Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZand LAMINEDIAGNE
1. INTRODUCTION
* Parts of the researchthat led to this article were presentedat the Langues & Gram-
maire seminar of UPRESA 7023 (Paris-8/CNRS)and at the Clitic Works'hoporganized
by Universite Paris-7 in February 1999, whose audiences came up with a lot of inter-
esting questions and remarks.We thank several individual colleagues and students for
their feedback while this work was in progress:NadiraAljovic, Stephen Anderson, Car-
men Dobrovie-Sorin,Celia Jakubowicz,Makoto Kaneko,Philip Miller, Lea Nash, Alain
Rouveret, Liliane Tasmowski,and Arnold Zwicky. We thankStephaneRobert and Serge
Sauvageot for kindly supplying us with copies of their own works on Wolof. We owe
special debts of gratitudeto Alain Kihm and Patrick Sauzet, who shared with us some
of their expertise on Wolof and linearity (respectively),and to Joan Maling and our four
NLLTreviewers,who providedus with manypages of demandingbut supportivefeedback
on previousdraftsof our text.
enclisis: V-[cl+Y?]
b. Shlonsky (1994)
* Each (Semitic) clitic pronounspells out agreementfeatures
generatedin the Agr-headof its maximalprojection.A lex-
ical head moves to adjoin to the closest Agr-head,which
containsthe clitic: an enclisis configurationfollows:
V/N/P/A-[AGR Cl]
c. Cardinalettiand Starke(1999)
* Clitics are phrases which are deficient for some syntactic
projections.Consequently,they must move in syntaxto ad-
join to a functionalhead, this strategymaking up for their
inherentdeficiency.The prosodicdeficiency of clitics is but
a reflex of theirdeepersyntacticdeficiency.
1 Our
phrasing in (4) is based on Anderson (1992, p. 203). Klavans (1985), whose
approachis very similar,derives the proclitic/encliticcontrastfrom yet anotherparameter
826 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINE DIAGNE
Before we take up the issue of the best analysis for clitics, we need to
provide the reader with a general understandingof Wolof clause struc-
ture. For convenience's sake, we shall use zeros in the transcriptionof
our examples to indicatethe unmarkedvalues of functionalfeatures.Our
presentationof the Wolof datadepartsin variousrespectsfrom otheravail-
able syntactic descriptions of Wolof clause structure(particularlyNjie
1982; Robert 1991; Dunigan 1994). Some discrepancies between other
authorsand ourselves will be pointedout along the way.
Let us begin with independent,simplex, affirmative,transitiveclauses,
exemplifiedin (6) and (7):5
(7)a. xale -yi d(i)6 -oon -na -flu lekk ceeb -bi
child DFpl +ipf +pst +F 3pl eat rice DFsg
The childrenwere eating rice.
(lO)a. xale -yi d(i) -oon -u(l) 0 -flu woon lekk ceeb -bi.
child DFpl +ipf +pst +neg +F 3pl +pst eat rice DFsg
The childrenwould not have eaten the rice in the past.
(woon) (di)
[3pl] [+F] (+neg] [+pst] [+ipf] ~ 'lekk
10 A similar descriptionmay be proposed for the auxiliatedfinite verb forms in, e.g.,
French- except that Frenchauxiliariesspell out the [+accomplished] feature,ratherthan
[+imperfective].
11 Dais glossed verbfocus in Ka (1994), predicatefocus in Dunigan(1994), emphatique
du verbe in Church (1981) and Robert (1991), processif in Fal et al. (1990). The term
explicative more accuratelysuggests the semantic effect correlatedwith this element: da
is typically inserted to indicate that the clause provides an explanation for a previous
statement,e.g.:
Da clauses are inflected for aspect, tense, and polarity,but these features
are spelt out below da, on the verb or imperfectiveauxiliary.Da itself is
only inflected for person, and does not combine with na: we assume that
da is generatedin the same position as na, i.e., the Finiteness head, and
incorporatesthe Personfeature.12
The Wolof clauses so far considered all host a person markeron the
verb or auxiliaryand are, correlatively,positively specified for finiteness.
