Distinguishing between accounts of the A/A'-distinction: the view from Argentinian Spanish Clitic Doubling

Suzana Fong

doi:10.5565/rev/isogloss.132

Abstract

The A/A'-distinction underpins case, agreement, and binding properties of moving DPs. It also determines possible movement paths (cf. the Ban on Improper Movement). Van Urk (2015) and Safir (2019) take this distinction not to be a primitive of the grammar; rather, these authors seek to derive the A/A’-distinction from independent principles of the grammar. In both approaches, syntactic positions are not inherently A or A’. Rather, independent and more general properties of the grammar determine, as a byproduct, the nature of the movement that passes through these positions. While these approaches differ in which grammatical components they derive the A/A’-distinction from, both are able to explain the properties that it is based on (e.g. weak crossover, reconstruction, etc). Another similarity is that both approaches allow for a flexible definition of syntactic positions. I will argue that, despite these similarities, we can empirically adjudicate between these two theories. Specifically, Di Tullio et al.’s (2019) analysis of clitic doubling in Argentinian Spanish will be shown to be compatible only with Van Urk (2015).

Highlights

The A/A'-distinction underpins case, agreement, and binding properties of moving DPs
While it may not be possible to disentagle the two proposals by the properties in Table 1, in this paper, I compare how they fare with respect to a different phenomenon, namely, clitic doubling in Argentinian Spanish
Insulation is free, but its consequences are evaluated by independent restrictions Having outlined these two theories of the A/A’-distinction, we turn to the data that will be resorted to in order to tease these theories apart

Summary

Introduction

The A/A'-distinction underpins case, agreement, and binding properties of moving DPs. Fong (2019) argues that the accusative variant of (4a) is derived by moving the embedded subject to Spec-CP, where it is accessible to matrix elements like an accusative case assigner, thereby avoiding a phasehood issue. In the derivation of a sentence like Who did Mary praise?, Insulation may (6b) or may not (6a) apply to the moving Wh-phrase If it does, T can Agree with the subject, allowing for the valuation of φ-features and case. Spec-CP can flexibly behave as an A-position in Safir’s theory: it is possible for Insulation, a free operation, not to apply to a DP moving through this position, as long as Agree and case issues do not arise. Insulation is free, but its consequences are evaluated by independent restrictions Having outlined these two theories of the A/A’-distinction, we turn to the data that will be resorted to in order to tease these theories apart

Clitic Doubling in Argentinian Spanish

Concluding remarks