Abstract
This paper discusses a series of morpho-syntactic properties of Romance languages that have the functional projection vP as its locus, showing a continuum that goes from strongly configurational Romance languages to partially configurational Romance languages. It is argued that v-related phenomena like Differential Object Marking (DOM), participial agreement, oblique clitics, auxiliary selection, and others align in a systematic way when it comes to inflectional properties that involve Case-agreement properties. In order to account for the facts, I argue for a micro-parametric approach whereby v can be associated with an additional projection subject to variation (cf. D’Alessandro, Merging Probes. A typology of person splits and person-driven differential object marking. Ms., University of Leiden, 2012; Microvariation and syntactic theory. What dialects tell us about language. Invited talk given at the workshop The Syntactic Variation of Catalan and Spanish Dialects, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, June 26–28, 2013; Ordóñez, Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In Sergio Baauw, Frank AC Drijkoningen & Manuela Pinto (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Utrecht, 8–10 December 2005, 259–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007). I label such projection “X,” arguing that its feature content and position varies across Romance. More generally, the present paper aims at contributing to our understanding of parametric variation of closely related languages by exploiting the intuition, embodied in the so-called Borer-Chomsky Conjecture, that linguistic variation resides in the functional inventory of the lexicon.
Funding source: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
Award Identifier / Grant number: FFI2017-87140-C4-1-P
Funding source: Generalitat de Catalunya
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2017SGR634
-
Article note: I am indebted to Roberta D’Alessandro, Ricardo Etxepare, and Juan Uriagereka for comments and on-going discussion about the matters explored in this paper. Thanks also to Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts for their interest in this piece and their patience. This research has been partially supported by grants from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (FFI2017-87140-C4-1-P), the Generalitat de Catalunya (2017SGR634), and the Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA Acadèmia 2015). Usual disclaimers apply.
- 1
The option that the position of certain functional projections can vary within a given local domain is discussed in Ramchand and Svenonius (2014).
- 2
As Adam Ledgeway (p.c.) observes, nothing prevents X being merged above C, which could be behind phenomena like DOM under topicalization/dislocation.
- 3
There may be different ways to approach the UP, and under any of them questions arise about how the lexicon is formed. I will put aside these matters here, merely noting that the observations and claims made here are in principle amenable to both lexicalist and distributed-morphology approaches (cf. Chomsky 1995; Embick 2010; Halle and Marantz 1993; Ramchand 2008, among others).
- 4
Adam Ledgeway (p.c.) observes that VSO in European Portuguese is only possible if both S and O are new information and focused. This is not the case, in Spanish and Romanian, so the comparison requires some adjustments. Also relevant is Gupton’s (2010) claim that VSO (and VOS) is very unnatural in Galician. These facts require further attention.
- 5
DOM is of course available with strong pronouns, a case I am not considering here. Also excluded here are those dialects of the Romance varieties and areas just mentioned where DOM is licensed (in Southern Italian Dialects, for instance; cf. Andriani 2011; D’Alessandro 2012, 2013; Ledgeway 2000a, 2000b, 2000c).
- 6
By morphological recycling I mean the type of use of clitics discussed by Roca (1992). As this author observes, Spanish may use dative clitics to cover a wide range of prepositional (non-dative) values. Why partitive/locative and locative clitics disappeared in Spanish and Portuguese is a question that goes beyond the goals of this paper.
- 7
I am putting aside the existence of different types of leísmo in Spanish dialects. As discussed by Fernández-Ordóñez (1993, 1999, dative clitics in European Spanish can substitute both animate and inanimate DPs (the former being available in the centre and north of the Iberian Peninsula), but even non-leísta varieties can display this phenomenon in specific contexts (in the presence of non-paradigmatic se; cf. Ordóñez and Roca 2015; Ordóñez and Treviño 2007). Examples of personal and impersonal leísmo are shown in (i) and (ii).
(i)Nadie le criticó, (a Juan) personal leísmo (Eur. Spanish) nobody CL-DAT criticized-3.SG to Juan ‘Nobody criticized him, Juan’ (ii)Nadie le cogió, (el coche) impersonal leísmo (Castillian Spanish) nobody CL-DAT took-3.SG the car ‘Nobody took it, the car’. for the purposes of this paper, I will not discuss all the types of leísmo. Rather, I will focus on the most frequent one: presonal leísmo
- 8
Laísmo is much more restricted than leísmo, a fact I return to in Section 4.
- 9
Cf. Ledgeway (2000a, 2000b, 2000c: ch. 2) for evidence that laísmo and loísmo are found in many dialects of southern Italy.
- 10
Adam Ledgeway (p.c.) observes that this generalization does not work empirically with a wider range of Romance varieties, many of which have non-dative oblique clitics but no longer license participle agreement with shifted internal arguments (cf. Bentley 2016; Loporcaro 2016: 803–812).
