Enclisis/Proclisis Alternations in Romance: Allomorphies and (Re)Ordering

Abstract

Romance clitic pronouns appear to the left of the verb in I and to the right of the verb in C. This alternation correlates with: (a) allomorphy, specifically l-vs. zero; (b) stress shifts; and (c) reordering of the clitic string. The alternations in (a)-(c) are also observed between non-negative and negative contexts. The key points of our analysis are: (i) the l-segment is associated with definite content; (ii) interpretively, pronouns scope out of modal/non-veridical operators; (iii) syntactically, the exponent for modality/nonveridicality may have the pronoun in its domain; (iv) externalization of the l-segment is found when semantic scope (ii) and syntactic configuration (iii) are mismatched. Therefore allomorphies (including stress), far from being morphophonological quirks, contribute to the externalization of syntactico-semantic notions of non-veridicality. In dealing with clitic (re)ordering we propose a model based on the dissociation between Merge and linear order. Phrasal constituents are ordered to the right of the verb in Romance; clitics mirror them in that they are ordered to the left, while keeping the Merge relations constant.

Clitics in imperative: proclisis, enclisis and mesoclisis in Albanian and in Italo-Romance varieties of Lausberg area

“…These are realized by the simple inflectional elements a, u, i 'her, him, them', unlike the more complex structure of enclitic forms. We recall that in these dialects the clitic nə lexicalizes both partitive and dative, as in n u ˈðɔnaðə '(s)he gives it to him/her' (Terranova), n u rɔŋgu 'I give it to her/him' As noted, the morphology of 3 rd person OCls in enclisis includes the l-root characterizing D elements in Romance languages (Manzini and Savoia 2017). Terranova dialect in (13) shows also the morpho-phonological alternant -a: deriving from the velarization of original l-.…”

“…This raises an interesting issue, since the 2 nd person inflection and object clitics lexicalize referential properties, possibly undergoing truth conditions, contrasting with the counterfactual nature of the imperative. This discrepancy can be seen as the reason for clitics in imperative clauses to be lexicalized by specialized forms in comparison with declarative ones (Manzini and Savoia 2017).…”

“…Re-assignment of the main stress can be connected to the specialized nature of 3 rd person clitics in post-verbal position in imperatives, where, following Manzini and Savoia (2017), the richer morphology is connected with the necessity to externalize a stronger referential import.…”

“…On the contrary 3 rd person clitics occur in the immediate domain of v. We can explain this restriction by assuming that in these dialects the agreement head of v is satisfied by elements endowed with referential content, i.e. deictic clitics, the 1 st person element mi, or 3 rd person clitics l-u / l-a / l-i endowed with the definiteness base l- (Manzini and Savoia 2017). Also in this case, a complete referential property of OCls is required in imperative contexts so that mesoclisis is admitted only if this requirement is fulfilled.…”

The Agreement of Structural Obliques Parameter. Pseudopartitives, DOM and partitive articles in Romance

“…We take the status of m-/t-as bearers of 1/2P content to be uncontroversial; as for the oblique analysis of -i, seeManzini and Savoia (2014). An independent argument in favour of the oblique status of 1/2P is their position in the clitic string, different from that of accusative 3P and overlapping with that of dative 3P anf of the locative/instrumental clitic(Manzini and Savoia 2017).…”