Cover not available

In:Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17-19 April, 2013
Edited by Christina Tortora, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio L. Montoya and Teresa O'Neill
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 9] 2016
► pp. 321–339

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

The X0 syntax of “dative” clitics and the make-up of clitic combinations in Gallo-Romance

 | Universität Zürich
Published online: 3 February 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.9.17pes
This contribution focuses on the morphosyntax of third person dative clitics in Gallo-Romance. The first part addresses the morphology of clitic elements: in GalloRomance, third person datives can be expressed by an etymological form li(s) deriving from Lat illi(s) or by various kinds of non-etymological formatives, e.g. sg. lui, y, lou; pl. leur, yz, lous, lous-y, les-y, etc. I hypothesize that the above forms lexicalize different portions of the same functional hierarchy. The second part of the chapter focuses on the behaviour of third person dative clitics when combined with another third person clitic. In this context, (Gallo-)Romance varieties exhibit a number of irregularities and two possible orders: accusative > datives (as in both old and modern French), or dative > accusative (as in many French vernaculars). Moreover, in both medieval and present-day dialects, the accusative clitic is frequently dropped when clustered with a third person dative clitic. I wonder about a possible correlation between the morphology of the dative clitic and the make-up of clitic combinations.
References (31)
References
Adger David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. “Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint.” Syntax 10.1: 2–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. “On the Syntax of Pronominal Arguments.” Lingua 116: 2023–2067. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. MIT, doctoral dissertation.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1994. “Syncretism Phenomena in the Clitic systems of Italian and Sardinian Dialects and the Notion of Morphological Change.” In Proceedings of NELS 25.2, ed. by Jill Beckman, 151–174. Amherst (Mass.): GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. “On Different Types of Clitic Clusters.” In The Bantu–Romance Connection, ed. by Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth, 41–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. “The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1919. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien francais. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In The View from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley Heidi, and Nancy Ritter. 2002. “Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis.” Language 78.3: 482–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, James 1994. “The Syntax-Phonology Mapping in Catalan and Spanish Clitics.” In MITWPL 21, Papers on Phonology and Morphology, ed. by Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, 321–353.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heap, David 2002. “Split Subject Pronoun Paradigms: Feature Geometry and Underspecification.” In Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL29), ed. by Teresa Satterfield, Christina M. Tortora, and Diana Cresti, 129–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jones, Michael Allan. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2000. A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2002. “External and Internal Causation in Morphological Change: Evidence from Italo-Romance Dialects.” In Morphology 2000, ed. by Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova, 227–240. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Savoia. 2002. “Clitics: Lexicalization Patterns of the So-called 3rd Person Dative.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 117–155Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Txuss. 2009. “Deconstructing Dative Clitics.” In NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2, ed. by Patricia Irwin and Violeta Vázquez Rojas Maldonado.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2002. “Some Clitic Combinations in the Syntax of Romance.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 201–224.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pescarini, Diego. 2010. “Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from Clitic Clusters,” Linguistic Inquiry 41.3: 427–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Prosodic Restructuring and Morphological Opacity. The Evolution of Italo-Romance Clitic Clusters.” In Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, ed. by Adam Ledgeway, Paola Benincà, and Nigel Vincent, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Emergence of Two Classes of Clitic Clusters in (Italo)Romance.” In Romance Linguistics 2012: Selected papers from the 42nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Jason Smith and Tabea Ihsane, 171–183. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In press. “Clitic Clusters”. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2nd ed.), ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk Van Riemsdijk. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Quilis, Antonio. 1985. Los pronombres le, la, lo y sus plurales en la lengua española hablada en Madrid. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigau, Gemma. 1982. “Inanimate Indirect Object in Catalan.” Linguistic Inquiry 13: 146–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Vol II: Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ronjat Jules. 1937. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2010. “Ineffability through Modularity: Gaps in the French Clitic Cluster.” In Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, ed. by Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1970. Le gascon. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitic climbing. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Morphophonological evidence against deficiency. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitic combinations. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Deriving enclisis in ‘V1’ clauses. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Historical overview. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. ‘V2’ and clitic placement. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Properties of Romance object clitics. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Introduction. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Theoretical preliminaries. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Clitics in embryo. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. The rise ofadverbalclitics. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Syntactic evidence against deficiency. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Conclusions. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Pescarini, Diego
2021. Romance Object Clitics, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Series preface. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. List of abbreviations. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Copyright Page. In Romance Object Clitics, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue