Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC Effects

Béjar, Susana; Řezáč, Milan

doi:10.1075/cilt.244.07bej

Cited by 211 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Béjar-Rezac 2003, 49) (b) I showed them it/*you/*me ['you'/'me' = weak] (Richards 2008, 143) These data clearly indicate that in the double object configuration a phonologically weak direct object cannot be 1st or 2nd person in the presence of the phonologically weak 3rd person indirect object. The PCC is attested in the double object construction in a wide range of typologically unrelated languages such as French, English, Greek, Swiss German, Basque and Georgian (Anagnostopoulou 2003;Béjar-Rezac 2003). However, it does not seem to be operative in the double object construction in Polish, as can be seen in the following data:…”

Section: The Person Case Constraintmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…While there is a general consensus that Bulgarian and Macedonian, languages with verb adjacent clitics, do show PCC effects, languages such as Czech, Polish, Slovene and Slovak, etc., have been treated as lacking PCC effects at all by some linguists (see, for instance, Haspelmath 2004; Migdalski 2006), while some others have found these effects to be operative in these languages as well (cf., for instance, FranksKing 2000;Béjar-Rezac 2003;Sturgeon et al 2010). …”

Section: Pcc In Polish Double Object Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of these assumptions figure not just in Rezac's (2008) account, but also in other works, such as Anagnostopoulou (2003), Béjar-Rezac (2003) and Richards (2008). Before turning back to Polish data, let us first check how Rezac's account, outlined above, works for French double object constructions, as in (28) below.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PCC has been approached in the literature either from the point of view of morphology (Bonet 1991;Albizu 1997;Haspelmath 2004, among others) or syntax (for instance, Anagnostopoulou 2003; Béjar-Rezac 2003;Rezac 2008;Richards 2008). The analysis offered in this paper belongs to the latter camp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Person case constraint effects in Polish copular constructions

Bondaruk¹

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines two patterns found in one type of copular constructions in Polish, i.e., those containing the verbal copula być 'be' and the pronominal copula to. In the first pattern the verb być 'be' agrees with the second, postverbal element, not with the first one, while in the other 1st and 2nd person pronouns are banned from appearing as the first elements in to być copular clauses. It is argued that these apparently unrelated patterns are amenable to a uniform analysis couched within the minimalist approach to the Person Case Constraint (henceforth, the PCC). This approach crucially relies on the application of multiple Agree and the assumption that in Polish, just like in other languages, T probes separately for person and number. It is argued that in both patterns under consideration T probes the first DP for person and the second one for number and gender, which accounts for agreement with the second element in the first pattern. If the first DP is 1st or 2nd person, it values the person feature of T as 1st or 2nd and this is responsible for a person clash if the second DP is marked for 3rd person, which accounts for the second pattern. The analysis offered predicts that the two DPs in to być clauses must match in person. It is shown that this prediction may turn out to be problematic in the light of the fact that identity statements and inverted copular sentences allow person mismatch. It is argued that although they seem to be problematic in fact neither in the former nor in the latter the mechanism underlying the PCC effect, i.e., multiple Agree, is operative, but for a different reason. Equatives are analysed along the lines proposed by Perelstvaig (2001; for Russian and Italian by Moro (1997;, i.e., they are treated as bare small clauses which lack a label unless the second DP is internally merged with the bare small clause and thus provides it with a label (DP). As a result of this movement, the moved DP is closer to the probe T than the other DP , which blocks multiple Agree. In inverted copula sentences, on the other hand, parallel probing by T and C applies, which forces the movement of the inverted element to Spec CP and thus makes it unavailable to Agree with T.

show abstract

Section: The Person Case Constraintmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Pcc In Polish Double Object Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Person case constraint effects in Polish copular constructions

Bondaruk¹

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This constraint, while originally studied within a morphological framework by Bonet (1994) has recently been accounted for in terms of syntactic categories and principles (e.g. Anagnostopoulou, 2003;Bejar and Rezac, 2003;Bianchi, 2006;Adger and Harbour, 2007;Nevins, 2007) the conception of dative proposed in the text could indeed lead to a different view of the constraint -which the literature quoted takes to be based entirely on notions of Person/ animacy.…”

Section: Refining the Analysis: Clitic Splitsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax?

Manzini

Savoia

2011

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Person Case Constraint

Anagnostopoulou

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This constraint, which is extremely robust cross‐linguistically, is known as the person case constraint (PCC), comes in several versions (Strong, Weak, Ultrastrong, and Me‐First), and has been related to a number of other phenomena showing restrictions on person agreement. This survey concentrates on different syntactic approaches to the PCC, as these have been developed in the past 15 years or so, focusing on the question of the scope of the constraint and its relation to comparable agreement restrictions in other domains. After presenting the different versions of the PCC and summarizing its main properties, I discuss some representative approaches to the Strong PCC based on Agree and relate Strong PCC effects to comparable restrictions. I then focus on the Weak PCC and the proposals that have been put forth to derive the various versions of the PCC on the basis of parameterizations of properties of Agree. I finally critically discuss (i) a proposal that has treated the PCC in terms of cartography and (ii) a functional, frequency‐based approach.

show abstract

Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC Effects

Cited by 211 publications

References 0 publications

Person case constraint effects in Polish copular constructions

Person case constraint effects in Polish copular constructions

Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax?

The Person Case Constraint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About