verb movement and object pronominal clitic distribution

8/13/2019 Verb Movement and Object Pronominal Clitic Distribution

1/27

- 1 -

Verb Movement and Object Pronominal Clitic Distribution

In Berber

1.IntroductionPronominal clitic distribution is one the most debated topics in syntax and remains one of

the most interesting phenomena in Berber Syntax. One of the recent and widely acceptedproposals in the Berber Syntax literature claims that Clitic Placement results from XP-movement

(phrasal-movement) to the edge of vP prior to any further movements. This proposal was firstmade by Boukhris (1998) and was adopted in Ennaji & Sadiqi (2002). I provide evidence and

analysis indicating that this proposal is both theoretically and empirically inadequate. I will arguethat object pronominal clitic placement is not the result of phrase-movement as proposed by

the authors mentioned above, nor is it head movement, either from an argument position i.e.object position as proposed by Ouhalla (1988, 1989, and 2005a) or from a higher functional headposition (Elouazizi 2005). I argue that one can maintain Sportiches (1992, 1998) proposal, also

argued for in Manzini (1998) and Manzini & Savoia (1999, 2001a, 2002) among many others,

which hypothesizes that object pronominal clitics are merged as specialized heads in thefunctional domain and show given the Berber data that clitic placement can be deduced from

whether V-to-T takes place or not without appealing to clitic movement or prosodic operations

such as prosodic reordering (Ouhalla 2005a). I will also argue that the parametric variation

among some Berber dialects with regard to object clitic distribution is due to their difference inthe hierarchy of the functional categories. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2

introduces the facts about the distribution of object pronominal clitics in Tamazight Berber,

section 3 discusses some of the main properties of Tamazight grammar and proposes a clausestructure for this language, section 3 argues against clitic placement as head movement, section 4

argues against clitic placement as XP-movement, and section 5 presents a new arguably

preferable analysis.

2. The Distribution of object pronominal clitics in TamazightTamazight object pronominal clitics must cliticize to the verb if there are no functional

categories in the sentence as shown in (1). In the presence of functional categories the clitics

must cliticize to these categories, namely: the tense elements daas in (2) and laas in (3), thenegation particle uras in (4), and the complementizer ayas shown in (5).

(1) wshix-as-t (Tamazight)gave.1s-himI gave it to him

(2) da-as-t wshex(*-as-t)

will-him-it give-1s(*-him-it)

I will give it to him


2/27

- 2 -

(3) la-as-t ikkix(*-as-t)

Pres-her-it giving-1s(*-him-it)I am giving it to him

(4) ur-as-t wshix. (*-as-t)

not-him-it gave-1s(*-him-it)I didnt give it to him.

(5) argaz ay-as-t ywshan(*-as-t) idda

the-man that-him-it gave.Neu. (*-him-it) wentThe man who gave it to him left.

(6) ma ay-as-t ywshan(*-as-t)?

who that-him-it gave.Neu. (*-him-it)

Who gave it to him?

Examples (2)-(6) indicate that when a particle representing a functional category co-

occurs with the verb, pronominal clitics cliticize to these particles and not to the verb. In (2) the

dative and the accusative clitics are attached to the future particle daand not to the verb as shownby the ungrammaticality of (7). In (4) they appear attached to the negation particle urand not tothe verb, otherwise the sentence is ill-formed as in (8). Finally in (5) and (6), they obligatorilyattach to the complementizer as shown in (9).

(7) *da wshex-as-t

will give-him-itI will give it to him

(8) *ur wshix-as-t

Neg gave-1s-him-itI didnt give it to him

(9) *argaz ay wsha-as-t idda.

man that gave-1s-him-it left

However, when all these particles and the complementizer ay co-occur in the same clause inTamazight, clitics attach to the tense particle (e.g. da Fut. in (10)(11)) and only to the tenseparticle:

(10) argaz ay -ur -da -as -t ywshen idda

the man that-not-will-him-it give.Neu went.The man who will not give it to him has left.

(11) ma ay-ur-da-as-t ywshen?

who that-not-will-him-it give.NeuWho will not give it to him

(12) * argaz ay-(*as-t)-ur-(*as-t-)da-ywshen

the-man that-(him-it)-Not-him-it-will-give.Neu(13) ma ay(*-as-t)-ur-(*as-t-)da-ywshen

who that (-him-it)-not-him-it-will-give.Neu


3/27

- 3 -

In (10) and (11) where all the different potential hosts co-occur, namely: comp (ay), Neg particle(ur), tense particle (da), object clitics can attach only to the tense particle otherwise we getungrammatical sentences as shown in (12) and (13). The distribution of Tamazight objectpronominal clitics can thus be schematized as follows:

(14)

Object pronominal Cli tic Distri butiona. V + CLb.Tense Particle + CL+ V

c. Neg + CL + Vd. Comp + CL + V

e. Comp(+ *CL) + Neg (+ *CL) + Tense Particle (+ CL)+ V (+ *CL)

f. Comp (+ *CL) + Neg (+ CL) + V (+ *CL)

I n Brief

g. F CL V (where F= Comp, Neg or T) (Borrowing Ouhallas 2005 notation)

h. V CL

The descriptive generalizations in (14) are true of all Berber dialects except for line (14)

which distinguishes two sets of dialects: the Tamazight-like dialects and the Tarifit-like dialecs.In the Tarifit like dialects only the following order is grammatical:

i. Comp(+ *CL) + Tense Particle(+ *CL) + Neg (+ CL) + V (+ *CL)

What sets Tamazight-like dialects from Tarifit-like dialects apart is that in the latter, when more

than one potential host is present in the sentence, the clitics cliticize to negation, which happens

to follow the tense auxiliary in these dialects. I will come back to this topic in section 5 but first Iwill discuss some aspects of the clause structure in Berber.

3.Tamazight Berber Clause StructureBefore embarking on an analysis of the distribution of object pronominal clitics in

Tamazight Berber, it is important to determine certain aspects of clause structure in this

language. Much of it is already discussed in the literature (see Ouhalla 1988 and subsequent

works, Guerssel 1985, 1995, Boukhris 1998 among many others). I will assume the followingindependently motivated and widely accepted Clause Structure for Berber:

(15) [CP [NegP [TP [AspP [vP [VP]]]]]]

In the next subsections I will briefly summarize the main grammatical properties of this language

and then focus on one aspect, that has not received a precise analytical treatment, namely tenseand aspect, and which will be relevant to the analysis of clitic placement that I subsequently

propose.


