Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:07:15.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissociating the Person Case Constraint from its “repair”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2019

Tomohiro Yokoyama
Tomohiro Yokoyama*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In French ditransitive sentences, certain person combinations of the two internal arguments cannot be expressed with two co-occurring clitics (a phenomenon referred to as the Person Case Constraint or PCC). To fill the interpretational gap created by this restriction, there is an alternative construction characterized as a “repair”, where the goal is realized as an independent phrase. The fact that the double-clitic construction and the repair construction are in complementary distribution led to a proposal of an interface algorithm that provides a way to repair a non-convergent structure. This article proposes an alternative account of the PCC, and claims that the complementarity between the PCC and its repair is instead accidental and is an artefact of the feature structure of arguments. The proposed account explains the unavailability of certain clitic combinations and some repairs independently, without resorting to a trans-derivational device like the previously proposed algorithm.

Résumé

Dans les phrases ditransitives en français, certaines combinaisons de personne dans les deux arguments internes ne peuvent pas être exprimées avec deux clitiques concomitants (un phénomène nommé la “Person Case Constraint” ou PCC). Pour combler la lacune interprétive créée par cette restriction, il existe une construction alternative désignée “réparation”, dans laquelle l'objet indirect est réalisé par un syntagme nominal indépendant. Le fait que la construction à deux clitiques et la construction de réparation soient en distribution complémentaire a mené à la proposition d'un algorithme d'interface, qui offre un moyen de réparer une structure non convergente. Cet article propose un autre analyse de la PCC et affirme que la complémentarité entre la PCC et sa réparation est plutôt accidentelle, découlant de la configuration des traits des arguments. La proposition explique, de manière indépendante, l'indisponibilité de certaines combinaisons de clitiques et de certaines réparations, sans recourir à un mécanisme trans-derivationnel comme l'algorithme proposé précédemment.

Keywords

Person Case Constraint (PCC)PCC repairfeaturesvaluationMergeContrainte de cas et de personne (PCC)réparation PCCtraitsattribution de valeurMerge
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 730 - 752
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank the audience at the Manitoba Workshop on Person and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, as well as the organizers/editors for their work in putting this thematic issue together.

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2010. A minimalist theory of feature structure. In Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, ed. Kibort, Anna and Corbett, Greville G., 185–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David, and Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10(1): 2–37.Google Scholar
Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo (ASJU, International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology) 40: 1–33.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2004. On clitics, feature movement and double object alternation. In Minimality effects in syntax, ed. Stepanov, Arthur, Fanselow, Gisbert, and Vogel, Ralf, 15–36. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. Heggie, Lorie and Ordóñez, Francisco, 199–235. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. 1977. Clitic inflection in French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 347–354.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. Perez-Leroux, Ana Teresa and Roberge, Yves, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 35–73.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection, ed. Harley, Heidi and Phillips, Colin, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2008. The Person-Case Constraint and repair strategies. In Agreement restrictions, ed. D'Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susann, and Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, 103–128. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Byrne, Michel. 2002. Gràmar na gàidhlig [Gaelic Grammar]. Isle of Lewis: Stòrlann-Acair.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davies, William D., and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution of subject properties. In Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, ed. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 247–279. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526.Google Scholar
Heger, Klaus. 1966. La conjugaison objective en français et en espagnol. Persée 1(3): 19–38.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie, and Rezac, Milan. 2008. The French ethical dative: 13 syntactic tests. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1): 97–108.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–137. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5(3): 241–270.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81(3): 699–718.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. London: Garland.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313.Google Scholar
Nicol, Fabrice. 2005. Romance clitic clusters: On diachronic changes and cross-linguistic contrasts. In Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. Heggie, Lorie and Ordóñez, Francisco, 141–198. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ormazábal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 315–347.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2018. The Person Case Constraint: The Syntactic Encoding of Perspective. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1291–1337.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 619–666.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2018. Back to the future: Non-generation, filtration, and the heartbreak of interface-driven minimalism. In Syntactic structures after 60 years: The impact of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics, ed. Hornstein, Nobert, Lasnik, Howard, Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Yang, Charles, 355–380. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and Modular Architecture of Language. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86: 137–161.Google Scholar
Robinson, Christine. 2008. Agreement in Scottish Gaelic: A Distributed Morphology analysis. Master's thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analycity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane, and Withgott, Mary Margaret. 1986. Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Borer, Hagit, 149–174. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stegovec, Adrian. 2019. Taking Case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1007/s11049-019-09443-0.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald Knut. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan, and Vikner, Sten, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, ed. Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radeva-Bork, Teodora, and Schürcks, Lilia, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yokoyama, Tomohiro. 2019. The Person Case Constraint: Unconditional interfaces and faultless derivations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar