We argue that clitics are structured by Pair Merge, rather than by Set Merge. This contrasts with classical approaches treating the head status of clitics as derived from a fundamentally phrasal syntax. We show that different structures of merger for clitics and phrasal arguments (including full pronouns) can explain well-known empirical differences that otherwise need to be stipulated or derived via extra-syntactic—viz. morphological—mechanisms. This view of cliticization seems to run into immediate problems once we move away from object clitics in finite declarative sentences in Italian or French and tackle slightly less familiar linguistic systems that allow interpolation, enclisis (inversion), and allow clitic sequences to split (object vs. subject clitics). We argue that the above phenomena receive a principled explanation under the assumption that clitics are pair merged with different phase heads.
Clitics are heads whose syntactic distribution differentiates them from both inflectional affixes and from independent words, cf. the
Clitics, as just defined, are widespread in languages of the world.
A reasonably complete account of clitics (in Romance) requires at least three issues to be addressed:
(i) Merger: What is the position of clitics at first merge?
(ii) Ordering: What accounts for the internal structure (order) of the clitic string?
(iii) Placement: Do clitics move and to where?
In this work, we aim to answer (i)–(iii) by elaborating on two hypotheses:
– clitics are
– Nonuniformity of theta-licensing: sentences containing clitics and sentences containing corresponding phrasal elements are not uniformly encoded in syntax, though they converge at the interface.
The structure of the article is as follows: section 2 introduces some basic properties of clitics and reviews previous accounts; section 3 presents our analysis; section 4 deals with clitic placement; section 5 concludes.
Most accounts of clitics build on the same premises as Kayne’s (
There are two standardized accounts of Romance clitics, namely the movement analysis of Kayne (
More recently, Roberts (
Facts concerning the order of clitics shed some doubts on the movement analysis. By order, we understand order in the syntax (dominance), as eventually reflected by linear order via some linearization algorithm at EXT (
(1)
a.
La
the
maestra
teacher
rende
gives-back
ciascuna
each
cartella
schoolbag
al
to
suo
its
proprietario
owner
b.
La
the
maestra
teacher
rende
gives-back
la
the
sua
his
cartella
schoolbag
a
to
ciascun
each
alunno
student
(2)
a.
La
The
maîtresse
teacher
a
has
rendu
given-back
son
his
cartable
schoolbag
à
to
chaque
every
élève.
pupil
b.
La
The
maîtresse
teacher
a rendu
gave-back
chaque
every
cartable
schoolbag
à
to
son
its
propriétaire.
owner (
We also do not know of any respect in which Italian and French differ with respect to movement and constraints on movement. Under the movement derivation, we therefore expect that clitic order faithfully reflects phrasal order. This is obviously not the case, since third person accusative (Acc) clitics and dative (Dat) clitics are differently ordered in Italian and French, as in (3).
(3)
a.
Gianni
Gianni
glie-lo
to.him=it=
ha
has
reso (It.)
given.back
3Dat > 3Acc
‘Gianni gave it back to him’
b.
Jean
Jean
le
it=
lui
to.him=
a
has
rendu (Fr.)
given.back
3Acc > 3Dat
‘Gianni gave it back to him’
Thus, (1)–(2) vs. (3) show that the same phrasal syntax can yield different clitic orders. The reverse is also true. For instance, selected and unselected datives have different orders with respect to accusatives in both Italian and French phrasal syntax (
(4)
a.
Il
the
padrone
owner
di
of
casa
the.house
ridipinge
repaints
il
the
suo
his
appartamento
apartment
a
to
ogni
each
nuovo
new
affittuario (It.)
tenant
b.
*Il
the
padrone
owner
di
of
casa
the.house
ridipinge
repaints
ogni
each
appartamento
apartment
al
to
suo
its
nuovo
new
affittuario
tenant
(5)
a.
Marie
Mary
a
has
peint
painted
à
to
chaque
every
locataire
tenant
sa
his
maison. (Fr.)
house
b.
*Marie
Mary
a
peint
painted
à
to
son
its
locataire
tenant
chaque
every
maison.
house
(
Yet, when we turn to clitics, the same order found in (3) with indirect object clitics is found in (6) with benefactives, in both Italian and French.
(6)
a.
Gianni
Gianni
glie-l’
to.him=it=
ha
has
ridipinta (It.)
repainted
‘Gianni repainted it to his benefit’
b.