4/27

- 4 -

3.1. Main Grammatical Properties

Tamazight is a pro-drop VSO language. The usual word order is VSO as illustrated below:

(16) yugh Moha aksum

3s.bought.PERF Moha meatMoha bought meat.

This language also exhibits SVO order as in (17):

(17) Moha yuri thabrat

Moha 3s.wrotePERF letter

Moha, he wrote the letter.

Verbs in Tamazight are inflected for subject agreement. The agreement element is not incomplementary distribution with the subject, as illustrated in (18) and (19).

(18)

ytsha arba thamen3s.eat.PRF boy honey

The boy ate honey

(19) ytsha thamen

3s.ate.PRF honeyHe/the boy ate honey

The morphological verb agreement paradigm in Tamazight Berber is as follows:

(20) The Agreement paradigmSingular Plural

1stperson. [verb]- x n -[verb]

2nd

person t-[verb]-t t-[verb]-m

3rd

person y-[verb] (masculine) [verb]-n1

t-[verb] (feminine)

As indicated, some agreement affixes, namely the 3rd person singular and the 1st person

plural, are prefixes, others are suffixes (the 1stperson singular and the 1

stperson plural), while

others consist of both a prefix and a suffix i.e. circumfixes (the 2nd person singular and plural). I

will assume, following Chomsky (1993, 1995), that the verb is base generated fully inflected for

agreement and later moves to the functional head specified for agreement features to check them.There are different possibilities as to which functional head is specified for these features; it

could be T, Asp, ? or Agr (assuming an independent AgrP projection). Any of these

possibilities are compatible with the analysis of verb movement and clitic placement that I arguefor here. Therefore, I leave this issue open since it is irrelevant within the scope of this paper (see

Author 1999 for detailed discussion).2

1

Some Tamazight dialects also exhibit 3rdperson plural feminine agreement.2

See also Ouhalla 2005b for a different account of agreement in Berber.


5/27

- 5 -

The negation particle ur always precedes the verb, and the tense particles da-and la-, asshown, respectively, by the following examples:

(21) ur-uryex thabrat

Neg-wrote.PRF.1s letter

I didn't write the letter(22) ur-da-daryex thabrat

Neg-will-write.IRR.1s letter

I will not write the letter

(23) ur-la-taryex thabrat

not-Pres-write.IMP.1s letter

I am not writing the letter

I will assume, following e.g. Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1991) and Ouhalla (1990), that Neg

heads its own X-bar projection in Tamazight Berber: 3

(24)

CP2

C2

C NegP2

Neg'2

Neg TP

ur

There are two types of complementizers in Tamazight. Complementizers that are used mainly in

relative clauses (-ay (-a) and ag), and complementizers that are used only in that-clauses (namelyis and bli).4

(25) Senex argaz ag ughen thaddart thakswat

know.1s man that bought.3s house big

I know the man who bought the big house

(26) ur-denex is da-diddu Ali

not-think.1s that will-come.3s Ali

I don't think Ali is coming

3

One of the long standing arguments that was presented in favor of a NEG projection is the blocking effect NEG has

on the verb movement to I in English. It has been argued (Pollock 1989) that the reason why French allows V

movement to I across Neg is due to the structural differences between negation in the two languages: while ne,inFrench, is a clitic occupying a head position and must, like other clitics in French move to TNS, notin English is thehead of NegP; it does not move and it block verb movement.4

bli is a word borrowed from Moroccan Arabic and the only complementizer that behaves differently in Tamazightin that it cannot host clitics. I have nothing to add about the idiosyncratic behavior of this complementizer which I

believe is purely lexical. I restrict the discussion in this paper to the other complementizers that act as clitic hosts.


6/27

- 6 -

(27) inna-yi Ali bli memm-is la-ytuddu gher lmedrassa

told.3s.me Ali that son-his Prog-go.3s to school

Ali told me that his son was going to school

The interesting point that needs to be mentioned here is that in Tamazight, wh-questions are

formed by combining a wh-word with either the complementizer ay or the complementizer ag .

(28) melmi ag- idda Ali ?

when that - went.3s Ali

When did Ali go?

3.2. Tense and Aspect

Berber verbs display different aspectual forms namely perfective, imperfective and aorist(see e.g. Ouhalla 1988 for Tarifit, Guerssel 1986, Boukhris 1998, and Ouali and Pires (to appear)for Tamazight, Chaker 1995 for different dialects) as illustrated in (29).

(29)Perfective Imperfective Aorist

uf taf af find

uri tar ar writeghrf gherf ghrf bake

Each of these aspectual forms, except for the perfective, combines with an overt

auxiliary/morpheme to convey temporal-aspectual information. Although the perfective verbform does not combine with an overt tense morpheme, I will argue that there is a null tense

morpheme that selects the perfective verb.

We find three types of tense morphemes in Tamazight namely the future morpheme da,the non-finite morpheme adand the progressive/habitual marker la.

Da

The particle da is the only clear Future tense marker that we can find in Tamazight. Itappears only with verbs in theAoristform.

(30) da-dux gher-Rbath askawill-goAOR.1s to-Rabat tomorrow

I will go to Rabat tomorrow

AdThe particle adoccurs in embedded clauses. Like the future particle da, it precedes only

Aorist verb forms. Ouhalla (1988) notes that ad-clauses correspond to infinitival clauses inEnglish and other languages. The function of adwould then be like the function of toin Englishto-infinitives. Note that in Tarifit Berber (Ouhallas dialect), the particle ad can be used both inembedded clauses and in simple declarative clauses as a future particle (following Ouhalla


7/27

- 7 -

1988).5

But in Tamazight there are two different particles for these purposes. One is the adparticle which can be used in embedded clauses with a verb in the aorist form as in (31), and the

other is the daparticle which is the future tense particle (30). Even though the particle adonlyfunctions as the English toin to-infinitives, ad-clauses still have future irrealis reference.6

(31)

rix ad-ruhexwant.1s to-go.Aor.1s

I want to go

laThe particle la is a progressive present tense and a habitual present tense marker in

Tamazight. It is always followed by a verb in the imperfective form:

(32) la-tetex aghrum

la-eat.1s.IMP bread

I am eating bread (Now) or I eat bread (everyday)

Turning back to the aspectual morphology on the verb, the aorist aspectual form occurs

typically in sentences which contain the future tense marker daor the particle ad(in embeddedclauses). The aorist form is combined with the future marker da to give us the future tenseinterpretation as in (33), and is combined with the particle ad to give us future tenseinterpretation in (non-finite) embedded clauses as in (34).

