santo Domingo& an! Dominicans !o not stigmatize this behavior$ En the
other han!& vocalization as in the 4ibao region o' the co"ntry (MrM M#M& as in
pernil 'roast por)' 9pe#$nil;) is heavily stigmatize! an! in!e7icalize! ith
r"ralness& poverty& etc$ -o might this comple7 pict"re& in hich DS is generally
stigmatize! in the -ispanophone orl! b"t evi!ences emic covert prestige ith
'eat"res in!e7icalize! to the capital& interact ith DE4DF
, con!"cte! a to part0s"rvey s"rvey in ?@1? ith *? respon!ents ranging
in age 'rom 18 to 6* over 'aceboo) (?8 ere Dominican)$ %he 'irst part as)e! all
respon!ents hether they pre'erre! a DE4D constr"ction or a non0!o"ble!
constr"ction$ %he secon! as a ling"istic i!eology s"rvey regar!ing ho
spea)ers perceive! o' DE4D$
11/
, 'o"n! that O?B (??M*?& ith 1R o' these being Dominican) o' these
spea)ers in!e7e! DE4D constr"ctions to r"ral spea)ers& /8B (16M*?) in!e7e!
DE4D constr"ctions to poor spea)ers& 9 o' those being Dominican& an! /8B also
in!e7e! DE4D to "ne!"cate! spea)ers$ 16B (RM*?)& all Dominican& in!e7e!
DE4D to illiterate spea)ers$ //B (1*M*?) o' respon!ents in!e7e! DE4D to
Dominicans& an! all o' these ere Dominican$ %his means that O@B o' Dominican
respon!ents (1*M?8) consi!er DE4D constr"ctions to be in!e7e! to Dominicans$
R1B o' these respon!ents (1@M1*) ere biling"al an! raise! in the J$S$& hich
provi!es evi!ence that Dominican nationals an! !iaspora Dominicans have
!i''erent ling"istic i!eologies (S"]rez (d!enben!er ?@1@)$ 1"rther& only one o'
these 1* respon!ents pre'erre! the variation itho"t DE4D$
Enly more involve! research can con'irm 'or s"re hat the res"lts o' my
s"rveys mean& b"t 'or no it s"''ices to note that the 'olloing seems possible.
some Dominicans in!e7icalize DE4D as a Dominican 'eat"re& an! even as the
in!e7ical 'iel!
3
'or this 'eat"re might contain largely negative in!ices (r"ralness&
ignorance& poverty& etc$)& my s"rvey also shoe! that most o' my DS spea)ers
pre'erre! the DE4D constr"ction in the 'irst part o' the s"rvey$ Given ho
stigmatize! DS is in the broa!er -ispanophone comm"nity& it co"l! be that the
change in progress across generations o' DS spea)ers co"l! be relate! someho
to the !i''erences in ling"istic i!eologies beteen Dominican nationals an!
!iaspora Dominicans$ ,t seems int"itive that since DE4D is in!e7icalize! as a
Dominican 'eat"re& those ho might ant to e7press some )in! o' Dominican
i!entity (!iaspora Dominicans) might be more incline! to "se Dominican0
in!e7icalize! 'eat"res li)e DE4D& hile those ho might be ashame! o'
Dominican0ness might be incline! to avoi! DE4D$
3 a constellation of meanings that are ideologically linked and an embodiment of ideology in linguistic
form (Eckert 2004: 464)
11*
3gain& only more involve! research can veri'y this )in! o' claim$ 1"t"re
research regar!ing the constr"ction o' Dominican i!entity ith respect to DE4D
an! other Dominican0in!e7icalize! 'eat"res sho"l! ta)e into acco"nt more
speci'ic 'actors contrib"ting to this constr"ction. that is to say& given the
prevalence o' Hthe sentiment that 3'rican heritage is negative an! shame'"l&I
(Yentella ?@@R. ?6@) an! the correlation shon in Yentella ?@@R beteen "par!
class mobility an! Dominican ling"istic insec"rity& to hat e7tent are the
in!e7ical 'iel!s o' canonical DS 'eat"res (s"ch as non0inverte! >"estions& overt
prono"ns an! e7istential e7pletives& an! pec"liar co!a li>"i! behavior) an!