Jean
Jean
le
it=
lui
to.him=
a
has
repeint (Fr.)
repainted
‘Gianni repainted it to his benefit’
In short, the clitic string varies in ways which do not reflect variation in phrasal syntax and, vice versa, order asymmetries in phrasal syntax are not preserved in the clitic string. Then, if morphological reordering (
The alternative to the movement theory is base generation of clitics and this is given a minimalist implementation by Sportiche (
In connection with this latter observation, it is relevant to consider the fact that clitics are often found in idioms. For instance, in Italian the Acc clitic, inflected in the feminine singular (
(7)
a.
Chi
who
3acc.fsg=
dura,
endures,
3acc.fsg=
vince (It.)
wins
‘Who endures, wins’
b.
Me
refl.1sg
3acc.fsg=
cavo
get.out
‘I manage’
c.
loc/ins
3acc.fsg=
ho
I.have
fatta
made
‘I succeeded’
(8)
refl.1sg=
from.there=
vado
I.go
‘I leave’
In (7)–(8) the Acc clitic has all the expected formal properties; for instance, in (7c) it triggers feminine singular agreement on the perfect participle. Therefore, we expect it to have the ordinary syntax of clitics, which in Sportiche’s model implies an Agree relation with a
In short, Sportiche (
Steps towards a pure head syntax for clitics have occasionally been taken in the literature, but they yield only partially satisfactory insights into clitics. Manzini (
(9)
French
[φP SubjCl [IP [v*P [ApplP 1/2P,
Manzini also assumes that there are two paths to the satisfaction of the Theta Criterion. Following Chomsky (
The analysis in (9), nevertheless, covers only part of the research questions listed in Section 1. Above all, it does not provide any hint about how to tackle the question of the final position where clitics surface – which is generally not the
In this section, we develop a Pair Merge (as opposed to Set Merge) syntax for clitics. Specifically, we apply Chomsky’s (
The operation of Pair Merge of α with β, notated <α, β>, is defined by Chomsky (
Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (
(10)
I met someone young, happy, eager to go to college, tired of wasting his time, …
(11)
John and Bill are young and tall, respectively
Formally, as illustrated in (12), “we’re forming a sequence which begins with some conjunction, and then contains elements, each of which is predicated of something. So we have a sequence of elements that looks like [13], with links Li”. As for L, the suggestion is that “L for nominal sequences is just
(12)
< CONJ, <S1, L1>, …, <S
One interesting consequence follows from this treatment of modifiers concerning constraints on movement. Specifically, “if you have the phrase
In this article, we model the clitic cluster as a Pair Merge sequence, where each member of the sequence is formed by a clitic head and a link
Earlier proposals on clitic structure were dismissed above because they predict a direct correspondence between the order of phrasal arguments and the order of clitics which is in fact not observed (neither match nor mirror). Pair Merge
Consider then the simple Italian sentence in (13). The internal order of the string points to
(13)
Glie-lo
to.him=it=
porta (It.)
he.brings
‘He brings it to him’
The core proposal we advance here however is that clitics do not Set Merge with VP. On the contrary a Pair Merge sequence is created, beginning with the Pair Merge of the inheritance pair <V, v*>, with v* acting as the Link, and continuing with the elements that modify the verb, in the sense that they specify its transitivity (the accusative clitic) or ditransitivity (the ApplDAT clitic). The resulting Pair Merge structure can be represented as in (14), following Chomsky’s (
(14)
[v*P << glie, v* >, < lo, v*>, <V, v*>> [VP V
In this simple example, the order of the sequence of clitics is similar to the order of
(15)
a.
b.
<<Cl(θ3)
The rough correspondence diagram in (15a), provided here to favour construal of the sequence in (15b), should crucially not be read as implying equivalence. The whole point of the discussion that precedes is that, while convergence at SEM should be insured between phrasal and clitic arguments, the syntactic structures implicated are not in a one-to-one relation. Set merged DPs and pair merged clitics are not necessarily ordered (hence linearized) under invariant conditions crosslinguistically, cf. (3). Importantly, evidence from Romance shows that the ordering of Dat/Acc clitics is not uniform within the same language. Instead, the order of clitics is often sensitive to animacy, which is immaterial in determining the relative order (dominance and precedence) of phrasal arguments: for instance, 1/2P datives and 3P datives in the same function are split in French, cf. (16).
(16)
a.
Ils
They=
it=
to.him/her=
donnent (Fr.)
give.3
‘They give it to him/her’
b.
Ils
They=
to.me=
it=
donnent
give.3
‘They give it to me’
Phrasal datives normally split according to whether they are selected or unselected, as revealed by binding facts (recall (1)–(2) vs. (4)–(5) above). This distinction is obliterated in clitic syntax: all types of datives (indirect objects, secondary objects, experiencers, benefactives, caused subjects, datives of possession, etc., see (17)) are mapped to a single clitic form (e.g. it.
(17)
a.
gli telefona (It.)
‘he calls him’
indirect object
b.
gli danno un premio
‘they award him a prize’
indirect/secondary object
c.
gli piace
‘He likes (it)’
experiencer
d.
gli apre la porta
‘someone opens the door for him’
benefactive
e.
gli fanno aprire la porta
‘they make him open the door’
caused subject
f.
gli lavo le mani
‘I wash his hands’
dative of possession
We believe that Pair Merge sequences best capture the lack of dominance in clitic strings. Indeed, going back to the definition of Pair Merge by Chomsky (
Against this background we can take up again the examples in (7), which illustrate idioms involving one or more clitics, as in the case of the It. verb
(18)
Ce
refl
la
it
siamo
are
cavata. (It.)
got.out
‘We got by’
Idioms, whether involving lexical DPs or clitics, must be listed in the lexicon. Thus, it is impossible to replace the clitic pronoun by means of a full pronoun, i.e. a phrasal pronoun merged as an XP. This is because V-XP pronoun idioms and X-V idioms must perforce be separate listemes. The listing of Cl-V as an idiom renders previous derivational history at best redundant, since the very reason why a phrasal position of first merge (or a
More importantly, as already mentioned, Pair Merge accounts for the fact that, in general, the clitic string cannot be split, and cannot be split from the verb in ad-verbal clitic languages, i.e. the languages in which clitics must be adjacent to verbs, including Italian and French. Kayne (
(19)
a.
*Gianni
Gianni
to.you
vuole
wants
mostrar
show-them
b.
*Gianni
Gianni
them
vuole
wants
mostrar
how-to.you
‘Gianni wants to show them to you’
(20)
a.
it
to.him
donnent-
give-they
‘Do they give it to him?’
b.
they
tʃama-
call-him
sempri (Borgomanero; Piedmontese, north-western Italo-Romance)
always
‘They always call him’
Data like (19) require an account of clitics where object clitics are accessible only as a cluster, possibly including the verb. In a Set Merge syntax, the only open option is to postulate incorporation of the clitics to the verb, independently of the specific mixed head/phrasal syntax proposed (
The terms of the theoretical debate concerning head movement and incorporation are well-understood. In GB theory and in some minimalist models (Kayne’s LCA, cartography) head movement comes for free – namely it results from simply intersecting the notion of head with the operation of movement. Chomsky (
In the present perspective, Pair Merge units of the general form <Cl,
The question how Pair Merge and Sequences mesh in with Set Merge is also considered by the literature quoted. In present terms the question is how these ideas apply to derivations in which phrasal syntax mixes with clitic syntax. This is illustrated in the derivation in (21). As the first step, the Link v(*) is set merged in the general tree, as in (21a); in this we are simply following Chomsky (
(21)
a.
[v* [VP V … ]]
b.
[<V,
c.
[<<Cl1
d.
[<<Cl2
Summing up, our proposal that clitics are structured by Pair Merge, rather than by Set Merge contrasts with classical approaches treating the head status of clitics as derived from a fundamentally phrasal syntax. In (15) and again in (21) we have addressed the question whether and how a treatment in terms of Pair Merge is feasible. Another key question of feasibility is how different syntaxes can converge on the same argument structure, i.e. the theta-assignment question, to which we return in section 3.3.
In this section, we also addressed the question whether proceeding our way yields any empirical advantages. We made three main empirical points. First, under the phrasal derivation of clitics, we do not really expect there to be Cl-V idioms. Either the Cl forms an idiom with V at first merge, but then we would hardly expect movement to apply – or conversely the idiom is defined on derived structure, but wouldn’t the phrasal configuration at first merge already have determined theta-assignment? A second, more general point concerns the different syntactic order of phrasal and clitic arguments, which translates into different linear orders at EXT. Under the phrasal derivation of clitics, ordering is standardly accounted for as an effect of the division of labor between syntax and morphology. We envisage the contrast between Set Merge and Pair Merge within the syntax as replacing the more traditional contrast between syntactic phrase structure and morphological clitics. In other words, the syntax itself accounts for the lack of isomorphisms between the two orders, and precedence asymmetries at EXT simply reflect syntactic facts. Third, sequences derive the incorporation properties of the clitic string by construction and without need for any further operation. In section 4.1–4.2, we further argue that the present approach is more restrictive when it comes to predicting possible placements of the clitic string, while under classical Set Merge and movement approaches a number of phenomena are predicted to occur (such as mirror orders) that are hardly ever observed. We devote section 5 to a general comparative discussion of the two models. Before that, however, we must complete our discussion of convergence at SEM.
