Abstract
This paper addresses two issues, the categorial nature of (pronominal) clitics and the conditions ruling their surface distribution as proclitics and enclitics, which we take as related. We claim that pronominal clitics are defective functional heads consisting of a bundle of φ-features, and hence, that they are merged in a fixed position in the functional structure of the clause. The (micro)variation in clitic order patterns will be accounted for through the interplay of verb movement and the Proclisis Parameter: when languages set the value ‘yes’ for this parameter, proclisis is the dominant pattern, whereas in languages setting the value ‘no’ for the same parameter, enclisis dominantly occurs; other differences between Romance languages and, in particular, EP and BP, are accounted for by the properties of the nodes T and Asp, namely, their ability to attract V and or to check uninterpretable features through Agree without Attract.
Highlights
Accepting that some specific functional projection is involved in the derivation of clitic constructions, as we will argue below, we reject the view that pronominal clitics are affixes, either conceived as morphemes that build up a word with their verbal host in the Lexicon, or as affixes that spell-out specific inflectional heads
We argued that the categorial status of pronominal clitics is better accounted for if they are conceived as defective functional heads, consisting of a bundle of -features, as proposed in Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002)
This characterization of pronominal clitics allows us to capture the strictly functional properties of some clitics and the relationship they establish with the targets of V movement (T and Asp), a relationship that favours a syntactic approach to clitic placement
Summary
This paper addresses two issues in the long standing debate on Romance pronominal clitics: their categorial nature and the conditions ruling their surface distribution as proclitics and enclitics. This paper addresses two issues in the long standing debate on Romance pronominal clitics: their categorial nature and the conditions ruling their surface distribution as proclitics and enclitics1 In dealing with these two issues, we adopt a comparative approach along the lines first sketched in Chomsky (1981) and further developed within the Minimalist framework. When languages set the value ‘yes’ for this parameter, proclisis is the dominant pattern, whereas in languages setting the value ‘no’ for the same parameter, enclisis dominantly occurs. Other differences between Romance languages and, in particular, EP and BP, are accounted for by the properties of the nodes T and Asp, namely, their ability to attract V and or to check uninterpretable features through Agree without Attract
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
