Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint

Abstract

Abstract. The Person Case Constraint is frequently concomitant with Case Syncretism. We provide a syntax‐driven account of both phenomena that relies on the dual role that φ‐features play in selecting and in Case‐licensing argument DPs. The account differs from other syntactic approaches to the PCC in the role it affords the applicative head in the Case system and in the attention it pays to the syntactic structures that feed morphology and therefore induce syncretism.

The clitic binding restriction revisited: Evidence for antilogophoricity

“…Bhatt and Šimík (2009) derive this constraint from the Person Case Constraint (see Adger and Harbour 2003;Albizu 1997;Anagnostopoulou 2003Anagnostopoulou , 2005Béjar and Rezac 2003;Bianchi 2003;Bonet 1991Bonet 1994Ormazabal and Romero 2002, inter alia), defined in (14) and instantiated in (15) vs. (16).…”

Some notes on the ‘specificity effects’of optional resumptive pronouns

“…But this is actually not the case in Hebrew: as shown in (1a) and (2a) above, a specific interpretation is also possible in gap relatives. 13 Conversely, if the specific D-layer is responsible 12 As an aside, note that such a weaker status of indirect object clitics is apparently at odds with some recent morphosyntactic analyses (Anagnostopoulou 2003, Adger & Harbour 2007, according to which third person indirect object clitics are more specified than direct object ones (in particular, they have a Person feature specification that direct object clitics lack.) 13 According to Boeckx, an alternative derivation satisfying the PUC involves an Agree relation between the two EPP-checking heads, an Agreeing C and AgrO.…”

Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax?

“…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.…”