Split subject pronoun paradigms

Heap, David

doi:10.1075/cilt.220.10hea

Cited by 30 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to distinguish these two maximally underspecified pronominals, we have to suppose that some feature distinguishes reflexive clitics (like se) from impersonal clitics like ko. While underspecified clitics like se exist throughout Romance languages with a range of functions (Bruhn de Garavito, Lamarche & Heap 2002), nominative impersonals of the ko type, which are not homophonic with P3 masculine singulars, seem relatively rare and peculiar to a few restricted areas like the one under study. Since we need to keep se in the overall paradigm of clitics throughout the area, this suggests we need to add a specification to this new ko clitic that is not present in the make-up of SE.…”

Section: Beyond Binary Features: a Proposed Feature Geometrymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Table 5 summarizes these analyses, noting a division into two blocks (grey vs. white), as pointed out by Heap (2000) among others. The first block (P2, P3, P6) is most likely to appear first in split subject pronoun paradigms, while the second block (P4, P1, P5) appears last: Heap (2002) notes the split between Block A pronouns (2sg, 3sg & 3pl) which are favoured, and Block B pronouns (1pl, 1sg & 2pl) which are disfavoured, as well as the tendency for 2sg must be present if there are two or more subject clitics. But these generalizations, which imply that P2 subject clitic is among the first SCl to appear but also that P1 is in the second block, cannot stand since we have seen that the NODs behave differently.…”

Section: Previous Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11

Perpiñán¹,

Heap²,

Moreno-Villamar³

et al. 2017

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The second article in this section "Towards a Unified Treatment of Spanish Copulas", by Arche, Fábregas, and Marín adds to the ongoing debate of the distribution of the Spanish copulas ser and estar by accounting for their alternation in adjectival and passive clauses in a unified way. They propose that the properties of passive clauses are due to the properties of the copulas and not the participles, and further argue that only estar has an additional component of central coincidence with a stative nature. Charnavel analyzes French scalar particles même, quand même, ne serait-ce que, and seulement and compares them to English particles even and only. Her article, "How French Sheds New Light on Scalar Particles" proposes a new theory based on specific characteristics such as scalarity, additivity, and exclusivity and provides new empirical evidence about these French particles, which, despite widespread assumptions, behave differently from their English counterparts. The last article of the Syntax-Semantics section is by Donazzan and Tovena and investigates the semantics of semelfactive predicates in Italian. In "Pluralities of Events: Semelfactives and a Case of 'Single Event' Nominalisation", the authors analyze the notion of plurality and unity of events by looking at the two possible readings that ata-nominalisations, i.e.: nuotata, ombrellata, receive in instrument semelfactive verbs. They conclude that semelfactives, in their processive readings, have to considered activity predicates. The second section of the volume includes articles on Morphosyntax, beginning with "Laísmo and 'le-for-les': To Agree or not to Agree?", by Adolfo Ausín and Francisco J. Fernández-Rubiera, a novel exploration of an old problem in nonstandard Spanish pronominal paradigms. They propose a unified account for three apparently unrelated phenomena: the presence of the accusative clitic, the presence/ absence of number agreement in the dative clitic ('le-for-les'), and the presence/absence of gender agreement in the dative clitic in laísta dialects ('le-for-la'). They propose that agreement in these two nonstandard dative clitic constructions is related

show abstract

Section: Beyond Binary Features: a Proposed Feature Geometrymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Previous Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11

Perpiñán¹,

Heap²,

Moreno-Villamar³

et al. 2017

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies on Italo-Romance revealed some robust trends, e.g., if a variety has at least one subject clitic, it is 2sg; if a variety has two subject clitics, they are 2sg and 3sg; if a variety has three subject clitics, they are 2sg, 3sg, and 3pl (Renzi and Vanelli 1983). Theoretical works tried to formulate higher-grade generalizations by modeling person features (Heap 2002;Cabredo Hofherr 2004;Benincà and Poletto 2005;Oliviéri 2011;Calabrese 2011). Clitic inventories, however, are likely governed by principles of externalization, rather than principles of narrow syntax (they are 'modes of PF externalization' in Roberts' (2014) terms).…”

Section: Dummiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expletive Subject Clitics in Northern Italo-Romance

Pescarini

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the syntax of subject clitics in northern Italian dialects. Statistical analysis is performed on a sample of 350 dialects to show that the co-variation between syntactic variables is significant. The variables under examination are the occurrence of subject clitics with non-dislocated subjects (e.g., the wh element who); the occurrence of subject clitics with nonthematic predicates (e.g., weather verbs); and the occurrence of subject clitics with subjects of any person. Syntactic variables are in turn linked to verbal agreement; in the above contexts, clitics are more readily found in dialects with “poor” inflection. Theoretical issues concerning the syntactic representation of subject clitics, null subjects, and doubling are addressed in light of quantitative findings.

show abstract

“…There is an increasingly large body of work which attempts to demonstrate how a structured lexicon can constrain the syntactic and phonological representations of pronominal forms in Universal Grammar (cf. Bonet (1995), Harley & Ritter (1997), Kayne (1998), Roberge & Bibis (1999), Heap (1999), among others).…”

Section: The Features Of ±Tu In a Minimalist Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feature representation and –tu(pas) in Quebec French

Vinet

2000

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers an analysis of ±tu(pas) in Quebec French in terms of feature composition. It is proposed that the features of ±tu are checked both at PF and LF. It is argued that ±tu represents a PF reflex of an emphatic stress on the last syllable of the prosodic unit V finite +tu and it is a LF reflex of a reinforcer in the internal domain of TP for certain types of mood-force expressions. However, it is not an inherent illocutionary Force marker. It is illustrated how ±tu pas creates an aspectual effect in discourse and is connected to predicates with a built-in terminal point. Even though ±tu pas must sometimes appear obligatorily together in the proposition, the two forms bring a different contribution to the meaning of the sentence. It is argued that ±tu is a Force operator identified in the CP domain at LF and pas is a negative marker which is interpretated with a reverse positive polarity when it scopes over ±tu.Studia Linguistica 54 (3)

show abstract

Split subject pronoun paradigms

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11

Expletive Subject Clitics in Northern Italo-Romance

Feature representation and –tu(pas) in Quebec French

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About