Dear all,
The Linguistics Colloquium Series is having a talk this Friday, 03/31, in Oak 408 (NOTICE DIFFERENT LOCATION), at 4:00pm.
We would like to invite you to join us and see Prof. Roumyana Pancheva's (University of Southern California) talk 'Logophoricity effects in double object structures with clitics' (joint work with Maria Luisa Zubizarreta).
Information about the speaker can be found here: http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/
The Linguistics Colloquium Series is a student-organized event sponsored by the UConn Department of Linguistics and the UConn Graduate Student Senate.
We hope to see you there!
Gabriel & Paula
Abstract:
Roca (1992) observes that in clitic double object constructions in Spanish, the indirect object clitic se blocks co-reference between the direct object clitic and the matrix subject, see (1). When the indirect object clitic is 1st or 2nd person, co-reference is possible. Charnavel and Mateu (2015) name the phenomenon the Clitic Logophoric Restriction (CLR), highlighting its links to the grammatical marking of perspective.
(1) * Luisi creyó que María sek loi presentaría (a sus padresk).
Luis believed that Maria dat 3sg.acc introduce to her parents
‘Luisi believed that Maria will introduce himi to them (her parents).’
The CLR has similarities with the Person Case Constraint (PCC, Bonet 1994). The PCC affects double object constructions with clitics and places restrictions on the person features of the indirect and direct objects (see Anagnostopoulou, to appear, for a recent overview).
We argue that the CLR should not be reduced to the PCC (unlike Ormazabal and Romero 2007, Bhatt and Šimík 2009). We suggest instead an account more in line with the non-reductionist unification account of Charnavel and Mateu (2015). These authors propose that the CLR and the PCC are specific instantiations of a more general prohibition against the appearance of two perspectival centers within the same domain. We adopt from them the idea that the indirect object in clitic double object constructions in the relevant languages is a type of perspectival center, an empathy locus (Kuno 1987), though we prefer to use the term point-of-view center. We propose that the common factor behind the CLR and the PCC is the grammatical marking of the indirect object clitic as a point-of-view center, through an interpretable person feature on the Applicative head that defines double object structures with clitics. From here, the two phenomena diverge. The PCC is a syntactic phenomenon with interpretative roots and import, while the CLR is semantic in nature. Parametrized values of the interpretable person feature, along with several other syntactic parameters of agreement within the ApplP are responsible for PCC effects (Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2017). The CLR follows from a semantic requirement informally stated as in (2).
(2) If a logophoric domain encoding point of view includes one or more attitude holders, an attitude holder must be selected as the point-of-view center.
For more information, contact: paula fenger at paula.fenger@uconn.edu