In:The Bantu–Romance Connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure
Edited by Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 131] 2008
► pp. 41–82
On different types of clitic clusters
Published online: 26 September 2008
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.131.06car
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.131.06car
In this paper, Italian and Bantu clitic clusters are analyzed and compared. I claim that in both language families, pronouns check case in a low clitic position, and in so doing they reverse the order of arguments. In Italian, clitics move to a high clitic position where they check person and number features. Different types of Italian clusters are individuated: they differ syntactically, phonologically, and morphologically. As in Kayne’s (1994) proposal, clusters can be formed either on one single functional head or on adjacent heads; the former type can appear both in enclisis and proclisis, the latter only in proclisis. Clitic pronouns can end with an epenthetic vowel or a class marker/ inflectional morpheme; the former (consonantal clitics) can appear in clitic clusters in any position, the latter (morphologically complex clitics) cannot be the first element in clitic clusters dominated by one single head. Finally, some clusters are inserted as lexical units, others are two independent words: only the former display the linking vowel [e]. The intricate interplay of these (partially) independent properties explains a number of restrictions on clusters found in Italian (and other Romance languages). The hierarchy of person and number features in the high clitic position is also discussed, which explains other restrictions on clusters.
Cited by (60)
Cited by 60 other publications
Cardinaletti, Anna, Giuliana Giusti & Gianluca E. Lebani
Cerutti, Sara, Anna Cardinaletti & Francesca Volpato
2024. On the production and omission of dative and accusative clitics in Italian children with learning
difficulties. In Language Acquisition in Romance Languages [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 18], ► pp. 232 ff.
Sideltsev, Andrei V.
Callegari, Elena
2022. The relative order of foci and polarity complementizers. Linguistic Variation 22:1 ► pp. 78 ff.
Angelopoulos, Nikos & Dominique Sportiche
MacDonald, Jonathan E. & Jeriel Melgares
Colomina, María Pilar
Stegovec, Adrian
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
Dobrovie‐Sorin, Carmen
Repetti, Lori
2016. The phonology of postverbal pronouns in Romance languages. In Romance Linguistics 2013 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 9], ► pp. 361 ff.
ROSSI, ELEONORA
Beninca, Paola & Guglielmo Cinque
Cennamo, Michela
Ledgeway, Adam & Alessandra Lombardi
Loporcaro, Michele
Maiden, Martin & John Charles Smith
Munaro, Nicola & Cecilia Poletto
Pescarini, Diego
Pescarini, Diego
2015. On the emergence of two classes of clitic clusters in Italo-Romance. In Romance Linguistics 2012 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 7], ► pp. 171 ff.
Pescarini, Diego
2016. The X0 syntax of “dative” clitics and the make-up of clitic combinations in Gallo-Romance. In Romance Linguistics 2013 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 9], ► pp. 321 ff.
Pescarini, Diego
2018. Stressed enclitics are not weak pronouns. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 14], ► pp. 231 ff.
Pescarini, Diego
Pescarini, Diego
Sornicola, Rosanna
Tortora, Christina
Tortora, Christina
2014. On the relation between functional architecture and patterns of change in Romance object clitic syntax. In Variation within and across Romance Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 333], ► pp. 331 ff.
Trumper, John B.
Vanelli, Laura
Vincent, Nigel
Bax, Anna & Michael Diercks
Rezac, Milan
Rezac, Milan
Rezac, Milan
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