Let us go back to derivations involving XP arguments, for instance (22). Following merger of the head V with the internal argument, Appl is merged, supporting the benefactive argument; this elementary predicate structure is then merged with v*. We follow Epstein et al. (
(22)
a.
Gianni
Gianni
porta
brings
il
the
libro
book
a
to
Paolo
Paolo
b.
[v*P <porta, v*> [ApplP a Paolo [VP porta il libro]]]]
Summarizing the results of previous sections, mixed Pair Merge and Set Merge structures in (22) can be taken as the starting point for structures including both phrasal and clitic arguments as in (23). In (24) we simply adjust the structure in (22) to include not a single Pair Merge, but a Pair Merge sequence, including a clitic.
(23)
a.
Gianni
Gianni
gli
to.him
porta
brings
il
the
libro
book
b.
Gianni
Gianni
lo
it
porta
brings
a
to
Paolo
Paolo
(24)
a.
[v*P <<gli, v*> <porta, v*>> [VP porta il libro]]]
b.
[v*P <<lo, v*> <porta, v*>> [ApplP a Paolo [VP porta]]]
Now, comparison between (22) and (24) leads us to the conclusion that, in order to pursue a Pair Merge account of clitics, we must discard Uniformity as a principle governing the syntax/semantics interface. In other words, in the spirit of Culicover and Jackendoff (
The present proposal is incompatible with Uniformity in that phrasal argument structures are created by Set Merge and ordered by dominance, whereas clitic clusters are sequences of heads pair merged with
As for the first question, it is an evident fact that the same semantics can have different externalisations, both crosslinguistically and within the same language. An example among many is passive (
As for whether there is an alternative to Uniformity, we need look no further than the autonomy of syntax thesis (
Consider then the simple sentence in (22a) again, containing a ditransitive verb, with the structure in (22b), or (25) below. We may assume that sister of V is the configuration for theme interpretation and sister (Spec) of Appl is the configuration for goal interpretation of the argument.
(25)
[v*P Gianni [v* v*[ApplP [VP porta il libro] a Paolo]
Phrasal structures are largely beyond the scope of the present article, however (26) is offered here as an illustration of how syntactic structures are interpreted at the semantics interface. Following a neo-Davidsonian approach (
(26)
∃e [porta(e) & Agent(e, Gianni) & Theme(e, il libro) & Goal(e, a Paolo)]
We contend that clitic arguments have an analogous interpretation, in (28), although they are structured in Pair Merge sequences as shown in (27b). In this respect, recall that Chomsky (
(27)
a.
Gianni
Gianni
glie
to.him=
lo
it=
porta
brings
b.
[v*P << [Appl(Dat) gli], v* >, < [φ lo], v*>, <V, v*>> [VP porta]]
(28)
∃e [porta(e) & Agent(e, 3sg) & Theme(e, lo) & Goal(e, glie)
The mapping of (25) into (26) and the mapping of (27) into (28) rely on different mechanisms. In the former, as we saw, theta relations are configurationally defined, e.g. Theme is a relation established between a V and its sister. In the latter, recall that clitics are labelled by their intrinsic properties; labels include: N/D/φ for direct case clitics and Appl for oblique clitics, with different flavors, Dat(ive), Gen(itive) etc.
Granting these assumptions, we can conclude that though phrasal arguments and clitics may have different syntactic structures, they converge on expressing the same argument structures at the syntax/semantics interface.
In the previous sections, we argued that Pair Merge depends on Links and Links for clitics coincide with the phase head
– The locus where object clitics are first merged:
– The mechanism whereby clitics may occur either before or after their host (i.e. proclitically vs enclitically)
– The mechanism whereby clitics that are merged in separate phase heads—e.g. object and subject clitics in Romance—do not necessarily form a cluster.
Anticipating the discussion to follow, evidence from the above three empirical domains challenges the view that clitics in languages such as French and Italian are first merged in
In the most-studied Romance languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, etc. clitics always occur close/attached to verbal heads. However, if we approach Romance from a microcomparative point of view, it turns out that, first, clitics are not necessarily attached to the verb and, second, in any given language one or more phase heads are capable of hosting clitics. To illustrate these points, we first focus on languages exhibiting so-called
Evidence of clitics merged in I comes from Italo-Romance and western Ibero-Romance dialects that show interpolation of aspectual adverbs that are merged at the I/
(29)
a.
O
The
livro
book
que
that
to.him=
[ainda]
yet
não
not
entreguei (Port. dialect)
handle
‘The book that I did not gave him yet’
b.