novel ones (s"ch as availability o' overt DE4D ith inanimates) class0base! an!
racialize!F 1"rther& hat is the role o' gen!er in the constr"ction o' Dominican
i!entityF
,n concl"sion& , have shon that there are many interesting paths 'or
'"t"re research regar!ing DS$ , consi!ere! hether clitic cl"stering an! or!ering
pre'erences might in!icate an a priori arg"ment in 'avor o' either a "ni'ication or
reanalysis approach to DE4D& then , consi!ere! ho ling"istic i!eology
interacts ith DE4D variation base! on a pilot st"!y , con!"cte! in ?@1? via
'aceboo) s"rveys$ , also consi!ere! the in!e7icalization o' Dominicanness more
generally& spec"lating that stigma plays a role in !etermining the realization o'
certain 'eat"res$ ,n the ne7t section , o''er some closing remar)s$
11O
!.3. Final ema)s
, embar)e! on this pro#ect in or!er to sho that analysis o' a nonstan!ar! !ialect
may in 'act she! light on cross0!ialectal variation ithin the given lang"age$
3nother main goal o' my pro#ect as to sho that any analysis o' DE4D
variation ithin an! across !ialects m"st begin ith S"+er's (1988) !ata
regar!ing the inherent speci'icity o' acc"sative clitics$ Since 'or hatever reason&
Dominican Spanish is "n!erst"!ie! in the syntactic literat"re& , shoe! that my
analysis o' DE4D in DS can also be e7ten!e! to acco"nt 'or cross0!ialectal
DE4D variation i' one ants to ass"me that the synta7 o' DE4D is the same
across !ialects$ %h"s& , attempte! to correct the absence o' syntactic literat"re on
DS an! its relationship to other !ialects& shoing the val"e o' my analysis 'or the
st"!y o' the synta7 o' clitics more generally$
%han) yo" 'or rea!ing this 'ar$
116
Bibliography
Alba, Orlando. 2000. Nuevos aspectos del espaol en Santo Domingo. Utah: Brigham
Young Unier!it".
Alba, Orlando. 200#. Cmo hablamos los Dominicanos. $anto %omingo: Ramon
&imne!.
Adger, %aid. '((). *unctional +ead! and ,nter-retation. .h% di!!., Unier!it" o/
0dinburgh.
Ai!!en, &udith. 200). %i//erential ob1ect mar2ing: iconicit" !. econom". Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 2' 3#)456)7.
Anagno!to-oulou, 0lena. '((#. 8litic %e-endencie! in 9odern Gree2. .h% di!!.,
$alzburg Unier!it".
Anagno!to-oulou, 0lena '(((. 8ondition! on clitic doubling in Gree2. Clitics in the
Languages of Europe, ed!. +. an Riem!di12. Berlin: 9outon %e Gru"ter 3:;'5
:(67.
Anagno!to-oulou, 0lena. 200:. 8litic doubling. The lac!"ell Companion to Synta#, ed.
9artin 0eraert and +en2 an Riem!di12, ch. '# 34'(546'7. 9alden, 9A:
Blac2<ell .ubli!hing.
Aoun, &. '(((. 8litic5doubled argument!. eyond $rinciples and $arameters, ed!.
&ohn!on, =. and Robert!, ,. 3')5#27. %ordrecht: Am!terdam.
Ba2er, 9ar2. 2002. Agreement, di!location and -artial con/igurationalit". m!.
Ba2er, 9ar2. '(66. %ncorporation& ' theory of grammatical function changing( 8hicago:
Unier!it" o/ 8hicago .re!!.
Ba2er, 9ar2. '((;. The $olysynthesis $arameter. Ox/ord>?e< Yor2: Ox/ord Unier!it"
.re!!.
Bar!!, Andre< @ Aa!ni2, +o<ard. '(6;. A ?ote on Ana-hora and %ouble Ob1ect!.
Linguistic %n)uiry ': 3)#:B)4#7.
Belloro, Caleria. 200:. Spanish clitic doubling& a study of the synta#*pragmatics
interface( .h.% %i!!. ?e< Yor2: Unier!it" o/ Bu//alo.
Bleam, Donia. '(('. Leista Spanish and the synta# of clitic doubling( .h.% %i!!. ?e<ar2:
Unier!it" o/ %ela<are.
Bradle", Drai!. 200;. $-ani!h rhotic! and %ominican h"-ercorrect >!>. $robus '6.
Bradle", Drai! @ Eilli!, 0ri2. 20'2. Rhotic ariation and contra!t in Ceracruz 9exican
$-ani!h. Estudios de +on,tica E#perimental 2' 3#)5:#7.
Bulloc2, Barbara 0. and Doribio, Almeida &acFueline. 200:. =re"ol incur!ion! into
%ominican $-ani!h: Dhe -erce-t o/ +aitianized !-eech among %ominican!.
Linguistic identity and bilingualism, ed!. 9. ?iGo59urcia and &. Rothman 3':45
'(67. &ohn Ben1amin!.
8hom!2", ?oam. '(6'. Lectures on -overnment and inding. %ordrecht: *ori!
.ublication!.
8hom!2", ?oam. '((4. The minimalist program. 8ambridge, 9A: 9,D .re!!.
8uero, 9aria 8ri!tina. 2002. $-ani!h clitic!: three o/ a -er/ect -air. 9,D: m!.
%ie!ing, 9. '((2. %ndefinites. 8ambridge, 9A, Dhe 9,D .re!!.
%elHtto, %eni! @ ?orbert 8orer '((6. *eature -rimitie! and the !"ntax o/ !-eciHcit".
.ivista di Linguistica '0 326'5))#7.
%obroie5$orin, 8armen. '((#b. The Synta# of .omanian& Comparative Studies in
.omance. Berlin>?e< Yor2: 9outon de Gru"ter.
%uarte!, ,n! and 9ato!, Gabriela. Romance clitic! and the minimali!t -rogram.
$ortuguese Synta#& Ne" Comparative Studies 3'';5'#27. ?e< Yor2: Ox/ord
Unier!it" .re!!.
Kc)ert& 2enelope$ ?@@*$ H5ariation an! the in!e7ical 'iel!$I #ournal of
;ociolinguistics& 1?$* (pp$ *O/0*R6)$
0nI, 9Jret. '(('. Dhe !emantic! o/ !-eciHcit". Linguistic %n)uiry 22 3'52;7.
0!tigarribia, Bruno. 200;. Eh" clitic doublingK A /unctional anal"!i! o/ Rio-laten!e
$-ani!h. Selected $roceedings of the /th 0ispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed!.
*ace, Dimoth" and =lee, 8arol 3'2)5');7. $ommerille: 8a!cadilla.
0erett, %aniel. '(6:. .irahL 8litic %oubling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4
32#4B2:;7.
0erett, %aniel. '((;. 1hy there are no clitics& 'n alternative perspective on pronominal
allomorphy( Arlington: Unier!it" o/ Dexa!.
*ontana, &o!e-. '((). $hrase structure and the synta# of clitics in the history of Spanish.
.h.% %i!!. .hiladel-hia: Unier!it" o/ .enn!"lania.
*ernMndez $oriano, O. '(6(. .eccin y ligamiento en el espaol& 'spectos del par2metro
de su3eto nulo( Unier!idad AutNnoma de 9adrid. .h.%. di!!.
*ranco, &. '((). 4n ob3ect agreement in Spanish. Ao! Angele!, Unier!it" o/ $outhern
8ali/ornia. .h.% di!!.
Gerlach, Birgit. 2002. Clitics bet"ee synta# and le#icon( Am!terdam: &ohn Ben1amin!
.ubli!hing 8o.
Greene, =atherine Ree!e. '((:. ?on5$tandard %ominican $-ani!h: 0idence o/ -artial
re!tructuring. .h.% %i!!., 8it" Unier!it" o/ ?e< Yor2.
Gutierrez5Rexach, &aier and $ila5Cillar, Aui! 3ed.7. 200'. Current %ssues in Spanish
Synta# and Semantics( Berlin: 9outon de Gru"ter.
Gutirrez5Rexach, &aier. 2002. 8on!traint interaction at the !emantic! > -ragmatic!
inter/ace. 5eanings in Contrast( The Cambridge $apers, ed!. =. &a!zczolt @ =.