(33) da daghex aghroum

will buy.AOR.1s bread

I will buy bread(34) rix ad-aghex aghroum

want.1s to-buy.AOR.1s bread

I want to buy bread

The perfective form usually conveys the simple past as in (35) and it does not co-occur

with any phonologically overt tense markers. Unlike e.g. Ouhalla (1988, and subsequent work)

and Boukhris (1998), I assume that the past tense marker is a phonologically null element ().7

(35) yuri tabrat

Past 3ms. write. PERF letterHe wrote the letter

The imperfective combined with the progressive/habitual marker la conveys simple orprogressive present tense (36).

5

Ouhalla argues, based on the fact that purposive and control clauses in Berber are invariably ad-clauses, that theaorist form can be treated as a sort of inflected infinitival of the type reported for European Portuguese (Raposo

1987).

7

See also Ouali & Pires (To appear) for detailed arguments for this hypothesis.


8/27

- 8 -

(36) la- y-tari tabrat

Prog 3ms-write.IMP letter

He is writing a letter or He writes a letter everyday

The following table summarizes the tense-aspect system of Tamazight Berber:

(37) Tense-Aspect System in Berber

The fact that the clause in Tamazight conveys both aspectual and temporal information

by means of different morphemes suggests that Tense and Aspect should be represented

separately in the Tamazight structure, heading two different maximal projections. This kind of

assumption goes back to Ouhalla (1988), for Tarifit Berber, who argues that TNS and ASP inBerber do not occupy the same position (node).

Following Ouhalla, I will assume that Tense and Aspect are represented separately in

Tamazight phrase structure representations i.e. TP and AspP; TP being higher than AspP. I willdepart from Ouhalla in arguing that the tense markers, including the phonologically null markers

are generated in T. The verb on the other hand moves to Asp at some point in the derivation

(see below). The tree structure below illustrates the structural representation of Tense and

Aspect.

8

(38) TP2

Spec T'2

T{da/ad/la/} AspP2

Spec Asp2

Asp{Perf., Imp ...

Irr., Aor.}

To summarize, in this section I discussed the main grammatical properties of Tamazight

Berber and the sentential structure that will be assumed in this work. I argued that tense and

aspect have separate projections namely TP and AspP; TP being higher than AspP, and that there

8

Ouali and Pires (to appear) provide a detailed discussion of the syntax of Tense and Aspect and complex tense in

Tamazight Berber.

Tense Particles

la Da ad

Perfective

verbal form

* * * Simple Past

Imperfective

verbal form

Progressive or

Habitual Present

* * *

Aorist verbalform

* Future Future(non-finite)

*


9/27

- 9 -

are selectional restrictions between Tense and Aspect. NegP, I argued, is higher in the functional

domain.

I will argue that clitics are merged under specialized functional heads and the following is

the phrase structure I will assume throughout this work:9

(39)

2

C 2

Neg 2

T 2

ClDat 2

ClAcc 2

Asp 2

Agr 2

V XP...XP (Author 1999)

With an analysis of clausal architecture of Tamazight Berber now proposed and overviewed, the

next section returns to the main topic of this work.

4.Cliticization vs. Affixation, and Head-Adjunction vs. MergingHypotheses

4.1.

Clitic Projections: A fixed positions for immobile clitics

As mentioned before, Tamazight clitics always immediately follow their host, i.e. they

are enclitics. The order of clitics in a clitic cluster is rigid, in the sense that the dative cliticalways occurs before the accusative. This rigidity is compatible with Sportiche (1992) in which

functional hierarchies in the sentence are rigidly fixed.

4.2. Clitic Placement in Tamazight is not head-to-head adjunction

Given the phrase structure analysis proposed in (39), how can we account for clitic placement inthe constructions in (40)(43)?

9

I take the overall analysis that I present in this paper as an argument for the Clitic shell type of analysis. For

detailed arguments for this analysis see Sportiche (1992), Manzini (1998) and Manzini & Savoia (1999, 2001a,

2002), see also Author (1999). Boukhris (1998: 293-295), offers a summary of this type of analysis but never comes

back to show why it would not work for Berber. Elouazizi (2005) does assume that Clitics are agreement heads, but

to derive their placement he relies on clitic movement, which I will argue is not necessary.


10/27

- 10 -

(40) wshix-as-t

gave.1s-him-it

I gave it to him(41) da-as-t wshex

will-him-it give.1s

I will give to him(42) la-as-t ikkix

Prog-him-it give.1s

I am giving it to him(43) arba ay-as-t iwshan

boy that-him-it gave.Neu

It was a boy who gave it to him

One way we could try to derive the clitic constructions in such case is by head-to-head

adjunction. Starting with (40), we can say that given the structure in (39), the verb moves to ClAcc

and the complex V+ClAccthen moves to ClDatas shown below:

(44) ...[ClDatP [V-ClAcc]+ ClDat[ ClAccP V-ClAcc...[VP V ...

However, this results in the wrong order, in which the Accusative clitic precedes the Dative clitic

as (44) contrary to fact. We could overcome this problem by assuming that CL AccP is base-generated higher than CLDatP.

(45) ...[ClAccP [V-ClDat]- ClAcc[ ClDatP V-ClDat... [VP V...

This would account for cases where clitics appear to be attached to the verb as in (40) since theverb would pick up the dative clitic first as in (45). But problems arise when we consider cases

where clitics appear attached to other elements like Neg, Tense particle or Comp as in (41), (42)

and (43), because nothing would enforce an order different from the ungrammatical CLAcc-CLDat.

One possible way to account for these cases is to left-adjoin Cl Dat up to ClAcc and then right-adjoin the cliticcomplex to whatever higher head is locally available, otherwise we will not end

up with the right order, say Comp+ClDat+ClAcc. But given Kayne's (1994), widely accepted,

restrictive theory assumed here, right-adjunction is not allowed. As discussed in the next section,similar ordering problems also arise if one assumes that clitics move from argument positions

(via head movement as argued in Ouhalla (1988, 1989 and 2005a) for Berber and Kayne (1989)

for Romance).10

10

Ouhalla 1988 proposes a filter-type condition which requires that the clitics attach to the highest affixal head.