Un
not
me=
[cchù]
any.more
parra (Cosentino)
speaks
‘He does not speak to me any more.’
c.
el
he=
to.me=
[sempre]
always
dizi (Triestino)
says
‘He always speaks to me.’
Evidence of clitics in C comes from medieval Romance languages that display Germanic-like inversion in main clauses (i.e. AUX > Subject > Participle; for an overview, see
(30)
a.
[C
que
that
to.him=
[I
god
dios
gave
dio. (o.Sp.)
’… that God gave him.’
b.
… para
in.order.to
it=
mejor
better
conplir
accomplish
que
than
it=
ella
she
non
not
mando (o.Sp.)
ordered
‘… in order to accomplish it better than she ordered (it)’
Lastly, dialects in which clitics never climb to the inflected verb offer evidence of clitics that are merged at the edge of
(31)
a.
I
I=
porti
bring
mi-
not=it
‘I’m not bringing it.’
b.
I
We=
vangumma
see
già-
already=us
da
of
dü
two
agni.
years
‘We’ve already been seeing each other for two years.’
c.
I
I=
vônghi
see
piö-
any.more=him
‘I don’t see him any more.’
The first row of
typology of clitic systems according to two parameters: interpolation and placement in the structure of the clause.
in C | in I | in |
|
Clitics and V are not adjacent |
(29) old Sp, old Port, western Ib-Rom dialects |
(30) Cosentino, Triestino |
(31) East. Pied. dialects (Borgomanerese) |
Clitics and V are always adjacent |
(32) old It, old Fr., old Cat. |
Most present-day Romance languages |
(33) Piedmontese dialects |
The second row of
(32)
Con
With
che
what
to.you=
dare’
would.give
io
I
bere?
drink
‘How would I give you something to drink?’
Modern Romance languages like Italian or French, illustrated in the text, are characterized by the placement of the verb and of the clitic group in I. In (33) we provide an illustration of the third attested typology, where the
(33)
I
They=
an
have
rangiò-
fixed=it.
(Cairo Montenotte,
‘They fixed it.’
The generalization that the verb and/or the clitic group can surface in a limited set of positions (see also
This prediction is further confirmed by data from the DP domain, where clitics can occur as long as they Pair Merge with a phase head. Even remaining within the Romance languages, there are robust examples of cliticization in DPs with kinship terms, which turn up with clitic possessors in many Center and South Italian varieties (
(34)
a.
fiʎʎə-mə/-tə
child-my/-your
(Guardiaregia, Molise)
‘my/your child’
b.
rə fiʎʎə-mə/-tə
the child-my/-your
‘my/your children’
Based on the evidence in (34), we may conclude that clitics are pair merged with the Link
Now, if we look at
Because of obvious limitations of space, we cannot pursue all the clitic typologies listed in
The languages in which clitics are always adjacent to verbs still display partial independence of the verb and of the (object) clitic group in proclisis/enclisis alternations. The Italian and French declarative examples that we have used so far all have proclisis, cf. (35a). However, the Romance languages present various patterns of enclisis. Modern Italian, for instance, has enclisis of object clitics in imperatives and non-finite clauses, as in (35b–c). French also exhibits enclisis of object clitics in imperatives, and in addition enclisis of subjects clitics in main interrogatives (subject clitics will be thoroughly analysed in section 4.3).
(35)
a.
to.me/there
it=
porta. (It.)
he.brings
‘He brings it there/to me’
b.
Porta-
Bring=me=it/
Porta-
bring=there=it
‘Bring it there/to me!’
c.
Cerca
Try
di
to
portar-
bring=to.me=it/there=it
‘Try to bring it to me/there.’
A considerable tradition of studies starting with Kayne (
The conditions ruling enclisis/proclisis alternations are not uniform across Romance and across syntactic contexts. The triggers of enclisis vary crosslinguistically: they include polarity, mood, information structure, finiteness, etc. Enclisis in imperatives and infinitives, see (35b) vs (35c), do not result from the same mechanism; in fact, languages such as French display enclisis in imperatives, but proclisis in infinitives. Analogously, it is highly implausible that one and the same mechanism may account for cases of enclisis of object clitics to past participles in Piedmontese varieties in (33) and enclisis to finite verbs in present-day western Ibero-Romance or in medieval Romance (see (36)), where enclisis is compatible with topicalized XPs and barred by focus-fronted XPs (so-called Tobler-Mussafia law).
(36)
a.
