1887
Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00032.ter
2019-11-05
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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
    https://doi.org/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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00032.ter
Loading
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