Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919



In this paper I take Romance demonstrative-reinforcer constructions as a way to test whether the deictic features encoded by demonstrative and locative forms are active in the syntax. From a descriptive point of view, I claim that demonstrative systems can be best accounted for by making reference to two binary deictic person features: [] and []. Then I show how these features combine in demonstrative-reinforcer constructions, providing a comprehensive overview of demonstrative-reinforcer constructions in Italo-Romance varieties. Finally, I argue that deictic person features are inactive in the syntax of demonstrative and locative forms: this is suggested by the shortcomings that Agree-based accounts face when dealing with demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Therefore, I contend that the best analysis for such constructions is a non-core syntactical one, the relevant derivation point being either within the morphological component or at the interface between syntax and semantics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Anderson, Stephen R. & Edward L. Keenan
    1985 “Deixis.” Language Typology and Syntactic Fieldwork IIIed. byT. Shopen, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernstein, Judy B.
    1997 “Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages.” Lingua102:87–113. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00046-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2001 “Focusing the ‘right’ way in Romance Determiner Phrase.” Probus13:1–29. 10.1515/prbs.13.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.13.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
    2008 “Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals.” The Linguistic Review25:203–230. 10.1515/TLIR.2008.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLIR.2008.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 “Distributed Morphology.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguisticsed. byM. Aronoff. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-131 (31August 2019) 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brugè, Laura
    1996 “Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach.” University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics6: 1–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2002 “The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection.” Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structuresed. byG. Cinque, 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The framework.” Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasniked. byR. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Alessandro, Roberta
    2007Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207514
  10. Diessel, Holger
    1999Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  11. Harbour, Daniel
    2016Impossible Persons. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter
    2002 “Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric analysis.” Language78(3): 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lander, Eric & Liliane Haegeman
    2016 “The nanosyntax of spatial deixis.” Studia Linguistica2(1): 1–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ledgeway, Adam & John C. Smith
    2016 “Deixis.” The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languagesed. byA. Ledgeway and M. Maiden, 879–896. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0054 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  16. Maurer, Philippe
    2013 “Distance contrasts in demonstratives”. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structuresed. byS. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath, and M. Huber, chapter 33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://apics-online.info/parameters/33.chapter.html (31August 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Nevins, Andrew
    2007 “The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25.273–313. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9017‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
    2007 “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features.” Phrasal and Clausal Architectureed. byS. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  19. Roehrs, Dorian
    2010 “Demonstrative-reinforcer constructions.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics13: 225–268. 10.1007/s10828‑010‑9038‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9038-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Terenghi, Silvia
    2018 Deictic Fission in Romance demonstrative-reinforcer constructions. Poster presented atGoing Romance 32, Main Session, 12–13 December 2018, Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Zubizarreta, María L.
    1998Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error