[Top
A
to
voi]
you
[Top
le
the
mie
my
poche
few
parole
words
ch’
that
avete
you.have
intese]i
you.have
ho
I.have
=
=them
dette
said
con
with
grande
great
fede
faith
‘The few words that you heard from me I pronounced with great faith.’
b.
e
and
[Top
a
to
los
the
otros]i
others
acomendo
commended
-
=them
a
to
dios
god
(o.Sp.)
‘and he commended the others to god.’
If we look beyond the specific conditions ruling enclisis, it is worth noting that none of them is computed in the
Furthermore, Set Merge and head movement cannot predict elementary generalisations on the make-up of proclitic vs enclitic strings, for instance that the object clitic group does not normally mirror, specifically under proclisis/enclisis alternations. Indeed, head(-projection) movement (rollup movement etc.) is expected to yield a very high incidence of mirror patterns, of the same kind one finds in other clausal domains (see
(37)
a.
me
to.me=
lo
it=
va
goes
a
to
prendere. (It.)
fetch
‘S/he goes fetch it for me.’
b.
va-mme-lo
go=to.me=it
a
to
prendere.
fetch
‘Go fetch it for me.’
One way to circumvent this objection is by assuming, as Kayne (
(38)
By assuming (38), however, we implicitly assume that, in languages such as French or Italian, proclitics are never incorporated to the inflected verb, a solution that raises more questions than it can answer. First, what is the nature of the head hosting clitics? Second, if clitics and verbs are not merged together, why cann’t they be separated in languages such as Italian, Romanian, or Spanish? We know that the position of the inflected verb in the Romance languages is subject to subtle variation, see (39) (from
(39)
a.
Elle
connaît
(*connaît)
(*connaît)
la recette (Fr.)
b.
Lei
(*conosce)
conosce
?conosce
la ricetta (It.)
c.
Ea
(*ştie)
?ştie
ştie
reţeta (Ro.)
d.
Ella
she
(*conoce)
knows
perhaps
?conoce
knows
already
conoce
knows
la receta (Sp.)
the recipe(=the)
‘Perhaps she already knows the recipe.’
By the same token, one would expect proclitics to be separated from lexical verbs more readily than from auxiliaries, which cross-linguistically tend to target higher I-positions (see, e.g.
In our view, the hybrid behavior of clitics; yielding syntactic configurations such as (38), is better captured by assuming a Pair Merge structure whereby clitic pronouns are first merged in I (more on this in Section 4.4).
Note that the few cases of mirror orders in enclisis have attracted relatively high interest in the literature (see also
(40)
a.
Il
he=
to.me=
it=
donne (Fr.)
give.3
‘He gives it to me.’
b.
Donne-
give.
‘Give it to me!’
c.
Donne-
give.
‘Give it to me!’
(41)
a.
Il
he=
to.him=
of.it=
donne (Fr.)
gives
‘He gives some of it to him’
b.
Donne-
give=him=of.it/give=of.it=him
‘Give him some of it!’
This is not to say that movement theories of clitics could not be adjusted to cover the relevant subregularities.
A prediction made by the model of clitic placement based on Set Merge and head movement is that there is a uniform syntax for all classes of clitics. This is particularly relevant when one considers subject clitics. Subject clitics are always adverbal (only negation and object clitics can occur between the subject clitic and the verb), and differ quite systematically from object clitics with respect to placement. Subject clitics occur in enclisis in contexts of V in C, like main interrogatives, though object clitics are proclitic in the same context (as expected with a finite verb).
(42)
a.
he=
le
it=
lui
to.him/her=
donne. (Fr.)
give.3
‘He gives it to him/her.’
b.
Le
it=
lui
to.him/her=
donne-t-
give.3
‘Does he give it to him/her?’
The comparison between subject and object clitics in sentences like (42) shows that subject and object clitics do not form a single sequence of pair merged elements. Subject clitics are probably merged with a different phase head in (42b) (as a matter of fact, though the ordering of object clitics is complex and subject to language-specific irregularities, subject proclitics always precede object proclitics).
Subject clitics are not connected to the
(43)
a.
they=
an
have
rangiò-la.
fixed=it.
(Cairo Montenotte,
‘They fixed it.’
b.
[IP << i, I> < an, I>>
[v*P << la, v*>, <rangiò, v*>> [VP rangiò
The subject clitic can close any open argument slot by predication (with v(*)P) and satisfy the EPP (in this respect, Italo- and Gallo-Romance varieties exhibit variation; see
(44)
Il
it
a
has
été
been
mis
put
fin
end
à
to
ce
this
conflit
conflict
‘This conflict has been put an end to’
We now focus on interrogative inversion of the subject clitic. In sentences like (42b), which we have used to illustrate the relative independence of subject and object clitics, both are adverbal (strictly adjacent to the verb). Furthermore, we note that in proclisis no lexical material can be interpolated between subject clitics and object clitics (with the sole exception of the negation which is itself a clitic). In classical cliticisation theories, incorporation of the subject clitic into the verb depends on verb movement to C, where the verb also takes along object clitics previously incorporated into it.