A [+finite] clause may be embedded;it may then be introducedby the
complementizerni:
Let us now turn to clause types which, unlike the ones above, do not
include a person markeron the verb or auxiliary.We begin with clauses
b. mu lekk Aram.
3sg eat Aram
So he eats Aram.
(17)a. relativeclauses
ceeb -bi xale -yi lekk 10 /-oon 0
rice DFsg child DFpl eat -pst /+pst -neg
the rice which the children (have/hadI eaten
(19)a. imperativeclauses
0 lekk0 -al 0 ceeb-bi!
C eat -neg IMP -pl rice DFsg
Eat the rice! (singularaddressee)
Our example (19b), with its overt imperative marker, stands as a typical 'Saint-
Louisianism',cf. fn. 1.
CLITICPLACEMENTAFTER SYNTAX 839
(21) presentativeclauses
a. xale -y(i>a)+a -ngi lekk 0 0 ceeb -bi.
child DFpl COP/-obveat -ipf -pst rice DFsg
The childreneat the rice.
ni Foc? PresP
bi 0 Pres'
ba Pres?
a
la
ngi
nga INFLECTIONAL
DOMAIN
842 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINEDIAGNE
fnu n ul n di DOMAIN(vP)
LEXICAL
da
al
3. WOLOFCLITICSFROMAN ALL-SYNTACTIC
PERSPECTIVE
(27) subjectmarkers
a. xale -yi lekk 0 0 0 -na -iiu ceeb -bi.
child DFpl eat -ipf -pst -neg +F 3pl rice DFsg
The childrenhave eaten the rice.
I sg man (nUa ma
3sg ya__ __ a_ _
Functional locatives are specified for obviation (obv) and deixis (dx): loc-
atives glossed as [-dx] may be read as bound variables, locatives glossed
as [+dx] behave as r(eferring)-expressions (the exact nature of the deictic
feature is not relevant to the present study).
3.2. StrongForms
Strong functional nominals occur in positions otherwise open to lexical
DPs (cf. (26a)) and locative phrases (cf. (26b)). Strong person mark-
ers occur in P-governed (30a), dislocated (30b) and object-focus (30c)
positions:
This suggests that the markedreading of the strong pronounin (i) does not derive from
some inherentfeatureof the pronounandthatthe strongpronounof (i) does not occupy the
846 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINEDIAGNE
V-to-lnfl xale-yi lekk-na-nfu) ceeb-bi. The children have eaten the rice.
lekk-na-ii(u) ceeb-bi. They have eaten the rice.
ipf-to-Infl xale-yi di-na-fi(u) lekk ceeb-bi. The children will eat the rice.
di-na-ii(u) lekk ceeb-bi. They will eat the rice.
EXPL-to-Infl xale-yi da-ni(u) lekk ceeb-bi. (It is because) the children have eaten the
L-attachment rice.
da-fi(u) lekk ceebbi. (It is because) they have eaten the rice.
optative na-iiu lekk ceeb-bi! (It is my wish) that they eat the rice!
relative ceeb-bi-iinulekk the rice which they have eaten
TS bi-fiu lekk6e ceeb-bi... when they ate the rice...
neg. imp. bu-fiu lekk ceeb-bi! Let them not eat the rice!
__________ _ -object focus ceeb-bi-la-nu lekk. It is therice, which e ate.
R-attachment subject focus fiu-a(>rioo) lekk ceeb-bi. It is they who ate the rice.
presentative fiu-a-ngi(>fioongi) lekk ceeb-bi They eat the rice.
_ DT . lekk ceeb-bi)
[lnu [them to eat the rice]
(34) subjectfocus
a. xale -yi -a (> xaleyaa) lekk ceeb -bi.
child DFpl COP eat rice DFsg
It is the children,who ate the rice.
(35) presentative
a. xale -yi -a -ngi (> xaleyaangi)lekk ceeb -bi.
child DFpl COP PRES eat rice DFsg
The childreneat the rice.
b. Aram gis -oon -na [xale -yi d(i) -oon -ko lekk].
