The Person Case Constraint

Pancheva, Roumyana; Zubizarreta, María Luisa

doi:10.1007/s11049-017-9395-7

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…) points out that Bg also shows variation. For her, as noted in Pancheva & Zubizarreta (2017), it is a Me-First system in the singular, so that she accepts (3b) with 3 rd » 2 nd (similarly (44) below) and (3c) with 1 st » 2 nd . Interestingly, she still rejects these orders in the plural, which essentially amounts to the observation that the OBJ form vi cannot occur in combination with an OBL clitic.…”

Section: Sg S G Introduce F Fmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Others, such as Ackema & Neeleman (2013), employ the privative features PROX(imate) and DIST(al), where for them 1 st person is only PROX, 3 rd is only DIST, and 2 nd is both PROX and DIST. Pancheva & Zubizarreta (2017), who adopt [±participant] and [±author], also use a [±proximate] feature. This helps them to build a model of logophoricity and to extend the account to obviation.…”

Section: Person Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While it is certainly credible that some independent factor prevents *3 rd » 3 rd , here my goal is simply to show how the approach in this paper can accommodate such a Super-Strong system; cf. also the treatments in Haspelmath (2004), Doliana (2014), and Pancheva & Zubizarreta (2017). There is, finally, one potentially serious problem with my characterization of such languages as having to include a high ApplP: if there is just one clitic, it can be 3 rd person.…”

Section: Super-strongmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, she still rejects these orders in the plural, which essentially amounts to the observation that the OBJ form vi cannot occur in combination with an OBL clitic. Other languages also show number-dependent POC constraint variation (see Pancheva & Zubizarreta 2017: footnote 24 and references therein), but here this may be because the Bg clitic system exhibits a syncretism, vi also being the OBL form, whereas in the singular ti and te are distinct. (As Nevins & Săvescu 2010 report, the same pattern characterizes neighboring Romanian, with comparable POC judgments.)…”

Section: Sg S G Introduce F Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…andDoliana (2014) also discuss the Kambera data, the former-who perhaps most transparently refers to the PCC as the "Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint"-offering a usage-based account and the latter couching his analysis within an optimality-theoretic version of minimalism. Matsigenka (or Machiguenga), an Arawak language of southeastern Peru, is the only other Super-Strong language identified in the literature, byPancheva & Zubizarreta (2017); cf. O'Hagan (2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences

Franks

2018

Zeitschrift Für Slawistik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This paper examines so-called “Person Case Constraint” (PCC) effects. These are ordering restrictions on co-occurring clitic pronouns, where only certain person combinations are felicitous but the possibilities vary cross-linguistically. Taking the South Slavic languages as a point of departure, an account is developed in terms of person feature spreading from a high Appl(icative) node to underspecified clitic pronouns. It is argued that 3rd person is the absence of person features, hence there is no PERS(on) node per se, and that person can be characterized in terms of PART(icipant) and AUTH(or). It is further argued that languages may differ in terms of how these two features are arranged, accounting for additional systems. Finally, speculations are offered on how feature spreading enlightens PCC violation repair strategies.

show abstract

Section: Sg S G Introduce F Fmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Person Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Super-strongmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sg S G Introduce F Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences

Franks

2018

Zeitschrift Für Slawistik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation

Hartmann

Heycock

2022

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates agreement—in particular person agreement—in two configurations in Icelandic where there are two potential controllers of agreement and where at least in some cases agreement is with the lower of the two (a “low nominative”). One case is the Dative-Nominative construction, where there is a dative subject and a lower nominative argument. The other is the Specificational Copular Clause (SCC) construction, where there are two nominative arguments. A much-discussed aspect of agreement in the former case is that agreement in number with the low nominative is generally possible, but agreement in person is at best highly restricted, leading in some cases to ineffability. This person effect has been claimed to be ameliorated by syncretism in the agreement paradigm, but there is limited data available substantiating this effect, which is however crucial to deciding between two recent types of account. This paper reports on a pair of experimental rating studies on the Dat-Nom and SCC configurations in Icelandic. We show that, taken together, the two sets of data provide evidence against the Person Licensing Condition and in favour of an account of the Dat-Nom construction in terms of morphological conflict arising from double agreement, although we show that the ameliorating effect of morphological syncretism, while real, is limited. Further, we show that there is no evidence of double agreement in the copular clauses investigated. We argue that full agreement with the low nominative here arises if the first nominal can move out of the domain of agreement entirely. The possibility of agreement with the initial nominal we suggest indicates that nominatives, unlike datives, cause the search of the agreement probe to terminate.

show abstract

Person complementarity and (pseudo) Person Case Constraint effects: Evidence from Inuktitut

Compton

2019

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the nature of person complementarity in Eastern Canadian Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut), arguing that despite its apparent patterning as a Person Case Constraint (PCC) effect, it is not due to the presence of a defective intervener blocking person agreement with a lower argument, as is often the case in other languages. Instead, the observed effect is caused by a defective or missing person probe on C that cannot value local person features on absolutive arguments. Given the use of the PCC as a diagnostic for differentiating clitics and agreement, this result has implications for the proper identification of φ-marking in Inuktitut.

show abstract

The Person Case Constraint

Cited by 23 publications

References 45 publications

Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences

Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences

Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation

Person complementarity and (pseudo) Person Case Constraint effects: Evidence from Inuktitut

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About