Clitic Doubling and Differential Object Marking1
Alina-Mihaela Tigău
University of Geneva & University of Bucharest
1. Introduction:
 CD across languages and the problems it raises
 How Romanian contributes to answering CD-related puzzles
 Towards an account of Cl+ pe DPs with a focus on:
o
o
o
The relation between the clitic and its double as a reflex of argument licensing i.e.,
taking abstract case as part of argument licensing (Sigursson 2007, 2012a, 2012b) to
amount to a relation with a functional head, we will argue that case marking of the
doubled DP is realized by means of its relation to the clitic
Contra Kayne’s generalization, we will propose that the differential marker pe is not a
case marker.
The clitic and its double are licensed as one event participant > they represent “the
same argument”, saturating one position in the theta structure of the predicate: as
such the clitic gives rise to an unsaturated λ-abstract. The referential doubled DP
would then be a semantic subject of predication saturating the λ-abstract in order to
give rise to a proposition (Delfitto 2002, Aoun 1999)
2. Background
 Clitic Doubling (CD): a construction in which a pronominal clitic co-occurs with a full DP
(1) L-am
ajutat pe Ion.
Him.cl.-have.I helped pe John.
‘I have helped John.’
 Differential Object Marking (DOM): a mechanism by means of which prominent direct
object DPs are marked > Romanian pe2 (a preposition similar to a in Spanish) to mark prominent
direct objects.
 CD is dependent on DOM: only DOMed DPs may be CDed
 This dependence is unidirectional in the sense that DOM does not require CD
1
This work is supported by the Sciex post-doctoral fellowship 12 203/1.03.2014-28.02.205; project: SciexNMSch - Contribution suisse à l’élargissement de l’UE
2 We have employed the word ‘prominence’ because we have not yet established which is the exact factor
that triggers DOM in Romanian and because languages differ with respect to what types of objects exactly
they overtly case mark. Prominence is measured along several scalar dimensions such as animacy and
definiteness (Aissen 2003) i.e., the more definite a DP is the more likely it is for it to be pe marked; similarly,
[+human] DP are always pe marked as opposed to [- animate] ones, which are never pe marked. Farkas (2002a),
Farkas & von Heusinger (2003) point out that stability of reference is also relevant for pe marking: DPs with
unconditional dynamic stability (proper names and pronouns) are obligatorily pe marked, while dynamically
non-stable DPs (indefinites) are less likely to get pe. The account in Farkas & von Heusinger (2003) has the
advantage of accounting for the matters of obligatoriness vs. optinality or impossibility concerning pe.
1
3. The importance of CD and the problems it raises across languages
 Kayne (1975): complementary distribution between the argumental counterparts of full DP objects
which have to move out of their merge position within the VP and the corresponding full DP
(French):
(2) a. Je vois Jean.
b. Je le vois.
c. *Je le vois Jean.


 Jaeggli (1982): Clitic Doubling languages pose a problem for this account: as the clitic and the
associate DP may co-occur (Romanian, Spanish etc)
(3) a. L-am
ajutat pe Ion.
Him.cl.-have.I
helped pe John.
‘I have helped John.’
b. Lo
Him.cl
vimos a Juan.
saw.we a Juan


Kayne’s Generalisation: the clitic absorbs the case and the DP double can only occur within a
prepositional phrase where it receives case from the preposition

Suner (1988) > Porteño/Rioplatense Spanish: DO clitic doubling is possible without a
(4) Yo lo voy a comprar el diario
justo antes de subir
I it.cl. will buy
the newspaper just before of appear
‘I am going to buy the newspaper just before coming up.’
(Suñer 1988: 400)
Balkan languages like (Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian): a bare Accusative was clitic doubled.
(5) Ana
mëi pa muai në rrugë.
Ana.thenom mecl saw meFP in road
‘Ana saw me on the road.’
(Albanian, Kallulli & Tasmowski 2008: 2)
(6) nu-lu
ávdu fiĉórlu
not-him heat boy.the
‘I don’t hear the boy.’
(Aromanian, Caragiu-Marioţeanu 1975: 237 in Kallulli & Tasmowski 2008: 5)

(Some) Problems to solve
2
3.1 Movement vs. base generation
the CD data come to question the movement analysis: if a full DP may co-occur with a clitic, doesn’t
this point against a movement analysis?