Aram see +pst +F child DFpl +ipf +pst 3sg/O eat
Aramhad seen the childreneating it.
(Capitalstranscribecontrastivestress.)
CLITIC
PLACEMENT
AFIERSYNTAX 853
(47)a. Aram wax -na -ni xale -yi lekk -na -flu -ko.
Aram say +F that child DFpl eat +F 3pl 3sg/O
Aram said thatthe childrenate it.
b. *Aram wax -na -ni -ko xale -yi lekk -na -flu.
Aram say +F that 3sg/O child DFpl eat +F 3pl
CLITJCPLACEMENTAFTER SYNTAX 855
(49)a. Aram gis -oon -na [xale -yi d(i) -oon -ko lekk].
Aram see +pst +F child DFpl +ipf +pst 3sg/O eat
Aram had seen the childreneating it.
unlike the lexical subject. But Dunigan does not even consider such an
alternative.
The all-syntactic approachwhich she develops furthermoreraises a
numberof descriptiveproblems.First,recall thatthe stringa+ngi which is
targetedby OLCs in presentativeclauses is likely to be made up of two
morphemes generated in two distinct syntactic heads (cf. Church 1981
and section 2 above); under this assumption,the behaviour of OLCs in
presentativeclauses violates generalization(46). Second, note that the
existence of a syntacticrule of Clitic Movementmay be disputedon the-
oretical grounds, since we may regardas doubtfulthat Head Movement,
as a whole, should pertainto syntax (cf. Collins 1997; Chomsky 1999).29
Furthermore,the Clitic Phraseassumptionon which Dunigan'sanalysis is
based is only motivatedby an a prioriconceptionof the syntax-phonology
interface,accordingto which weak-stresson functionalnominalsis a reflex
of syntax, ratherthan an independentphonological property.Under the
all-syntacticview, weak-stressfunctionalnominals must form a syntactic
class, thereforemustbe 'clitics' even when they do not cliticize. The Clitic
Phrase analysis results in various descriptiveassumptionswhich receive
no independentjustification.Considerin particularthe subject markerof
finite clauses such as (50), which we proposed to analyse above as the
V-to-Infl,Ipf-to-Infland Expl-to-Inflconstructions:
(50)a. V-to-Infl
xale -yi lekk 0 0 0 -na -flu ceeb -bi.
child DFpl eat -ipf -pst -neg +F 3pl rice DFsg
The childrenhave eaten the rice.
TO VP
V0 TO V0
I I I
mange, -ait tz
To avoid this problem, Collins (1997) and Chomsky (1999) suggest that Head-to-Head
movementshould occur in Morphologyand leave no trace.
858 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMIE DIAGNE
b. Ipf-to-Infl
xale -yi di 0 0 -na -fnulekk ceeb -bi.
child DFpl +ipf -pst -neg +F 3pl eat rice DFsg
The childrenwill eat the rice.
c. Expl-to-Infl
xale -yi da -flu lekk 0 0 0 ceeb -bi.
child DFpl EXPL3pl eat -ipf -pst -neg rice DFsg
(It is because) the childrenhave eaten the rice.
b. subjectfocus construction
xale -yi, nu -a lekk ceeb -bi. [fnu-a>fnoo]
child DFpl 3pl COP eat rice DFsg
The children,it is they who ate the rice.
CLITIC AFTERSYNTAX
PLACEMENT 859
(55)a. Aram, begg -na Moodu {gis -ko [liggey ngir moom}, ak
Aram want +F Moodu see 3sg/O//work for 3sgsTR and
Maryamaktam (zlk)
Maryama too
Aram, wants Moodu to {see herz/work for herz}, and
Maryamaktoo (z/k).
'sing/PRS/3pl'. Correlatively,clitics procliticizeto the Italianfinite verb, but they encliti-
cize to the Italian infinitive verb, which does not bear distinctive morphology.The same
assumptionis meantto accountfor the fact thatenclisis is generalizedin Semiticlanguages,
which typically exhibit a nondistinctive(nonconcatenative)verbalmorphology.