This condition is descriptively accurate only to a certain extent. Crucially, it does not explain how the order of clitic

clusters with their different hosts is derived. Given (43) above and the structure below, Ouhalla (1988) assumes that

the dative clitic (e.g. as) adjoins to the accusative (e.g. t) and then right-adjoin to the verb and the whole complexmoves to I.

i. [IP wshix-as-t [VP [DP [DP (cf. (40)

gave-him-it

I gave it to him


11/27

- 11 -

4.2.1 Ouhalla (2005a)Ouhalla (2005a) observes that the distribution of object pronominal clitics in Berber,

despite some dialectal variations, follows the generalizations in (46) and (47):

(46) CL is attracted to (the preverbal position) by functional categories. (Ouhalla 2005a: 609)

(47) CL cannot be the first head constituent in the minimal domain (CP, DP, or PP) that

includes it. (Ouhalla 2005a: 619)

Ouhalla (2005: 609) writes:

The statements in (2) and (3) [my (46) and (47) H.O.] together confirm the longstanding view that CL placement is determined by factors that are partly syntactic and partlyprosodic (see Klavans 1980, 1985). Attraction to or by functional categories is a property of

movement at the syntactic level in general, which in Minimalism (Chomsky 1995), for example,

is accounted for in terms feature matching and deletion within local domains (Spec-Head, orHead-adjunction relations). The prosodic aspect of the distribution of clitics follows, arguably

inevitably, from the fact that CL elements are not prosodic constituents. As such, they are

required to be associated with a neighboring overt category that is capable of serving as aprosodic host for them prosodic association of clitics may, in a well-defined set of contexts,

involve a local reordering rule that affects CL and its host, called here CL-Host Inversion (CL-H

Inversion).

This in a way sums up the gist of Ouhallas proposal. The pronominal clitics, which are base

generated as arguments inside VP, head-move to a functional head and this movement is

syntactic as required by (46). If the movement of the clitic results in it being the first headconstituent in its minimal domain, then it has to undergo a CL-H Inversion with a phonologically

overt head as required by (47). For example to derive sentences like (48) which involves null

tense Ouhalla proposes the structures in (49).

(48) wshix-as lekthaab

give.PERF.1s-him bookI gave him the book

(49) a. [FP F [XP V CL

b. [FP [[CL] F] [XP V (Left-adjunction of CL to F)

c. [FP [[V] =CL] F [XP (CL-V Iversion)

(Ouhalla 2005a: 620)

Besides allowing right adjunction, the clitic host is not always the highest affixal head, contrary to what Ouhallas

condition predicts. The clitics in the following example are attached to the tense auxiliary but the highest affixal

head is the complementizer:

i. [CP arba ay [NegP ur [IPda asi-tj [VP iwshen [DP tj [DP tithe boy that not will-him-it give

the boy who will not give it to him


12/27

- 12 -

The movement of the clitic in (b) is syntactic whereas the inversion in (c) is phonological. The

prosodic inversion is well motivated, whereas the syntactic movement of the clitic to Fis not, a

point I will revisit below. When the F is phonologically overt then the derivation of the clitic

placement is slightly different. For example the derivation of the example in (50) is shown in

(51):(50) ur =tn tjj diha!

Neg =themACC leave there

Dont leave them there!

(51) a. [FP F [XP V CL

b. [FP [[CL] F] [XP V (Left-adjunction of CL to F)

c. [FP [[F] [=CL] [XP V (CL-F Iversion)

(Ouhalla 2005a: 620)

Ouhalla (2005a: 621) states that it is clear from example [(50)] that Neg attracts CL,

which is trivially consistent with generalization [(46)]. Ouhalla extends the same analysis tocases where the clitic is attached to an overt tense marker (T =CL V), where the clitic is attractedby T. The enclisis is later derived at PF via the CL-H Inversion. There are two problems

confronting this analysis. The first problem is that the attracting heads have no features in

common with the clitics they attract. A featural motivation for the clitic movement has to be

defined for it to be syntactic.The second problem is that the clitics in this analysis move as heads from argument

positions but it is not clear how the movement takes place when we have clitic clusters in double

object constructions, a non-trivial question I believe. A way to avoid these problems is tohypothesize that the clitics do not move but are merged in their surface position and that their

surface position is deducible from whether the independently motivated V-to-T takes place or

not. I will propose just such analysis in Section 5 where I argue that clitic movement is merely anillusion.

An analysis that also assumes that clitic movement is syntactic was proposed by Boukhris

(1998), which I will review next.

4.3. Against XP-movement of object clitics

Boukhris (1998), adopted by Ennaji and Sadiqi (2002), assumes that CL-placement is

derived by application of a syntactic rule that moves the clitics to the left edge of vP and fromthere they attach to their host, be it a verb (in v) via prosodic reordering, or a higher functionalhead (T, NEG, COMP). I will show that this analysis is not accurate and under-generates some

very basic facts.

4.3.1 Boukhris (1998)Following Belleti (1993), Boukhris (1998) assumes that object clitics are D heads of

object DPs. These DPs are merged as V complements and their heads, i.e. Ds, do not

themselves select NP complements. Boukhris assumes the following structure:


13/27

- 13 -

(52) DP

|

D|

CL (Boukhris 1998: 301)

She first offers an analysis of enclitics as in (53) and argues that their derivation proceeds as

shown in (54):

(53) Cla- n- tn middnSee.PERF-3p- CLAcc people

People saw them

(54) TP2

T2

T AspP

vbj |

Asp2

Asp vPtj 2

CLi v2

tj VP2

midden V2

tj DP

|

|

|ti

(Boukhris 1998: 308)

The verb first moves to vto check its V features, then to Asp and then to T which is markedfor [-Future]. The clitic moves to Spec-vP skipping over the subject. This is allowed because sheappeals to the notions of equidistance and minimal domain proposed in Chomsky (1995). Whenthe verb moves to v, it creates a vP minimal domain, and consequently both the subject, which isbase-generated in Spec-VP, and the clitic which is in the complement position of V, become

equidistant to Spec-vP. To derive cases like (55) where the clitic is cliticized to the tense markerla, which Boukhris claims is an aspect marker generated in Asp, she argues that the verb movesto vand that lamoves up to T, and the clitic moves to the Spec-vP which derives the order: La-CL Verb, as shown in (56).


14/27

- 14 -

(55) la- tn- ucllu- x (Boukhris 1998: 321)

Pres- CLAcc see.IMP- 1sg

I see them

(56) [TPTla [AspP Aspla [ vPtn ucllux [ VPucllux [DP tn ]]]]]

(a labeled-bracket representation of the syntactic tree in Boukhris 1998:325)

There are a number of arguments that show that la is a tense marker rather than an aspectmarker.