 base generation: the full DP occupies the internal argument position of the verb, while the
clitic is merged either as a sister of V (Jaeggly 1982, Rivas 1977) or as part of the V head
(Borer 1984), or a functional head (Sportiche 1996) etc.
 still movement:
1. if the full DP is an adjunct: Aoun (1981), Philippaki-Warburton (1987), Androulakis
(2001), Coene & Avram (2009) a.o > movement of the clitic
2. if the clitic and the associate DP both merge as one complex argument of the verb after
which movement applies (BigDP): Uiragereka (1995), Belletti (1999), Papangeli
(2000), Cornilescu (2006), Boeckx (2001).
3.2 The status of the clitic & the status of the double
1. the clitic is the real argument whereas the associate DP is an adjunct
2. the associate DP is an argument, while the clitic is an agreement marker/ a functional
element/a determiner
3.3 The status of the differential object marker
According to Kayne’s Generalisation put forth in Jaeggli (1982), the preposition preceding the full DP
is a case assigner saving the derivation from crashing: the clitic absorbs the accusative case from the
verb which may no longer assign case to the full DP. Hence a preposition is introduced to save the
derivation.
There are, however, problems with this analysis:
 Languages which do not require DOM with CD
 Romanian: the fact that DOM may be used in the absence of CD, with a verb that can assign
the Accusative (which is no longer absorbed by the clitic) > if the Accusative case assigned
by V is no longer absorbed by a clitic in simple DOM cases, why do we need a case assigner?
3.4 The relation between CD and DOM (for Romanian)
Romanian CD requires DOM but not the other way round: why this dependency?
4. The answers Romanian provides to these puzzles: in what follows we address each of the five
major puzzles that the literature on CD has identified and present the way in which Romanian may
contribute to solving (some of) these puzzles:
4.1. Movement vs. base generation > in favour of a movement analysis
 there are several arguments supporting a movement analysis: both XP movement and X
movement across languages
3
o
XP movement
 Greek < Alexiadou (1999): objects may bind subjects to their right
(7) Sinodhepse to kathe pedhii i mitera tui.
Accompanied the every child the mother his
‘His mother accompanied every child.’
 Standard Spanish: Zubizarreta (1998)
(8) Lo castigo a el la madre
de Juan.
Cl-acc punished a him the mother of John
‘John's mother punished him.’
 Romanian: strengthens the arguments in favour of a movement analysis:
A. inverse binding > evidence that cl+pe DPs leave the VP
(9)
a. *Colegii
luii
au
ajutat pe Mihaii.
Coleagues.the hisi have.they helped pe Mihaii.
‘Hisi colleagues helped Mihai.’
b. Colegii
luii l-au
ajutat pe Mihaii.
Coleagues.the hisi him.cl.-have.they helped pe Mihaii.
‘Hisi colleagues helped Mihai.’
(10) Pe un profesor buni orice elev de-al
PE a
teacher good any pupil of-ART.GEN
‘Any pupil will admire a good teacher.’
luii îl
admiră.
his him.cl admire.3SG
> the clitic doubled and pe-marked indefinite pe un profesor binds the subject DP which it appears to
c-command. The same relation of coreference between the two DPs is maintained when the word
order changes from OSV to SOV:
(11) Orice elev de-al
luii îl
admiră
pe
any pupil of-ART.GEN his CL.3SG.M.ACC admire.3SG PE
‘Any pupil admires a good teacher.’
un
a
profesor
teacher
buni.
good
- the unmarked DP may only bind into the subject if it is in a c-commanding position with respect to
this DP.
(12) a. *Profesorul lori
doar câţiva elevii
nu
va
teacher
theiri
only some pupilsi
not AUX.3SG
putea lăuda la sfârşitul anului,
can praise at end.DEF year.GEN.DEF
‘It is only a few pupils that their professor will not be able to praise at the end of the year.’
b. Doar câţiva elevii
only some pupilsi
putea lăuda
la
profesorul
lori
teacher.DEF theiri
sfârşitul
anului,
nu
not
va
AUX.3SG
4
can praise at end.DEF
year.GEN.DEF
‘It is only a few pupils that their professor will not be able to praise at the end of the year.’
B. Parasitic gaps (Cornilescu 2002)
-
(13)
Cornilescu (2002) > Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) of undoubled object DPs may license parasitic
gaps, as opposed to their doubled counterparts.
a. Am examinat t fãrã
a intrerupe t fiecare
concurent
Have.I examined t without
interrupting t each
competitor
'I examined without interrupting each candidate separately
separat.
separately
b. Am examinat t fãrã
