Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation 2019
DOI: 10.1515/9781501505201-027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An emergentist view on functional classes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…27), where the Dat-RWP occurs between the main verb and the Acc-RWP. Besides, Pescarini (2019) points to empirical data featuring interpolation phenomena also in enclitic contexts.…”
Section: Clitic Climbingmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…27), where the Dat-RWP occurs between the main verb and the Acc-RWP. Besides, Pescarini (2019) points to empirical data featuring interpolation phenomena also in enclitic contexts.…”
Section: Clitic Climbingmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Despite this crucial difference in their distribution, all clitic forms have been traditionally analysed as agreement markers realised on T, playing a role comparable to that of verbal morphology (see in particular Poletto 1993particular Poletto , 2000. While this analysis could be maintained for second person singular, more recent studies have challenged the agreement nature of third person clitics (Pescarini 2020;Schaefer 2020;Frasson 2021), evidencing their pronominal behaviour. The distribution of Venetan third person subject clitics resembles that of French subject clitics, which have been analysed as reduced pronouns ('weak pronouns', in the classification presented in Cardinaletti and Starke 1999) since the seminal works by Kayne (1975Kayne ( , 1983.…”
Section: The Syntax Of the Subject In Venetan Varietiesmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…One first piece of evidence against an analysis of subject clitics as pure agreement markers comes from a constraint on doubling in Venetan. Pescarini (2020) shows that the distribution of subject clitics in Venetan is not that of obligatory agreement markers, but of pronouns. As already noticed by Benincà (1994), Venetan subject clitics do not double a DP subject when this is postverbal (9)a) and they optionally double a preverbal subject (9)b):…”
Section: The Restriction On Doublingmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, as shown by heritage Venetan subject clitics, phonological deficiency does not necessarily imply interpretive or syntactic deficiency, challenging the notion of classes of pronouns presented in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999). See also Manzini (2014) and Pescarini (2020) for similar proposals against a rigid classification of pronouns.…”
Section: Salience and Discoursementioning
confidence: 99%