11

But let us assume that Boukhris is right that la,being an aspect marker, moves fromAsp to T, which explains the fact that the clitics appear attached to it. To derive the cases where

the clitics attach to the future tense particle as in (57), Boukhris argues that the verb in the aorist

form is not specified for aspect therefore does not need to check its aspect feature. AspP is not

projected in the structure and the verb moves only to vand the Clitic moves to Spec-vP. ad isbase-generated in T, hence the order ad-CL V.

(57) ad-tn clu-x

Fut-cl.acc3p see.AOR.1sgI will see them (Boukhris 1998:329)

(58) [TPTad [ vPtn clux [ VPclux [DPtn ]]]]]

Boukhris then notes that negation could combine with a verb in the perfective form, a form that

she has argued moves all the way to T through Asp. She then raises the question of how toaccount for a case like (59):

(59) ur- tn 3lixNeg cl.acc3p see.PERF.1s

I didnt see them

Boukhris notes that surprisingly the clitic is cliticised to Neg and not to the verb which has

moved to T as represented in (60).

(60) *[NegP ur [TP clix [AspP clix [ vP tn clix [ VP clix [DP tn ]]]]]Neg see.PERF.1s them

To solve the problem Boukhris then stipulates the following:After the verb moves up to T, the clitic moves up to Spec-vP and subsequently to Spec-TP. Itmoves to Spec-vP to check its case. Why does it move to Spec-TP? This is where the analysis

seems less well-motivated. Boukhris stipulates, following Gu

ron 1995, that the clitic has tomove to Spec-TP to check Ts person feature. She extends the same analysis to cases where the

clitic cliticizes to C as in:

11

See Makhad 2004 for detailed arguments against Dell and Elmedlaouis (1989, 1991) view that arin Tashelhit andlain Tamazight are aspectual markers. See also Ouali&Pires (to appear) and Ouhalla (2005a).


15/27


16/27

- 16 -

mentioning here is that the movement of the dative clitic to Spec-vP is not due to case, as is thecase of the accusative clitic, since its case requirements can be satisfied inside the PP prior to its

movement. Despite getting the right word order, the independent syntactic motivation for thismovement remains mysterious. Note also that for Boukhris, clitic movement is syntactic and

motivated by feature checking namely Case in Spec-vP for the accusative, and a Person feature

in Spec-TP for both the accusative and the dative. One could make a case by framing thisanalysis in Chomskys Derivation By Phase (2000, 2001) and argue that Spec-vP, being the edgeof a phase, is an escape hatch for movement therefore the dative clitic moves to Spec-vP to beaccessible to T and to be able to subsequently move to Spec-TP in negative sentences with theorder: Neg-CLdatVerb. The serious problem that this analysis faces is that, since clitic movement

is phrasal movement and is syntactic movement, nothing would prevent a full dative DP, or even

accusative DP for that matter to move to Spec-TP in the same manner as clitics do as illustrated

in (67) and (68). The phonological deficiency of the clitics is not relevant in the syntax.

(67) *ur lkthaab ughex ____

Neg book buy.PERF.1s ____

I didnt buy the book(68) *[NegP ur [TP lkthaab [vP lkthaab ughex [VP pro ughex [lkthaab ]]]]]

The last point that I want to raise regarding Boukhriss analysis concerns object clitic clusters in

double object constructions as in (69) below:

(69) ur- as- t nn-i-n middnNeg- CLdat3sg-CLacc3sm tell.AOR.3pl people

People didnt tell it to him

Boukhris proposes the following structure for double object clitic constructions:

(70)

VP2

Subj V2

V PP

2 |

V DP P

| 2

D P DP

CLAcc |

DCLDat

(Boukhris 1998:387 with irrelevant details omitted)

The placement of the dative-accusative clitic cluster follows the same pattern schematized in (14)

with the dative always preceding the accusative. Boukhris (1998) then argues that the cluster isderived in the same manner as when there is one individual object clitic in the sentence. The only

difference is that in (70), to form a cluster the dative clitic has to adjoin to the accusative clitic


17/27

- 17 -

before making any further movement if necessary. First the accusative clitic moves to Spec-vPand second the dative clitic moves and adjoins to it as illustrated in (71):

(71) vP2

Spec vCLacc2

CLdat CLacc

as(him) t(it)

The movement of the accusative clitic to Spec-vP is motivated by Case, but the movement of thedative clitic in not motivated especially that both movements are syntactic. The adjunction

therefore is itself unmotivated. The cluster moves to Spec-TP in negative clauses and clausesheaded by C to check the Person feature of T. The question is why is it the case that just one

clitic especially the accusative, since it is structurally higher after moving to Spec-vP for case, is

not enough to satisfy this requirement?

I therefore tentatively reject the hypothesis that clitics in Berber undergo XP-movement.

4.4. Merging Hypothesis

Merging adjacent heads is an operation assumed to derive an affix attached to the stem.According to this theory, proposed by Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994), adjacent heads are

merged in a zero level node while they still remain as separate terminals under this node. Under

this analysis merging occurs at the post-syntactic level namely the morphological component.According to this approach two heads X and Y can merge together if one heads the

complement of the other as shown below:

(72) XP2

X YP2

Y

Bobaljik (1994) adopts this theory and formulates a statement of adjacency as follows:

(73) The adjacency condition (informal)In order for an affix and a stem to be combined, they must be adjacent. (Bobaljik 1994 p.2)

Bobaljik assumes that since affixation is a morphophonological condition, adjacency

must be defined at (an intermediate stage in) the spell-out or interface between syntax and

phonology, the level of morphology.

Let us assume then that clitic projections are in the order DatP-AccP as represented in thephrase structure below. And let us also assume, following Halle and Marantz(1993, 1994), that


18/27

- 18 -

structurally adjacent heads can undergo a morphological merging process. This means thatadjacent clitics can form a complex prosodic word with a higher head without having to undergo

any sort of movement in the overt syntax as illustrated in (74):

(74) XP2

X CLDatP1

2

CLDat CLAccP2

CLAcc

This will enable us to generate a word order X-ClDat-ClAccwhere clitics appear cliticizedto X without any overt syntactic movement applying. I assume that the order of clitics with the

elements they are attached to corresponds to the order of their syntactic heads in the sentential

structure. A cluster like X- CLDat-CLAcc corresponds to the structure in (74) assuming that

nothing interrupts this order in the phonological component.

Cinque (1997) suggests that a similar operation takes place in forming complex verbforms in Bantu languages. The order of morphemes in the complex verb in the example (75)

corresponds to what is assumed to be the order of syntactic heads.