Durner 3))45)4#7. Am!terdam: Ben1amin!.
Gutirrez5Rexach, &. 2000. Dhe *ormal $emantic! o/ 8litic %oubling. 6ournal of
Semantics '; 3)'45)607.
+arri!, &ame!. '(6). Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish& ' Nonlinear 'nalysis(
8ambridge: 9,D .re!!.
&aeggli, O!aldo. '(62. Topics in .omance synta#. %ordrecht +olland: *ori!
.ublication!.
&aeggli, O!aldo. '(6;. Dhree ,!!ue! in the Dheor" o/ 8litic!: 8a!e, %oubled ?.!, and
0xtraction in the $"ntax o/ .ronominal 8litic!. The synta# of pronominal clitics,
ed. +agit Borer, Synta# and Semantics ol. '( 3'45#27. Academic .re!!.
=allulli, %alina @ Da!mo<!2i, Ailiane 3ed.7. 2006. Clitic doubling in the al!an
languages( Am!terdam>.hiladel-hia: &ohn Ben1amin! .ubli!hing 8o.
=a"ne, Richard. '(:4. +rench Synta#& The Transformational Cycle. 8ambridge: 9,D
.re!!.
=a"ne, Richard. '(('. Romance clitic!, erb moement, and .RO. Linguistic %nguiry 22
3;#:5;6;7.
=a"ne, Richard. '((#. The antisymmetry of synta#, ol. 24 o/ Linguistic %n)uiry
5onographs( 8ambridge, 9A: 9,D .re!!.
=a"ne, Richard. 2000. $arameters and 7niversals. Ox/ord: Ox/ord Unier!it" .re!!.
Aadu!a<, Eilliam A. 3'(:(7. $olarity Sensitivity as %nherent Scope .elations( .h.%.
%i!!ertation, Unier!it" o/ Dexa!, Au!tin.
Aeonetti, 9anuel 200). $-eci/icit" and %i//erential Ob1ect 9ar2ing in $-ani!h. Catalan
6ournal of Linguistics ) 3:45''#7.
Ai-!2i, &ohn. '((#. Latin 'merican Spanish. ?e< Yor2: Aongman Aingui!tic! Aibrar".
OrdNGez, *ranci!co. 2002. $ome 8litic 8ombination! in the $"ntax o/ Romance.
Catalan 6ournal of Linguistics 24 320'522#7.
9a"er, 0li!abeth. 2006. 8litic! on the moe: /rom de-endent mar2ing to !-lit mar2ing.
$roceedings of the L+-8/ Conference, ed!. Butt, 9iriam and =ing, Drac"
+ollo<a". $an/ord: 8$A, .ublication!.
9il!ar2, G. '(::. Do<ard an 0x-lanation o/ 8ertain .eculiaritie! o/ the 0xi!tential
8on!truction in 0ngli!h. Linguistic 'nalysis ) 3'52(7.
Ormazabal, &. @ Romero, &. 20'). ?on5accu!atie ob1ect!. Catalan 6ournal of
Linguistics '2 3'445 ':)7.
.e!et!2", %aid. '((4. 9ero Synta#& E#periencers and Cascades( 8ambridge: 9,D .re!!.
.olloc2, &ean5Ye!. '(6(. Cerb 9oement, Unier!al Grammar and the $tructure o/ ,..
Linguistic %n)uiry 20 3);4B#2#7.
$-ortiche, %ominiFue. '((;. 8litic con!truction!. ,n $hrase structure and the le#icon, ed.
&ohan Roor"c2 and Aaurie Ann Oaring 32')52:;7. =lu<er Academic .ubli!her!.
$ila58oralMn, 8. '(6'. Dhe %i//u!ion o/ Ob1ect5Cerb Agreement in $-ani!h. $apers
in .omance ) 3';)5':;7.
$uMrez BJdenbender, 0a59arPa. 20'0. 8om-aring %ominican Aingui!tic 3,n7!ecurit" in
the %ominican Re-ublic and in the %ia!-ora. Selected $roceedings of the :;th
0ispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. 8laudia Borgonoo et al. 3'#65'4(7.
