Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

“…C, T, v); (b) the agreement features inherent to pronominal elements are often present on strong, weak and clitic forms alike, and if so, they should have the internal structure responsible for (introducing) these properties. I agree with Panagiotidis that the determiner/pronoun itself is in D rather than in N (contra Cardinaletti 1994;Cardinaletti and Starke 1999), I also agree that its agreement features are introduced within their respective functional projections, in particular NumP 28 (DP being in my account nothing more than PersonP, as also assumed by Lyons 1999 andLongobardi 2008); however, I am with Cardinaletti (1994) and Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) in assuming that the deficiency of clitics stems from their deficient structure, and that the less complex morphology of these items mirrors their less complex structure. The way we could marry these two approaches is to say that what clitics (minimally) lack is the lowest NP projection, hence e (and perhaps sometimes more, if one looks at French contracted form such as l' where quite obviously the number and gender information is unrecoverable).…”

“…I have argued, contra Panagiotidis, that clitics have a deficient structure, by which I meant that they do not have the complement NP (but they may have NumP). Drawing upon analyses of Lyons (1999) and Longobardi (2008), I have further proposed that the person feature equals D (hence DP=PersonP) and thus exponents of person should naturally associate with this position. The combination of these assumptions gave us the nominal structure in (61), in which the relevant φ-features head their own projections above NP.…”

“…Though they do seem to exhibit person distinctions (mój 'my' 1.SG, twój 'your' 2.SG), they do not appear to have grammatical person as such, or else we would expect this person feature to override the default 3rd person born by the noun itself and trigger verbal (sentential) agreement (as is the case in (50) with personal pronouns). I follow Postal (1970), Lyons (1999), Rutkowski (2007), Bernstein (2008) and Longobardi (2008) in assuming that the personal pronouns here are determiners, hence in DP/PersonP and that these are not appositive structures. Consider the following sentences: Polish possessive adjectives are also comparable with their counterparts in Italian (Longobardi 1994), Romanian (Giusti 2002) or Greek (Alexiadou et al 2007).…”

“…Such an account is more coherent in that we have one common position for all pronominal elements, namely D; importantly, no matter how deficient the clitic, there is one feature it must have: person. If we thus assume after Lyons (1999) and Longobardi (2008) that DP is simply shorthand for PersonP, then we expect exponents of person to be base-introduced there. 29 All the remaining properties (number, gender), come within the functional projection NumP below DP (as is the case with nominal projections headed by nouns).…”

Peripheral cross-linguistic interference in the acquisition of accusative clitics by Romanian–Hungarian simultaneous bilinguals

“…The null object has individuated denotation, which involves a positive Person feature (Longobardi 2006). As in Romanian, the Person feature is strong, when it has a positive value, it has to be overt.…”