32 These violations of Cardinalettiand Starke'stheory are not specific to Wolof: strong
pronounsmay also refer to inanimateswhen conjoined, and be read as bound variablesin,
e.g., Malagasy (cf. Zribi-Hertzand Mbolatianavalona1999) and French (cf. Zribi-Hertz
1999).
862 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINEDIAGNE
3.3.6. Conclusion
We concludethatthe all-syntacticanalyses of clitics reviewedabove either
make wrong predictions for Wolof or must sacrifice explanatoryto de-
scriptiveadequacy.In the next section, we shall arguethat the Wolof data
should be accountedfor in a modularframeworknot involving syntactic
clitics, nor Clitic Phrases,nor Clitic Movement.
Wolof words regularly bear initial stress (cf. Ka 1978, 1994; Diallo
1981a), a property independent from vowel length, as pointed out by
Sauvageot(1965). This is illustratedin (57) by a few examples:
(57) WKitems
a. noninitialposition: ATTACHMENT(enclisis)
['lekk-na-niu]'they have eaten', ['ceeb-bi] 'the rice'
b. domain-initialposition: STRESS
['na xale-yi lekk] 'thatthe childreneat'
['iiu lekk ceeb] '. . . them (to) eat rice'
['bi xale-yi lekk-ee. . . ] 'when the childrenate. . .
b. Aram wax -na -ni xale -yi lekk -na -fnuceeb -bi.
Aram say +F that child DFpl eat +F 3pl rice DFsg
Aram said thatthe childrenate the rice.
(60)a. *bi talaata Iflu /xale -yi} lekk -ee ceeb ...
when Tuesday3pl Ichild DFpl eat -F rice
Assuming that it does not and that it occupies in (63) the same syntactic
position as the lexical subject xale-yi, the contrastbetween the nonclitic
vs. clitic behaviourof niuin (63a) and (63b) boils down to the phonolo-
gical patterndescribedin (57): iiu bears default-initialstress in (63a), and
undergoesattachmentin (63b).
(66)a. subject-focus
Ixale -yi/ nflu -a lekk ceeb. [yi-a>yaa;niu-a>nioo]
child DFpl 3pl COP eat rice
It is Ithe children/they), who ate rice.
b. presentative
xale -yi/ flu) -a -ngi lekk ceeb.
child DFpl 3pl COP PRESeat rice
( The children/they
) eat rice.
c. narrative
Ixale -yi/ nu
f lekk ceeb.
child DFpl 3pl eat rice
So Ithe children/they
) eat rice.
d. DT
Arambegg -na Ixale -yi/ nu u lekk ceeb.
Aram want +F child DFpl 3pl eat rice
Aram wants {the children/they)to eat rice.
Table (67) below gives the full paradigm of Wolof subject markers
subclassifiedaccordingto our own syntacticassumptions:
This table does not specify whetheror not each item undergoesattach-
ment, a propertywe have shown to be independentlyderivablefrom the
phonological patternin (57). Three of the forms listed in (67) only spell
out nominativepronouns((m)u, ya, and yeen), one only spells out person
inflection (fi). In most cases, however, nominativepronounsand person-
inflectionmarkershaveidenticalphonologicalspell-outs,a predictablefact
underthe reasonableassumption(Giv6n 1972, 1976) thatthe latterare but
a diachronicdevelopmentof the former.
nga (2sg) and ngeen (2pl) become ya, yeen when initially-stressedand supportingan ad-
jacent WK item (e.g., in subject-focusand presentativeconstructions).Besides, the initial
consonantin nga is vocalized after [u]:
4.3.2.2. Attach: (i) Person Inflection,(ii) OLCs. That OLCs must attach
to the verb or auxiliaryafterpersoninflectionis suggested by severaltests
laid out by Zwicky (1985) to distinguishclitics from inflectional affixes.
OLCs may form clusters,and linearizationwithin clustersmust follow the
patternexplicited in (70):
(71)a. xale -yi lekk -na -flu [-ko -ci]/ *[-ci -ko].
child DFpl eat +F 3pl 3sg/O LOC LOC3sg/O
The childrenate it there.