(75) n-k-l-boomba

1s-Fut-Prog-work ==> AgrS-Tense-Asp-Verb

I will be working tomorrow

Returning to the adjacency merging analysis we sketched, we will account for the

constructions in (76)-(79) below:

(76) wshix-as-thn

gave1s-him-them

I gave them to him(77) da-as-thn wshex

will-him-them gave.1s

I will give them to him

(78) ur-as-thn wshexNeg-them-it gave.1s

I didnt give it to them

(79)

arba ay-as-thn iwshanboy that-him-them gaveNeu

The boy that gave them to him...

In (76) the clitics are cliticized to the verb, in (77) they are cliticized to the future particle

da, in (78) they are cliticized to the negation element ur,and in (79) they are cliticized to thecomplementizer. The analysis that I will propose below is that the clitic distribution depends on


19/27

- 19 -

whether the verb moves to T or not. If this movement takes place then clitics get phonologically

cliticized to the verb, if it does not, they attach to any higher compatible host.

5.Verb Movement and Clitic placement in Tamazight5.1. Analysis

Let us start with the sentence in (77) where the clitcs are cliticized or as formally defined in the

previous section, morphologically with the tense element da. This sentence is represented in (80)below:

(80) TP2

T2

da CLPDatwill 2

CLDat2

as CLPAcc

him 2

CLACC2

thn AspP

them 2

Asp2

wshex VP

give 2

V2

wshex

The verb moves from V to Asp to check its aspect features, this movement takes place in the

syntax. The CLDatand CLAccare merged higher than Asp. The syntactic output then is:

(81)

da-CLDat-CLAcc V

Note that this conforms to the prosodic, cross-linguistically attested, requirement that the clitics

cannot be in first position as proposed by Ouhalla (2005) in (47) and as repeated in (82) below:

(82) CL cannot be the first head constituent in the minimal domain (CP, DP, or PP) that

includes it. (Ouhalla 2005a: 619)


20/27

- 20 -

Let us now look at the example in (78). The object clitics are attached the negation element just

as predicted since the verb moves to Asp0 and the null tense can not host the object clitics;

however, since negation is the next higher phonologically overt head it acts as a host and as aresult condition (82) is not violated as represented in (83).

(83)

[CP [NegP ur- [TP [CLPDatas-[CLPAccthn[AspP wshix [VP wshix ]]]]]]Neg- past him- them give.PERF.1s give.PERF.1s

The example in (79) is derived in almost the same way. The only difference is that the higherphonologically overt head that is available to act as a host for the object clitics is the

complementizer as illustrated in (84):

(84) [CPargaz ay- [TP [CLPDatas-[CLPAccthn[AspP wshan [VP wshix ]]]]]]Comp- past him- them give.PERF.1s give.PERF.1s

Since condition (82) is a phonological condition in the sense that cliticization is purely

phonological, any phonologically overt head preceding the clitics can act as a host at the PFinterface. This takes us back to example (76) where the clitics are attached to the verb. Iproposed above that the verb only moves to the Asp head in the syntax and in this sentence T

should be occupied by a null tense marker as represented in:

(85)

TP2

T'2

Past ClDatP

2

ClDat'2

as ClAccP2

Cl'Acc2

thn AspP2

Asp'

2 wshix VP

2

Spec V2

wshix XP...


21/27

- 21 -

However, at PF there would be no phonologically overt head preceding the clitics. As a last

resort PF movement of V-to-T is triggered. Notice that T contains a null Past tense marker but it

is not visible at PF therefore V-to-T becomes possible. The motivation for the movement isprosodic, in the sense that the verb moves to a position where it can serve as a legitimate clitic

host for the otherwise doomed clitics. This makes use of an operation that is attested cross

linguistically namely V-to-T although its application in Berber happens as a last resort operation.

To summarize, I proposed that clitic distribution is not a result of head-movement as proposed in

Ouhalla (2005a), nor is it a result of XP-movement as proposed by Boukhris (1998). Rather, it isa result of the clitics being functional heads that morphologically merge with any available,

phonologically overt, higher head. In the case where no such head is available a PF movement of

V-to-T takes place. In the next section I will show how my analysis also provides a better

account for variation in the distribution of object pronominal clitics in Berber dialects includingSiwa dialect which exhibits a unique object pronominal clitic distribution previously un-

discussed in the Berber generative literature.

5.2. VariationBerber dialects show some variation in the distribution of object pronominal clitics,

mainly in cases where negation and a tense particle co-occur in the same sentence. In Tamazight-

type dialects the only possible order is NEG-T-CL V, whereas in Tarifit-type dialects the order

has to be T-NEG-CL V.

(86) ur- da- as wshex lekthaab Tamazight

Neg- will- him give.PERF.1s bookI will not give the book

(87)

manwn da wa- s- t y-uri-nWho PTP NEG CLDAT.3S.F/MCLACC.3S.M/F write.NEG.PERF-PARTWho had not written it for him?

Elouazizi (2005: 17)

Elouazizi (2004, 2005) has argued that the clause structure of Tarifit has TP immediately

dominating NegP, contra Ouhallas (1988) original proposal where he suggested that NegP

dominates IP in this language. If Elouazizi is right that would explain the difference in the cliticplacement between the Tamazight-like dialects and the Tarifit like dialects as shown in (88) and

(89) .

Tarifit-like dialects:

(88) [CPC [TP T [NegPNeg [CLPDatCLDat[CLPAccCLAcc[AspP Asp [VP V ]]]]]]

Tamazight-like dialects:

(89) [CPC [NegPNeg[TP T [CLPDatCLDat[CLPAccCLACC[AspP Asp [VP V ]]]]]]

This explains why in Tarifit-like dialects the clitics cliticize to negation. When in affirmative

sentences if there is an overt tense auxiliary the clitics will cliticize to it otherwise if there is a


22/27

- 22 -

complementizer they cliticize to it and if there is not one, as a last resort the verb will move to T

at PF.

Given the distribution of the pronominal clitics described in this work, one cannot treatthem as verbal affixes. However, if the clitics always appear on the verb it would be very

plausible to treat them as verbal affixes. In fact there is a body of literature that analyzes for

example Macedonian, French, Romanian and Italian clitics as affixes similar to inflectionalaffixes (see for example Miller 1992, and especially Halpern 1995). In these languages, these

pronominal clitics always attach to the verb. One of the major characteristics of agreement

affixes is that they always appear as inflections on the verb. Ouhalla (2005a) reports followingGuerssel (p.c., 2000) that in Ait Seghroushn Tamazight dialect both of the following examples

are possible:

(90) Lla =t issa. (M. Guerssel, pers. Comm., 2000)TPRES =itACC 3MS-drinkIMPER

He is drinking it/ he drinks it

(91)

Lla issa= t.TPRES 3MS-drinkIMPER= itACC

In this dialect the object pronominal clitic can either appear attached to the present tense particle

as it does in all other dialects and as shown in (90), or appear attached to the verb as shown in

(91). These facts resist explanation by any analysis proposed for the Berber pronominal clitics.

