Issues in Clitic Doubling and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in Nariñense Andean Spanish
Document Type
Paper Presentation
Presenter Language
Spanish
Research Area
Syntax, Language variation and change
Location
MBSC Council Room 306
Start Date
19-10-2024 3:00 PM
End Date
19-10-2024 3:30 PM
Abstract
Issues in Clitic Doubling and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in Nariñense Andean Spanish
The current paper discusses the phenomena of Clitic Doubling, in (1), and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in (2) in Nariñense Andean Spanish (NAS). In (1) wherein the clitic element occurs together with the complement object which is introduced by the direct object marking (DOM) ‘a’. In (2), however, there are two ways of doubling the coordinated complement object.
(1) y poderlos cargar a los bebés
and be able to.3PL.ACC hold a the babies
“and be able to hold the babies”
(2) y poder- /los /te /*lo cargar a ti y a los
and be able to 3PL.ACC 2SG.ACC 3SG.ACC hold A you and A the
bebés
babies
“and be able to hold you and the babies”
Investigating the phenomena in NAS, we evaluate the latest Agree-based analyses [Reference 1], proposed to explain the phenomena in Modern Greek. Against previous approaches (i.e., big-DP [2, 3, 4], A-movement and rebracketing [5, 6, 7]), Agree-based analyses [8, 9, 10, 11] treat clitics as agreement markers on the verb creating a chain between the clitic-verb-complement where only feature sharing takes place, but not (A)-movement. Although our data from NAS favors an Agree-based analysis, patterning like Modern Greek, we raise the issues of mismatch feature sharing and optional DOM, as illustrated in (3) and (4) respectively, two critical issues that should be considered in a cross-linguistic analysis of the phenomena.
3) entonces lo veía a los amigos
then 3SG.ACC saw.I A the friends
“then I saw the friends”
(Standard Spanish: entonces veía a los amigos)
4) cuando lo ve un guagüita pues
when 3SG.ACC see.she a child.DIM so
“when she sees (him) a little child then”
(Standard Spanish: cuando ve un guagüíta pues)
Different from other languages and varieties (e.g., Argentinian Spanish, Modern Greek, Catalan, Romanian, Hebrew, etc.), NAS displays number feature mismatch between the clitic, and the object complement, as shown in (3) above. Additionally, different from (1), the example in (4) shows that the DOM can be omitted patterning even more like Modern Greek. Against this background, we follow the Agree-based analysis and propose the adjustments necessary to explain the facts present in NAS.
[348 words]
Keywords: clitic doubling, First Conjunct Clitic Doubling, Andean Spanish, Agreement
References
[1] Paparounas, L., and Salzmann, M. (2023). First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek: Evidence for Agree-based approaches to clitic doubling. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 42, 323–382 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09585-2.
[2] Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1), 79–123.
[3] Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), 939–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.
[4] Arregi, K, and Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8.
[5] Harizanov, B. (2014). Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4), 1033–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5.
[6] Kramer, R. (2014). Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2), 593–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.
[7] Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1), 69–109. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184.
[8] Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3), 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133904.
[9] Řezáč, M. (2008). Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Preminger, O. (2009). Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 619–666. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619.
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation. [PhD dissertation, MIT].
Preminger, O. (2019). What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315.
[11] Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001.
Issues in Clitic Doubling and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in Nariñense Andean Spanish
MBSC Council Room 306
Issues in Clitic Doubling and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in Nariñense Andean Spanish
The current paper discusses the phenomena of Clitic Doubling, in (1), and First Conjunct Clitic Doubling in (2) in Nariñense Andean Spanish (NAS). In (1) wherein the clitic element occurs together with the complement object which is introduced by the direct object marking (DOM) ‘a’. In (2), however, there are two ways of doubling the coordinated complement object.
(1) y poderlos cargar a los bebés
and be able to.3PL.ACC hold a the babies
“and be able to hold the babies”
(2) y poder- /los /te /*lo cargar a ti y a los
and be able to 3PL.ACC 2SG.ACC 3SG.ACC hold A you and A the
bebés
babies
“and be able to hold you and the babies”
Investigating the phenomena in NAS, we evaluate the latest Agree-based analyses [Reference 1], proposed to explain the phenomena in Modern Greek. Against previous approaches (i.e., big-DP [2, 3, 4], A-movement and rebracketing [5, 6, 7]), Agree-based analyses [8, 9, 10, 11] treat clitics as agreement markers on the verb creating a chain between the clitic-verb-complement where only feature sharing takes place, but not (A)-movement. Although our data from NAS favors an Agree-based analysis, patterning like Modern Greek, we raise the issues of mismatch feature sharing and optional DOM, as illustrated in (3) and (4) respectively, two critical issues that should be considered in a cross-linguistic analysis of the phenomena.
3) entonces lo veía a los amigos
then 3SG.ACC saw.I A the friends
“then I saw the friends”
(Standard Spanish: entonces veía a los amigos)
4) cuando lo ve un guagüita pues
when 3SG.ACC see.she a child.DIM so
“when she sees (him) a little child then”
(Standard Spanish: cuando ve un guagüíta pues)
Different from other languages and varieties (e.g., Argentinian Spanish, Modern Greek, Catalan, Romanian, Hebrew, etc.), NAS displays number feature mismatch between the clitic, and the object complement, as shown in (3) above. Additionally, different from (1), the example in (4) shows that the DOM can be omitted patterning even more like Modern Greek. Against this background, we follow the Agree-based analysis and propose the adjustments necessary to explain the facts present in NAS.
[348 words]
Keywords: clitic doubling, First Conjunct Clitic Doubling, Andean Spanish, Agreement
References
[1] Paparounas, L., and Salzmann, M. (2023). First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek: Evidence for Agree-based approaches to clitic doubling. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 42, 323–382 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09585-2.
[2] Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1), 79–123.
[3] Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), 939–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.
[4] Arregi, K, and Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8.
[5] Harizanov, B. (2014). Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4), 1033–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5.
[6] Kramer, R. (2014). Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2), 593–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.
[7] Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1), 69–109. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184.
[8] Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3), 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133904.
[9] Řezáč, M. (2008). Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Preminger, O. (2009). Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 619–666. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619.
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation. [PhD dissertation, MIT].
Preminger, O. (2019). What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315.
[11] Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001.