- 11
Some of the Romance languages that cannot use have in a possessive fashion today (Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Portuguese) could in previous stages, and the same happened with auxiliary selection, participial agreement and oblique clitics (cf. Aranovic 2003; Batllori 1992; Company Company 2006, and references therein). Although interesting and relevant for the overall discussion, I will not take into account diachronic evidence in this paper.
- 12
More conservative varieties of Catalan (e.g., Balearic varieties) still retain to this day a HAVE/BE transitive/unaccusative split and participle agreement (and not just with feminine object clitics). Likewise, Romanian retains to this day a HAVE / BE alternation according to modality/finiteness (cf. Ledgeway 2014). This and other facts involve a more complex synchronic and diachronic scenario that I can fully investigate in this paper.
- 13
There are three other phenomena that have v as their locus and also display a (mis)alignment with respect to the empirical evidence we have considered: (i) non-paradigmatic se (cf. D’Alessandro 2007; Ordóñez and Treviño 2007, and references therein), clitic doubling (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003, and references therein) and causative structures (cf. Guasti 1996, and references therein). For the sake of clarity, and given that the correlations are murkier in these three domains, I will not discuss them here.
- 14
Cf. Ledgeway (2020a) for related discussion concerning the division of Romance varieties.
- 15
Along with the macro-parametric and micro-parametric approaches, some scholars have also considered the possibility that variation is restricted to externalization mechanisms. I assume that this is a variant of micro-parametric approaches, since on both views variation is not located in the syntax.
- 16
Ormazabal and Romero (1997) suggest a different account of (39). In their system, this sentence is ruled out by recasting (38) so arguments receiving accusative and absolutive Case must be inanimate. This basically amounts to saying that v can agree with one animate argument, not two. I am embracing a similar logic, but instead of assuming that a DP must be animate to agree, I assume it must be [+active] in Chomsky’s (2000, 2001 sense, where active amounts to having structural Case.
- 17
From a Dependent Case view (cf. Marantz 1991), if dative is more complex than accusative (which in turn is more complex than nominative), we predict that if a dialect has leísmo then it can have laísmo. As far as I can tell, this is true in the case of Spanish, as there is no laísta dialect that is not also leísta.
- 18
As noted, this would explain why leísmo and laísmo are absent not only in Romanian, but also in Catalan and more generally in central Romance. Under the analysis put forward here, this must follow from the fact that accusative Case cannot become dative, which should also be related to the absence of DOM, another instance of Case displacement.
- 19
The structure in (46) must then be available to all languages, so the question is what makes it available in Spanish. If so, the fact that a given language activates the DOM / dativization strategy concerns the morphological endowment of X. If X is partially φ-defective, then the internal argument will not be assigned accusative, and will have to receive dative instead. To do so, the internal argument will have to leapfrog to [Spec, XP], where it can be probed by v.
- 20
Adam Ledgeway (p.c.), informs me that in substandard varieties of French (especially in south-western France) and Italian, y and ci often replace the dative lui/leur and gli/le, as in Fr. ?Toi tu y as flanqué la trouille avec toutes tes histoires ‘You scared the hell out of him with all your stories’ and It. ?Agli altri ci abbiamo dato duecento euro ‘The others we gave them two hundred euros’ respectively.
- 21
There are similar results when the dative argument is inanimate in some varieties of Catalan, according to Rigau (1982.
(i)En Joan donà cops a la porta → En Joan hi donà cops (Catalan) the Joan gave-3.SG blows to the door the Joan CL.LOC gave-3.SG blows ‘Joan struck the door’ ‘Joan struck it’ - 22
The same happens, of course, with subject agreement with passives more generally. The micro-parameter concerning objects could be expressed by assuming that the internal argument (after rising) and v are within the same phase in central Romance, but not in central varieties – again see the discussion in Ledgeway (2020a).
- 23
Adam Ledgeway (p.c.) asks what would happen if be were to raise and left-adjoin into P. I assume this possibility is ruled out because of locality reasons: P is merged with the rest of the structure once the vP phase is transferred (its complement domain), ruling out P-to-be incorporation.
- 24
Needless to say, the schema in (58) is meant to capture the (object-centered) variation that has X as its locus, not all the properties of Romance languages. For example, (58) leaves aside all the (subject-centered) variation that plausibly has T as its locus (pro-drop, etc.) – see Ledgeway (2020a). And, again, as mentioned above, I am not discussing here more subtle dialectal micro-variation.
- 25
As Ian Roberts observes through personal communication, this can be turned intoa yes/no question by formulating it as “Is X placed in the C-domain?” Y/N. As he notes, this parameter is lower in some hierarchy than the question whether X exists in the system (Y: Romance; N: English, Mandarin), so it existence in the system is antecedently determined. A similar conversion can be done with some of the questions that appear below, concerning whether some category is below or above some other functional element.
- 26
This division may suggest that Galician and European Portuguese actually belong to the central Romance group. Such a possibility is worth considering, but facts like VOS and VSO, plus the unavailability of oblique clitics and participial agreement, make Galician and European Portuguese more outer-like. Some variants of Aragonese raise subtler concerns, for they display many outer traits, but have oblique clitics, which may follow from their contact with Catalan. I leave more detailed dialectal research for future work.
- 27
This is consistent with Costa’s (2000) analysis of European Portuguese VOS, which does not feed binding in this language. In the present proposal, this would follow from the internal argument A-bar rising to a position above the EA.
(i)*Viu todos os filmesi o seui realizador (E. Portuguese) saw-3.SG all the movies the his producer ‘Their producer saw all the movies’ [from Costa 2000:102] Investigating why languages of the Spanish sort differ from European Portuguese is beyond the scope of this paper. In any event, what is relevant for the purposes of my discussion is that European Portuguese VOS is obtained through object shift, and not VP fronting, as Costa (2000, 2002 argues at length on independent empirical grounds
- 28
Ian Roberts (p.c.) tells me that (62a, b) clearly fall under the BCC (and are implicationally related ), but (62c) does not— unless you make it indirectly a feature of a phase head, perhaps determined by inheritance in Chomsky’s sense.
References
Alboiu, Gabriela. 1999. (De)-Focusing and object raising in Romanian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 1–22. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100020697.Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject in situ generalization, and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 193–231. https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001753.Search in Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. Strong and weak person restrictions. A feature checking analysis. In LorieHeggie & Francisco Ordóñez (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.74.08anaSearch in Google Scholar
Andriani, Luigi. 2011. Differential Object Marking, Clitic Doubling, and Argument Structure in Barese. MA Thesis, U.Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
Aranovich, Raúl. 2003. The semantics of auxiliary selection in old Spanish. Studies in Language: International Journal Sponsored by The Foundation “Foundations of Language” 27(1). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.1.02ara.Search in Google Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat. 1992. Preliminary Remarks on Old Spanish Auxiliaries: Haber, Ser and Estar. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 87–112.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2016. Split intransitivity. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The oxford guide to the romance languages, 821–832. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0050Search in Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. & Noam Chomsky. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa (ed.). 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.132Search in Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, Ian G. Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.). (2010). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511770784Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD Dissertation. MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995. Feature structure of romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13. 607–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992853.Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2002. Clitització. In Joan Solà & Gemma Rigau i Oliver (eds.), Gramàtica del Capalà Contemporani. Barcelona: Empúries.Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in semitic and romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110808506Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 115–165. New York: OUP.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In Noam Chomsky (ed.), The minimalist program, 219–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Richard S. Kayne (eds.). 2005. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 2006. Sintaxis histórica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Search in Google Scholar
Costa, João. 2000. Word order and discourse-configurationality in European Portuguese. In João Costa (ed.), Portuguese syntax: New comparative studies, 94–115. Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Costa, João. 2002. VOS in Portuguese: Arguments against an analysis in terms of remnant movement. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Dimensions of movement, 69–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.48.05cosSearch in Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2007. Impersonal si constructions. Berlin: MdG.10.1515/9783110207514Search in Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2012. Merging Probes. A typology of person splits and person-driven differential object marking. Ms., University of Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2013. Microvariation and syntactic theory. What dialects tell us about language. Invited talk given at the workshop The Syntactic Variation of Catalan and Spanish Dialects, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, June 26–28, 2013. Search in Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & Olga Fernández-Soriano. 2005. Features in comp and syntactic variation: The case of ‘(de)queísmo’ in Spanish. Lingua 115. 1063–1082.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.004Search in Google Scholar
Di Tullio, Ángela & Pablo Zdrojewski. 2008. Notas sobre el doblado de clíticos en el español rioplatense: Asimetrías entre objetos humanos y no humanos. Filología. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Filología y Literaturas Hispánicas “Dr. Amado Alonso. 13–44.Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in romance. Berlin: MdG.10.1515/9783110886597Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 399–437, https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553806.Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Beatriz & Ricardo Etxepare. 2013. Variation in datives. A microcomparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937363.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1993. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo: estado de la cuestión. In Olga Fernández Soriano (ed.), Los pronombres átonos. Madrid: Taurus.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2019. The syntactic variation of Spanish dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190634797.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. Semantic restrictions in romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 294–313.Search in Google Scholar
Gupton, Timothy. 2010. The syntax-information structure interface: subjects and clausal word order in Galician. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa.Search in Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Remnant movement and OV order. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), The derivation of OV and VO, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.31.04haeSearch in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidy. 2011. A minimalist approach to argument structure. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The handbook of linguistic minimalism, 427–448. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0019Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidy. 2012. Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory. In Markus Werning, Wolfram Ed Hinzen & Edouard Ed Machery (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality, 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.013.0015Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidy. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9. 577–636.10.1007/BF00134751Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1989. Facets of romance past participle agreement. In Paola Benincà (ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110869255-005Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–686.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47. 3–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1993.tb00837.x.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and silence. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179163.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Comparative syntax and the lexicon. Lectures given at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, October 22-23 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5Search in Google Scholar