Now, so far we have made explicit recourse to
(45)
[EA [<V, v*> [V IA ]]]]
(46)
(i)
external Set Merge of V and Internal Argument
(ii)
external Set Merge of v*
(iii)
internal Pair Merge forms <V, v*>
(iv)
external Set Merge of External Argument
Let us begin by considering French (42a) reproduced below as (47a). Suppose we execute V-to-I movement by internal Pair Merge of the <V, v*> sequence with I. We obtain the basic sentential skeleton in (47b).
(47)
a.
Il
he
le
it
lui
to.him
donne.
give.3
‘He gives it to him.’
b.
[IP <<donne, v*>, I>> [VP <donne, v*> [VP]]]
Following the general schema laid out in
(48)
[IP <<il, I>, <le, I>, <lui, I>, <<donne, v*>, I>> [VP ..
To better understand interrogative inversion, we must take a step back to the issue of enclisis as seen in imperatives (section 4.2) and distinguish at least two kinds of movement to C: (i) V-to-C in imperatives, yielding enclisis of object clitics, see (35) above and section 4.2; (ii) V-to-C in questions, yielding enclisis of subject clitics (but proclisis of object clitics, see (42b)).
Imperatives such as (35b), repeated in (49) for the sake of convenience are essentially subjectless. As discussed by Portner, Pak & Zanuttini (
(49)
Porta-me-lo! (It.)
bring=me=it
‘Bring it to me!’
(50)
[ <<porta,
Note that, as anticipated in section 4.1, we have now provided examples of derivations (in a modern Romance language) where clitics are not merged with the
Interrogatives follow a different derivation, as witnessed by the absence of enclisis of object clitics and the peripheral position of DP subjects. Clitic subjects are customarily assumed to be merged in I also in inverted structures, but in fact this assumption is not justified. Consider that interrogatives prevent phrasal DP subjects from being licensed in I (interrogatives trigger so-called stylistic inversion, i.e. they require subjects to occur postverbally, or of course they can be topicalised). If I cannot license DP subjects, why should it license subject clitics?
A possible solution to the puzzle of interrogative inversion is to suppose, as in (51a), that subject clitics are pair merged in C, when C has interrogative force. Then inversion of I (along with its pair-merged clitics), takes place as shown in (51b) via internal Pair Merge with C.
(51)
a.
[CP <subject clitic, CINT> [IP <object clitics, I> [vP …]]]
b.
[CP <<object clitics, I>, CINT> <subject clitic, CINT>> [IP <object clitics, I> [vP …]]]
This yields the order of (42b), repeated below as (52a), via the structure in (52b).
(52)
a.
Le
it=
lui
to.him/her=
donne-t-il?
give.3
‘Does he give it to him/her?’
b.
[CP <<le, lui, donne, v*, I>, CINT> <il, CINT>> [IP << le, lui, donne, v*>, I > [vP …]]]
As already mentioned, providing Pair Merge derivations for all the various clitic typologies illustrated in
In conclusion, let us briefly review the complexities that may be imputed to the present proposal.
The second innovation introduced here is a way to build argument structure, which also co-exists with the classical one. As part of this, argument structure is severed from the lexical core of the verb, since C and I can also anchor clitic strings. By introducing an alternative way to saturate predicates, we can dispense with clitic movement from argument positions and with
We have been quite explicit that syntax is not isomorphic to semantics. Like the coexistence of Pair Merge and Set Merge, this is independent of the present proposal, corresponding to a well-worn debate between the Uniformity and the autonomy of syntax theses (see especially section 3). Under non-Uniformity views, there may be alternative syntactic ways to determine the same semantics. Traditional analyses of clitics assume that we need to pass through a canonical argument structure in order to derive the interpretive equivalence of clitic and phrasal pronouns. However, the semantics of clitics and that of corresponding XPs is not necessarily uniform. Clitics have an anti-focussed interpretation. They refer both to definite/specific and to indefinite/non-specific elements (a property that
Scholars have been hypothesizing for decades that differences between clitics and XPs, not only with respect to syntactic placement, but also with respect to their interpretation, result from the clitics’ having a deficient structure, as proposed by Cardinaletti & Starke (
In a nutshell, in this article we tried to assess whether a Pair Merge approach to Romance clitics is feasible and whether it holds any empirical advantage. If clitic, verb clusters are built as pair merged sequences, the incorporation property displayed by clitics (with respect to one another and with respect to the verb) follows by construction, as such sequences are point-like from the point of view of phrasal syntax. This view of cliticization seems to run into immediate problems once we move away from object clitics in finite declarative sentences in Italian or French and tackle slightly less familiar linguistic systems, that allow interpolation, enclisis (inversion), and allow clitic sequences to split (object vs. subject clitics). We argued that these phenomena receive a principled explanation under the assumption that clitics are pair merged with different phase heads: as a consequence, all clitics associated with a given phase head behave as a single syntactic object, but clitics merged with different phase heads pattern differently. Specifically, the fact that subject clitics are essentially independent of object clitics need not descend from some special properties of subject clitics. They may simply be pair merged with a different phase head than object clitics.