38 Church (1981, pp. 94-95) spells out the constraintin (70a), but not that in (70b).
According to him, a furtherrule should linearize singularpronouns to the left of plural
ones - but we have found no evidence of this in the dialect underconsideration.
874 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINEDIAGNE
Our crucial assumptionin (80) is that the targetof OLCs must be defined
neither in syntax alone, nor in phonology alone, but in the syntax-
phonology interface.OLC attachmentoccurs in Phonology and thus first
targetsa prosodic word, but it is neverthelesssensitive to syntactic x-bar
structuresince it must cruciallyidentify the topmosthead within diagram
(24). In some cases, such as (77a), the topmost head of the extended-V
domainforms a word of its own at PF, and OLCs simply attachto it (e.g.,
bi+ko). In othercases, OLC attachmentmust see througha prosodic word
to identify its syntactictarget:thus in (78b) the topmostsyntactichead (bi)
is contained in the prosodic word bi-fiu (>bi-fiu+ko),and in (69b), (71),
(72b), (74a), the topmost syntactic head na is containedin the inflected
verb or auxiliaryresultingfrom incorporation(e.g., di-na-fiu+ko).Unlike
the object clitics of Frenchanalysedby Miller (1992) and Miller and Sag
(1997), Wolof OLCs do not necessarily spell out a syntactic feature of
their syntactic target (thus, the OLCs of (77a) do not spell out features
of bi); their syntactic targetis left unrestrictedas to both category (it is
functionalin, e.g., (69b): di-na-nu+ko,and lexical in (76): lekk+ko) and
syntacticposition (it may fill V, T, Pol, F, Foc, or C). Because it is primarily
identifiedas a phonological entity (a prosodic word), the targetof OLCs
may include material which does not occupy a head position in syntax
(e.g., iiu in bi-fiu, cf. (78b)). The result of OLC attachmentmay thus
indeed be phonologically characterizedas a well-formed prosodic word,
regularlybearing initial stress. However, their targetmay not be defined
in the purely phonological terms consideredin (79), as clearly witnessed
above by (49), which shows that the linearizationof OLCs is sensitive to
syntacticstructure.
That OLCs may not attachto the cliticized complementizerni, as ex-
emplifiedby (47), repeatedunder(81), suggests thatgeneralization(80) is
subjectto a uniquenessrequirement:
878 ANNE ZRIBI-HERTZAND LAMINEDIAGNE
(81)a. Aramwax -na -ni xale -yi lekk -na -nu -ko.
Aram say +F that child DFpl eat +F 3pl 3sg/O
Aramsaid thatthe childrenate it.
nontaxic items spell out phrasal features- in the case of Wolof OLCs:
object and locative features pertainingto the extended projection of V.
Underthe taxic/nontaxicdistinction,we may assumethattaxic WK items,
as a class, undergo attachmentprior to nontaxic WK items - a natural
assumptionif we think of Phonology as a layeredcomponentwhose first
activatedstratumis the closest to the outputof syntax(cf. Zwicky andPul-
lum 1983; Selkirk 1984; Zwicky 1985; Pullumand Zwicky 1988; Inkelas
and Zec 1990; Kaisse 1983, 1990; Miller et al., 1997, among others).
Our own analysis of Wolof OLCs crucially contrastswith Dunigan's
in the way it explains the 'special' linear position of these items: under
Dunigan'sgeneralization(46), it resultsfromthe topmostg-headattracting
the clitic, a magnetic phenomenon which might be due to the inherent
strengthof the g-head, to the inherentweakness of the clitic, or to a com-
binationof both. Under our own generalization(80), it stems out from the
fact thatnontaxicitems should be spelt out in a high-visibilitylocus. High
visibility is a propertyof a geometricalnature,which in this specific case
is assessed in syntacticterms (topmosthead of phrasaldomain).Underthe
modularapproach(80), it is unproblematicthat,as exemplifiedby (43b) or
(76), OLCsseem insensitive to the contrastbetween functionaland lexical
heads, or that, as illustratedby (78b), their target may be made up of a
syntactichead and a syntacticnonhead.