Lapesa, Rafael. 1968. Sobre los orígenes y evolución del leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Kurt Baldinger (ed.), Festschrift Walther von Wartburg, 523–551. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2014. Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Rodica Zafiu, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae & Louise Esher (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian, 3–35. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2000a. A comparative syntax of the dialects of Southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2020b. The North-South divide: Parameters of variation in the clausal domain. To appear in L’Italia Dialettale. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.45096.Search in Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2020c. Variation in the Gallo-Romance left-periphery: V2, complementizers, and the Gascon enunciative system. In Sam Wolfe & Martin Maiden (eds), Variation and change in Gallo-Romance Grammar, 71–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198840176.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. El artículo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2003. Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3. 101–138, https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.3.06lon.Search in Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?” In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huijbregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar, 407–414. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892994.407Search in Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2016. Auxiliary selection and participle agreement. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the romance languages, 802–818. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0049Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130. 152–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012.Search in Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2004. Sur l’object direct prépositionnel en roumain. InActes des VIIèmes RJC ED268 langage et langues, 62–67. Paris: Paris III.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Txuss. 2012. Deconstructing Catalan object clitics. PhD Dissertation. New York University.Search in Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1985. Morfologia. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.Search in Google Scholar
Motapanyane, Virginia (ed.). 2000. Comparative studies in Romanian syntax. Dordrecht: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585473888Search in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in spanish and other romance languages. PhD Dissertation, City University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1998. Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 313–346.10.1023/A:1006051703562Search in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2007. Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In Sergio Baauw, Frank AC Drijkoningen & Manuela Pinto (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Utrecht, 8–10 December 2005, 259–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.291.17ordSearch in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco & Esthela Treviño. 2007. “Unambiguous se”, Talk given at the Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Universitat de Girona.Search in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco & Francesc Roca. 2015. Differential Object Marking (DOM) and clitic subspecification in Catalonian Spanish. Ms. Stony Brook University/Universitat de Girona. [final version in Gallego 2019].Search in Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco & Esthela Treviño 2012. Agreement and DOM with SE in Mexican Spanish. Ms. SUNY-Stony Brook/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa.Search in Google Scholar
Ormazábal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 315–347, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9.Search in Google Scholar
Ormazábal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus 25. 301–344.10.1515/probus-2013-0012Search in Google Scholar
Paoli, Sandra. 2006. On the relation of [gender] Agreement. In João Costa & Maria Cristina Figuereido Silva (eds.), Studies on agreement, 223–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.86.11paoSearch in Google Scholar
Pescarini, Diego. 2006. Clitics: Morphophonology. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the romance languages, 742–757. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1998. On the EPP and null expletive subjects. Probus 10. 219–241.10.1515/prbs.1998.10.2.219Search in Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 2002. Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5. 116–147.10.1111/1467-9612.00049Search in Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 2014. Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the Lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319Search in Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. Clitic placement in Western Iberian: A minimalist view. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 639–697. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195136517.013.0015Search in Google Scholar
Rigau, Gemma. 1982. Inanimate indirect object in Catalan. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 146–150.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. & Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 2008. Macroparameters, markedness, and typological drift. Talk given at TabuDAG, University of Groningen, June 6 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Roca, Francesc. 1992. La determinación y la modificación nominal en español. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Madrid.Search in Google Scholar
Romero, Juan. 1997. Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Search in Google Scholar
Romero, Juan. 2011. Accusative datives in Spanish. Ms., Universidad de Extremadura.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937363.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Sánchez-Lancis, Carlos. 2001. The evolutions of the old Spanish adverbs ende and y: A case of grammaticalization. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9. 101–118.Search in Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890.10.2307/417202Search in Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1995. On the nature of clitic doubling. In Héctor Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, 399–418. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2337.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 2010. Variability in the case patterns of causative formation in romance and its implications. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 455–470.10.1075/lfab.8.14torSearch in Google Scholar
Treviño, Esthela. 1994. Las causativas del español con complemento infinitivo. México: Colegio de México.Search in Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. PhD Dissertation, UConn.Search in Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. An F position in Western Romance. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 153–175. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1999. Word order in Spanish and the nature of nominative case. In Kyle Johnson & Ian G. Roberts (eds.), Beyond Principles and parameters. Essays in memory of O. Jaeggli, 223–250. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_9Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