We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers, attendances at GLOW 44, GLOW in Asia XIII, and audiences in Florence and Utrecht for their feedback. The paper was conceived and realized jointly. For academic purposes, responsibility must be divided as follows: MRM §1–3; DP § 4–5.
Rizzi (
They are found in most Indo-European subfamilies, not only in Romance, but also in Slavic, Balkan and Iranian languages. To this, we must add several well studied families in the formal literature, namely the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic), the Bantu languages, the Pama-Nyungan languages (e.g. Walpiri).
The Italian data are essentially translations of the French data by Boneh and Nash (
We refer the reader to Folli and Harley (
The formulation of the argument in the text is consistent with the observation of a reviewer that idioms depend both on a specific syntax and specific lexical material. The idiom is Cl-V. But precisely because of this, we question what motivates the additional
The costs of introducing a more complex Merge operation are made fully explicit by Chomsky (
In this article, and following the suggestion of a reviewer, we use a non-root based framework, essentially to simplify the discussion. Nothing seems to us to hinge on this simplification.
As a reviewer correctly points out, in order to derive ATB (Across-The-Board) constructions (i), Chomsky (
(i) (I wonder) [what, <&, {John bought (ii) I wonder what John bought and Bill handed to Tom
what}, {Bill handed what to Tom}>]
As a point of fact, there is no contradiction between the ATB and the statements in the text, since it remains true that after the sequence is formed no member of it can be extracted, yielding precisely the CSC. We return to this matter in fn.11.
This is also important when computing c-command relations (cf.
Further pursuing the discussion in fn.9, a reviewer points out that elements in a sequence are accessible to operations before the sequence is formed, cf. Chomsky’s (
(i) I wonder what John bought and Bill handed to Tom (ii) *I wonder what John bought and Bill handed a sandwich to Tom
In the second case “FSQ (Form Sequence) induces a violation of CSC”. Similarly you couldn’t move just one clitic, since a CSC violation would ensue at FSQ.
(Marginal) counterexamples are discussed in Pescarini (
The various flavours, e.g. Dati(ive) and Gen(itive) are disambiguated once again by lexical content, as well as by context, e.g. Goal or benefactive (selected Dat vs. non selected Dat).
We independently know that syntactic modification structures can satisfy theta-relations, for instance in Adj-Noun examples like
Barbosa (
Ledgeway and Lombardi (
Benincà (
On IP-scrambling, see
Anon.,
The view of phase heads adopted here is the standard one (
We added this evidence at the prompting of a reviewer.
Merger of clitics in
(i) Tout everything leur 3 (* fait make.3 vouloir want. à to Paul. (Fr.) Paul (ii) Tout Everything leur 3 fait make.3 3 vouloir. want. ‘Everything makes them angry at him’
Matteo de’ Libri,
This generalisation is not evident in languages with a more reduced clitic repertory than French, not including Loc and Part enclitics. This is the case of Greek, originally investigated by Terzi (
Many authors have focused on the different morphology of the 1/2p Dat clitic in (40b) vs. (40c), proposing that the former is in fact a weak pronoun (
A reviewer enquires as to how the subject clitic
This assumption runs counter the canonical view that there is a fundamental asymmetry between French and Northern Italian clitics – and that this difference corresponds to two different values of the null subject parameter. The traditional reasons are reviewed in the literature quoted in fn 2 (
In (52b) we use an obvious abbreviation for long Pair Merge sequences, displaying them as a simple sequence of elements with a final Link, e.g. <le, lui, donne, v*, I>.
These are actually listed by the reviewers, to whom we are directly responding.
A further problem raised by a reviewer is that not all clitics seem to be introduced by Pair Merge. In this instance, the question may be terminological. What the descriptive literature labels ‘clitic’ may correspond to different objects crosslinguistically and across chronological stages (
The authors have no competing interests to declare.