+taxic -taxic
(featuresprojected (phrasal features)
in X-barsyntax)
XP X?
-structural +structural
case case SYNTAX
PHONOLOGY
(82) (nontaxic/WK)is not a necessary one. Leaving these issues open for
future research,we conclude that the Wolof data presentedin this study
globally supporta modularapproachto pronountypology treatingweak-
stressandcliticizationas phonologicalpropertieslargelyindependentfrom
syntax.
REFERENCES
Dunigan, Melynda. 1994. The Clausal Structureof Wolof.A Studyof Focus and Cliticiza-
tion, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof NorthCarolina,ChapelHill.
Emonds, Joseph. 1975. 'A TransformationalAnalysis of French Clitics without Positive
OutputConstraints',LinguisticAnalysis 1(1), 3-24.
Fal, Aram, Rosine Santos and Jean-Leonce Doneux. 1990. Dictionnaire wolof-francais,
Karthela,Paris.
Fal, Aram. 1991. Alphabetisationin wolof: Guide orthographique,Institute of Applied
Linguistics,DakarUniversity,Dakar.
Frota, Sonia. 1992. 'Is Focus a Phonological Category in Portuguese?',Proceedings of
ConSole, UtrechtUniversity,pp. 69-86.
Givon, Talmy. 1972. 'HistoricalSyntax and SynchronicMorphology:An Archaeologist's
Field Trip', Proceedingsof the Chicago LinguisticsSociety 7, 394-415.
Giv6n, Talmy.1976. 'Topic,Pronoun,andGrammaticalAgreement',in C. Li (ed.), Subject
and Topic,Academic Press, New York,pp. 149-188.
Greenberg,Joseph. 1966. The Languagesof Africa, Mouton,The Hague.
Halle, Morrisand Alec Marantz.1993. 'DistributedMorphologyand the Pieces of Inflec-
tion', in K. Hale andS. J. Keyser(eds.), The ViewfromBuilding20: Essays in Linguistics
in Honor of SylvainBromberger,MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, pp. 111-176.
Halpern,Aaron. 1995. On the Placement and Morphologyof Clitics, Centerfor the Study
of Languageand Information,Stanford.
Harris,James. 1997. 'Why n'ho is pronounced [li] in Barceloni Catalan:Morphological
Impoverishment,Merger,Fusion and Fission', RecherchesLinguistiquesde Vincennes
26, 61-86.
Harris, James. 1998. 'Spanish Imperatives:Syntax Meets Morphology', Journal of Lin-
guistics 34, 27-52.
Inkelas, SharonandDragaZec (eds.). 1990. ThePhonology-SyntaxConnection,Centerfor
the Study of Languageand Information,Stanford.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topicsin RomanceSyntax,Foris, Dordrecht.
Ka, Omar. 1978. L'accent en wolof: essai d'analyse phonetique et linguistique, unpub-
lished M.A. thesis, Universityof Dakar,Dakar.
Ka, Omar.1994. WolofPhonologyand Morphology,UniversityPress of America,Lanham,
MD.
Ka, Ousman. 1982. La syntaxe du wolof. essai d'analyse distributionnelle,unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation,DakarUniversity,Dakar.
Kaisse, Ellen. 1983. 'The Syntax of Auxiliary Reduction in English', Language 59, 93-
122.
Kaisse, Ellen. 1990. 'Towarda Typology of Postlexical Rules', in S. Inkelas and D.
Zec (eds.), The Phonology-SyntaxConnection,Center for the Study of Language and
Information,Stanford,CA, pp. 127-144.
Kayne, Richard.1975. FrenchSyntax,MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.
Kayne, Richard. 1989. 'Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing', in 0. Jaeggli and K. Safir
(eds.), TheNull SubjectParameter,Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp. 239-261.
Kayne, Richard. 1991. 'Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO', LinguisticInquiry
22, 647-686.
Kayne, Richard.1994. TheAntisymmetryof Syntax,MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.
Kayne, Richard. 1999. 'A Note on Clitic Doubling in French', unpublishedmanuscript,
New YorkUniversity.
CLITIC
PLACEMENT SYNTAX
AFTER 883