Given the optionality shown in (90) and (91) one could argue that the grammar of this dialect

allows: 1. the clitics to be generated as affixes and their placement to be generated syntactically

by verb movement, and 2. the clitics to be generated as clitic-heads whose placement isdetermined at PF. It is also very plausible that a child, exposed to ambiguous input like (90) and

(91), constructs a simpler grammar where only one of the two options listed above is derivable.

If a child constructs a grammar where the clitics are merged as clitic-heads in the functionaldomain, she will get the same distribution of the clitics found in the Tamazight dialect described

in this work. However if the child constructs a grammar where the clitics are generated as affixes

attaching to the verb, the clitics will have the same distribution found, interestingly, in the Siwa

Berber dialect as reported in Laoust (1932: 112) who writes:

Contrairement ce quon observe dans tous les dialects connus, les pronons rgimes

occupent en Siwi une place fixe la suite du verbe, que celui-ci soit ou non sous ladpence de la ngation, de la particule du future [H.O.] La loi dattraction, qui est

daplication constante en berbre, ne joue pas ou ne joue plus dans le dialecte qui nous

intresse ici

Translated as:

contrary to what is observed in all the other known Berber dialects, the pronominal

clitics occupy a fixed position in Siwi Berber, immediately following the verb, and not

following negation or the future particle. The law of attraction that applies constantly in

Berber does not apply or no longer applies in the dialect we are interested in


23/27

- 23 -

It is interesting how Laoust suspected that the cliticization rule that applies in the other Berber

dialects might have ceased to apply in this dialect, in other words the children constructed agrammar where the clitics are affixal, but not vice-versa where the other dialects lost whatever

rule that forces the clitics to be affixal. I will come back to this point but first let us look at some

of the examples that Laoust provides:

(92) ummig- ak (Laoust 1932: 112)

tell.PERF.1s youI told you V-CL

(93) la ummig- ak (Laoust 1932: 112)

Neg tell.PERF.1s you

I didnt tell you Neg V-CL(94) ga sg- aun (Laoust 1932: 113)

will give.AOR.1s youPL

I will give you Fut V-CL

Louali & Philippson (2005) have reported the same facts and note that: in Siwi the clitics are

always post-cliticized to the verb and cannot precede it, contrary to what is found in most Berberlanguagesas illustrated below:

(95) la i-zz nz- as Neg V-CL

Neg sell.AOR. CLDAT3she didn't sell (to)him/her Louali & Philippson (2005 : 2)

These facts are a clear violation of Ouhallas condition in (46) which states that the objectpronominal clitics are attracted to the preverbal position by functional categories. They also

present a serious problem for Boukhris (1998) according to which negation should attract the

clitic in (93) and (95) for example to a position (Spec-TP) preceding the verb. For the analysis Iproposed, this would not be a correspondingly serious problem because I assume that the clitics

in this dialect are merged between the AspP and VP and a sentence like (93) is derived as shown

below:12

12

Like Tamazight Berber and unlike Tarifit Berber, negation always precedes the tense particle and the verb in Siwi

as shown by the following example:

i. la g isu aman Laoust (1932: 55)

Neg Fut drink.AOR.3s water

he will not drink water


24/27

- 24 -

(96) NegP2

Neg2

la TPNeg 2

T2

Past AspP

2

Asp2

ummig-ak CLPDat

tell-you 2

CLDat2

CL VP2 2

ummig- ak V

tell you 2

ummig

tell

As is the case in all Berber dialects, the verb always moves to Asp0 overtly, and due to the

position in the clause structure the clitics always end up enctiliticized onto the verb.

Going back to the Ait Seghroushn dialect and the optionality it exhibits, whether a child exposed

to this optionality constructs a Tamazight-like grammar where the clitics cliticize to differenthosts since their placement is determined at PF or Siwi-like grammar where the clitics are affixal

and their placement is derived syntactically by verb movement, remains to be discovered.

However, given the widely accepted assumption that subject agreement markers especially in

pro-drop languages are syntactically reanalyzed pronouns, the object clitics could very well bereanalyzed pronouns. However, these clitics do not have the affix status in some dialects yet,

which would be the next step in the reanalysis. The continuum looks as follows:

(97) Pronoun > Clitic > Agreement Affix/inflection

The fact that these clitics behave like affixes in Siwi does not make them agreement heads(contra Elouazizi 2005) akin to the subject verb agreement because, unlike subject-verb

agreement they are not obligatory and do not always show up with overt object DPs as shown in

(98):

(98) la g isu aman Laoust (1932: 55)

Neg Fut drink.AOR.3s water


25/27

- 25 -

he will not drink water

Given the optimality discussed above and given (97) one would predict the child to construct agrammar where the clitics are affixal and therefore their derivation would be syntactic via verb

movement consistently with Laousts (1932) observation about their occurrence to the right of

the verb.

Conclusion

In this paper I offered an analysis for the distribution of object pronominal clitics in Berber. Ishowed that the analyses that appeal to syntactic movement of the clitics either as heads (Ouhalla

1988, 1989, 2005) or phrases (Boukhris 1998) have a number of theoretical and empirical

shortcomings. I argued that the clitics are merged as specialized heads in the functional domain(Sportiche 1992) and their placement is deduced from the hierarchy of the functional heads in the

clause structure and from whether V-to-T takes place. The variation between Tamazight-like

dialect and Tarifit-like dialects is due to variation in the order of NegP and TP in the clause

structure. In Tamazight-like dialects NegP immediately dominates TP, where in Tarifit-likedialects, following Elouazizi (2005), TP immediately dominates NegP. In Siwa, where the

pronominal clitics distribution is unique compared to all the other dialects, I argued that the clitic

heads are projected immediately below Asp, a head to which the verb moves overtly in allBerber dialects, hence resulting the clitics to always attach to the verb in Siwa.

ReferencesAoun,J & E.Benmamoun 1998. Minimality, Reconstruction, and PF Movement,

Linguistic Inquiry29, pp. 569-597.Baker,M. 1985a. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic explanation,Linguistic Inquiry 16,

pp. 373-417.

