The morphophonology of the Romanian clitic sequence

Popescu, Alexandra

doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(00)00016-4

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, Monachesi (2001) and Monachesi (2005) deal with RWPs using Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Barbu and Toivonen (2018) models direct object RWPs within a Lexical Functional Grammar framework, while Klein (2007) treats them within the Dynamic Syntax formalism. Optimality Theory is represented by a series of models such as Popescu (2000), Sasaki and Căluianu (2000), Legendre (2001), Popescu (2003), andCherecheş (2014).…”

Section: Previous Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to identify phonological constraints on RWP combinations, one should first categorize the phonological shapes of RWPs based on the different contexts they occur in (for more details, see Avram 1986or Popescu 2000. Although there is no disagreement about partitioning RWPs into two categories (one for syllabic and one for asyllabic forms), there is a great variety in terminology.…”

Section: Phonological Features Of Romanian Weak Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How weak are Romanian clitic pronouns?

Gerstenberger

2022

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In traditional linguistics, pronouns are divided into two classes: those that can bear word stress, coined strong, full or tonal, and those that can not, coined weak, clitic, or atonal. However, in the last decades, research on this topic showed that items generally labeled as clitics are by far more complex. Between words and affixes, these hybrid linguistic entities challenge both description and modeling. As for Romanian, the debate on weak (i.e., clitic) pronouns was dominated by the question about their categorial status: are these items clitics or affixes? In this article, we present and scrutinize different approaches that support the claim that there is a difference between proclitics and enclitics, i.e., between clitics occurring before vs. after the verb. Since Romanian features a full-fledged pronominal system with different deficiency degrees, we evaluate these claims against it. We show that all these approaches manifest basic deficiencies.

show abstract

Section: Previous Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phonological Features Of Romanian Weak Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How weak are Romanian clitic pronouns?

Gerstenberger

2022

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the Italian contrasts in (58) indicate, two clitic pronouns inside one and the same sentence necessarily have to cluster (see Rizzi 1982). The data show that the cluster is formed in the lower clitic position (58a) and optionally moved to the high clitic position 58b For the analysis of the syntactic and phonological properties of clitic clusters in Romance languages, see Perlmutter (1971); Bonet (1995); Laenzlinger (1993); Dobrovie-Sorin (1995); Gerlach (1998a, b); Popescu (2000); Cardinaletti (2008); Săvescu Ciucivara (2009), among many others.…”

Section: Locality and Clitic Climbingmentioning

confidence: 99%

19. Syntactic Effects of Cliticization

Cardinaletti¹

2015

Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 42/1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

19. Syntactic Effects of Cliticization 1. Introduction 2. An overview of the cliticization of verbal arguments 3. On the peculiar properties of clitic pronouns 4. An syntactic attempt to derive the peculiar properties of clitic pronouns 5. Clitic placement: Derivation or base-generation? 6. On the derivation of clitic placement 7. Clitic vs. weak pronouns: Two case studies 8. Conclusions 9. References (selected)

show abstract

“…Pronominal clitics (Popescu, 2000) have allomorphs which are phonologically conditioned, but do not produce changes in the host. The distribution of the clitic is freer than that of the suffixal definite article.…”

Section: Preliminary Remarks: On Feature Valuation and Feature Interpmentioning

confidence: 99%