$omerille, 9A: 8a!cadilla .roceeding! .ro1ect.
$uMrez BJdenbender, 0a59arPa. 200(. .erce-tion! o/ %ominican $-ani!h and
%ominican $el/5.erce-tion in the %ominican %ia!-ora. .enn!"lania $tate
Unier!it". .h% %i!!.
$uGer, 9argarita. '(66. Dhe role o/ agreement in clitic5doubled con!truction!. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory ; 3)('5#)#7.
$uGer, 9argarita '(6(. %ialectal ariation and clitic5doubled direct ob1ect!. $tudie! in
Romance Aingui!tic!, ed!. 8. =ir!chner @ &. %e 8e!ari! 3)::5)(4 7. Am!terdam:
&ohn Ben1amin!.
$uGer, 9argarita '(('. D<o -ro-ertie! o/ clitic! in clitic5doubled con!truction!. Logical
Structure and Linguistic Structure& Crosslinguistic $erspectives, ed!. &. +uang @
R. 9a" 32))524'7. %ordrecht: =lu<er.
$uGer, 9argarita. 2000. Ob1ect !hi/t: com-aring a Romance language to Germanic.
$robus '2 32;'526(7.
$uGer, 9argarita. 200(. *ormal Aingui!tic! and the $"ntax o/ $-ani!h: .a!t, .re!ent and
*uture. Selected $roceedings of the ::th 0ispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed.
&o!e-h 8ollentine et al. 3(52;7. $omerille, 9A:8a!cadilla .roceeding! .ro1ect.
Doionen, ,da. 2002. $<edi!h -article! and !"ntactic -ro1ection. <erb*$article
E#plorations, ed. %eh, ?icole, Ra" &ac2endo//, et al 3'('52'07. ?e< Yor2:
9outon de Gru"ter.
Doribio, Almeida &acFueline. 2000. Aanguage ariation and the lingui!tic enactment o/
identit" among %ominican!. Linguistics& 'n %nterdisciplinary 6ournal of the
Language Sciences )6 3''))5 ''4(7.
Doribio, Almeida &acFueline. 2000. $etting -arametric limit! on dialectal ariation in
$-ani!h. Lingua ''0 3)'45)#'7.
Doribio, Almeida &acFueline. 2000b. Aanguage ariation and the lingui!tic enactment o/
identit" among %ominican!. Linguistics& 'n %nterdisciplinary 6ournal of the
Language Sciences )6 3''))5 ''4(7.
Doribio, Almeida &acFueline. 200'. 9inimali!t idea! on -arametric ariation. North East
Linguistics Society )0, ed!. 9. +irotani, A. 8oetzle, ?. +all, &.5Y. =im 3;2:5;)67.
Amher!t, 9A: Unier!it" o/ 9a!!achu!ett!.
Dorrego, 0. '((6. The dependencies of ob3ects. 9,D .re!!
Uriagere2a, &uan. '((4. A!-ect! o/ the $"ntax o/ 8litic .lacement in Ee!tern Romance.
Linguistic %n)uiry 2; 3:( B'2#7.
on +eu!inger, =lau! @ =ai!er, Georg A. 200). Dhe ,nteraction o/ Animac",
%e/initene!!, and $-eci/icit" in $-ani!h. $roceedings of the 1or!shop =Semantic
and Syntactic 'spects of Specificity in .omance Languages> ed. Con +eu!inger @
=ai!er 3#'5;47.
Oagona, =aren. 2002. The Synta# of Spanish( 8ambridge: 8ambridge Unier!it" .re!!.
Oentella, Ana 8elia. 200:. Q%ime como Fuin habla!, " te dir Fuin ere!: Aingui!tic
3,n7!ecurit" and Aatino>a Unit".R ' Companion to Latina?o Studies, ed!. *lore!,
&uan @ Ro!aldo, Renato. Ox/ord: Blac2<ell 3--. 245)(7.
Oubizarreta, 9aria5Aui!a. '((6. $rosody, +ocus, and 1ord 4rder. 8ambridge: 9,D
.re!!.
O<ic2", Arnold and .ullum, Geo//re". 2002. 8liticization !. in/lection: 0ngli!h ?SD.
Aanguage 4(.) 340254')7.