Baker,M. 1988.Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Basset, A. 1969.La langue Berbre. Londres.Bobaljik, J. 1994. What does adjacency do? In:MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: The

Morpho-Syntax connection, ed. Heidi Harley and Collin Philips, pp. 1-32.Boukhris, Fatima. 1998.Les Clitiques en Berbre Tamazighte, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

University Mohamed V, Rabat.

Chaker, Salem. 1973.Le systme drivationnel verbal Berbre (dialect Kabyle). Paris, EPHE,Universit Ren Descartes (thse pour le doctorat de 3 me cycle), 2 vol.

Chaker, Salem. 1983. Un parler berbre (Kabylie): syntaxe. Universit de Provence.Chaker, Salem. 1995.Linguistique Berbre: tudes de syntaex et de diachronie.Paris-Louvain.Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R.

Freidin, ed.,Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995.The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Chomsky, N. 2000.Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.

Uriagereka, eds. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


26/27

- 26 -

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase, In Kenstowicz, ed.Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press.Cinque, G. 1997.Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press.Elouazizi, Noureddine. 2004c. Interpolation effects in clitics hosting systems.Proceedings of

DOMAINS Interactions, pp. 137-145. University of Nantes.Elouazizi, Noureddine. Forthcoming/2005. OCC distribution and the recoverability of

grammatical deficiency. In: Wilschko, M. and Dechaine R.M. eds.Pronouns asEpiphenomena.Oxford University Press.Embick, D. & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement After Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32-4,

pp. 555-595, MIT Press.

Ennaji, M. & Fatima Sadiqi. 2002. Subject, Accusative and Dative Clitics in Berber.Languages and Linguistics 10, pp. 97-116, L&L.

Gierling, D. 1997. Clitic Doubling, Specificity and Focus in Romanian, in R. James, R. Black

& V. Motapanyane (eds.)Clitics, Pronouns and Movement, John Benjamins Publishingcompany, The Netherlands.

Guron, Jacqueline. 1995. Cohrence et conomie dans la grammaire du temps: rmarque sure

la variation des structures temporelles, in W. De Mulder, L. Tasmowski-De Ryck and

C. Vetters (eds.)Anaphores temporelle et (in-) cohrence.Cahier CHRONOS.Guerssel, M. & K. Hale (eds) 1987. Studies in Berber syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Guerssel, M. 1992. On the case system of Berber, Canadian Journal of Linguistics.

Downsview, ON, Canada (CJL). 37: 2, pp. 175-95.Guerssel, M. 1995. Berber Clitic Doubling and Syntactic Extraction,Revue Quebecoise de

Linguistique. Montreal, PQ, Canada (RQDL). 24: 1, 111-33.Halle, M & A. Marantz 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, in K. Hale

& S.J.Keyser(eds.) The View from Building 20, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Halle, M & A. Marantz 1994. Some Key Features of The Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics21.Halpern, A. & A. Zwicky (eds.). 1996.Approaching Second: Second position clitics and related

phenomena. Stanford: CSLI.Jaeggli,O. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris.Jaeggli,O.1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics in H. Borer (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal

Clitics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 15-42.Kayne, Richard. 1975.French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass. The MIT

Press.Kayne, Richard. 1989a. Null subjects and clitic climbing, in O. Jaeggli and K.Safir (eds.) The

Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht: Kluwer pp. 239-61.Kayne, Richard. 1989b. Facets of Romance past Participle agreement, in P.Beninc (ed),

Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar.Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 85-103.Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO,Linguistic Inquiry22, pp.

647-686.

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Makhad, Hassan. 2004. The Syntax of Events and Temporality: A Comparative Approach,

unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University Mohamed V, Rabat.

Manzini, M, R. 1998. Syntactic Approaches to Cliticization, GlotInternational3.3 pp. 3-7.Manzini, R. M. & L.M. Savoia (1998). Clitics and Auxiliary choice in Italian dialects: Their

relevance to for person ergativity split,Recherches Linguistique Vincennes.Manzini, R. M. & L.M. Savoia (1999). The syntax of middle-reflexive and object clitics: a case


27/27

of parameterization in arbresh dialects. In Matteo Mandal (ed.), Studi in onore di LuigiMarlekaj, Bari: Adriatica, pp. 283-328.

Manzini, R. M. & L.M. Savoia (2001). The syntax of object: si in Italian dialects. InCinque,G.; Salvi, G. Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays to Honor Lorenzo Renzi.Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 234-264.

Manzini, R. M. & L.M. Savoia (2002). Clitics: Lexicalization Patterns of the So-called 3

rd

Person Dative. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1 2002, p.117-155.

Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT Press.Ouali, Hamid and Acrisio Pires (to appear). Complex Tenses, Agreement, and Wh

-extraction.Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings. Berkeley, California.Ouhalla, Jamal. 1988b. The Syntax of Head Movement: a study of Berber.Doctoral dissertation,

University of College London.

Ouhalla, Jamal 1989c. Clitic Movement and The ECP: Evidence from Berber and Romancelanguages,Lingua79, pp. 165-215.

Ouhalla, Jamal 1993. Subject-Extraction, Negation and the Anti-Agreement Effect.NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands (NL&LT). 11, pp. 477-518.

Ouhalla, Jamal 2005a. Clitic-Placement, Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in Berber. InGuglielmo. Cinque and R. Kayne (eds) The handbook of comparative syntax.Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 607-638.

Ouhalla, Jamal 2005b. Agreement features, Agreement and Antiagreement. To appear in

NL&LT, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Pollock, J, E. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP,Linguistic

Inquiry20, pp. 365-424.Rivero, M-L. 1994a. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkan.Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory12, pp. 63-120.Rivero, M-L. 1994b. Negation, Imperatives and Wackernagel effects.Rivista di Linguistica6,

pp. 39-66.

Rizzi, L. 1986. On the status of Subject Clitics in Romance. In O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-

Carvaran(eds.)Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391-419.Rizzi, L. 1990.Relativised Minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Sportiche, Dominique. 1992. Clitic Constructions ms., UCLA, Published in L. Zaring & J.

Rooryck (eds.) (1995).Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publisher,Dordrecht.

Sportiche, Dominique. 1998.Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, Agreement,Case and Clitics. Routledge, New York.

Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.LinguisticInquiry, 26: 1, 79-123.

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1990. On the Relevance of Tense for Sentential Negation ms., University

of Geneva/ University of Pennsylvania.Zwicky, A. M. 1977.On Clitics. Bloomington Indiana University Linguistics Club.Zwicky, A. M. 1985. Clitics and Particles.Language61, pp. 283-305.

verb movement and object pronominal clitic distribution

Documents