a intrerupe t pe fiecare concurent separat.
Have.I examined t without
interrupting t pe each competitor separately
'I examined without interrupting PE each candidate separately
(14)
a. *L-am
întîlnit fãrã
a saluta t însã
pe Ion
him.cl-have.I met
without to greet t though pe Ion.
'I met Ion without greeting him though.'
b. L-am
Him.cl-have.I
(15)
întîlnit fãrã
a-l
saluta însã
met
without to-him.clgreet though
a. *L- am
examinat t fãrã
Him.cl-have.I examined t without
pe Ion
pe Ion.
a intrerupe t pe fiecare concurent separat.
interrupting t pe each candidate separately
b L- am
examinat t fãrã
a-l intrerupe
t pe fiecare concurent separat.
Him.cl-have.I examined t without to-him.cl interrupt t pe each candidate separately.
>HNPS is an A’ movement which targets a position inside vP; the operator in the PG adjunct clause
should be a copy of the antecedent, structurally identical with it> only DPs which are not clitic
licensed may be antecedents in a PG construction as they remain inside the vP.
> If the antecedent is clitic licensed, i.e., it is a BigDP, the operator in the PG is also a BigDP licensed
by a clitic. But the clitic moves out of the vP to T hence the adjunct clause should be itself a TP,
adjoined to the main TP, and should also contain a clitic (as the operator should be a copy of the
antecedent) > HNPS is possible with CD-ed object DPs without the licensing of PGs
C. Focus and Focus Projection (Gierling 1997)
(16) a. Ce cauți?/ Ce faci?
b. Caut o CARTE
(17) a. Pe cine cauți?
b. Il caut pe ION
(18) a. Ce faci?
b. *Il caut pe ION
(18b) can only be a felicitous answer to a question inquiring about the argument as in (17). In order
for (18b) to be a felicitous answer to (18a) it must contain an additional accent on the verb. This is
5
due to the impossibility for focus to project from a DP which is doubled by a clitic to a higher
constituent (like the VP). The solution lies in the fact that the doubled DP has left the VP.
Selkirk (1995:555) Focus Projection:
a. Focus marking of the head of a phrase licenses the F-marking of the phrase
b. F-marking of an internal argument of a head licenses the F-marking of the head
This licensing mechanism correctly ensures that F-projection is not possible from an accented adjunct.
For a VP to be focused in this case, an accent on the verb is needed as well.
(19) [F Il CAUT pe ION.]
But why should the focus feature instantiated by the accent on an argument not be able to license the
F-marking of the verb and thus of the VP? That the argument in (18b) behaves like an adjunct is quite
unexpected. Apparently, with CDed DPs focus cannot project from the DP. >> with CD, the associate
DP has left the VP.
o
X0 movement
 Kayne (1989b) > clitic climbing: sensitive to the presence of an intervening whcomplementizer but not sensitive to the presence of an intervening wh-phrase
(20)
a. ?Mario, non loi saprei
[a chi affidare ti].
Mario, not Cl-acc I-would-know
to whom entrust
‘Mario, I wouldn't know to whom to entrust him.’
b. *Su questo problema, non loi saprei
[se consigliare ti].
On this
problem, not him I-would-know whether advise
‘On this problem I wouldn't know whether to advise him.’
The wh-phrase a chi does not interfere with clitic climbing while the wh-complementizer se does.
 The position and order of clitics the interaction of clitics and the syntax of negation, mood,
complementizers Kayne 1991, 1994; Zanuttini 1991, 1997; Rivero 1994; Rivero and Terzi
1995 a.o
o
o
Rivero (1994) clitics left-adjoin to the inflectional head to
which the verb raises, in finite environments T or AgrS in finite clauses
Terzi (1996) clitics adjoin to T and/or afunctional head F
 Romanian: evidence from supine (Cornilescu & Cosma 2014 ms.): the verb may take a pe
DP but not a cl+pe DP in prepositional supine clauses
(21)
Nu
pot
să vin la tine azi,
am
de vizitat *(pe) cineva.
Not
can.I să come to you today, have.I de visited *(pe) somebody
‘I cannot pass by today, I have to visit someone.’
- the indefinite pronoun ranging over humans is necessarily marked by pe and never clitic doubled.
This is why, it is a perfect candidate for the verbal supine
- the prepositional supine does not allow personal pronouns as they are obligatorily clitic doubled:
6
(22)
a. *(I-)am
ajutat pe ei
să reușească.
*(Them.cl-) have.I
helped pe them să succeed.
‘I have helped them succeed.’
b. *E ușor de ajutat pe ei
Is easy de helped pe them
‘They are easy to help.’
-thus, the prepositional supine in (b) seems to reject internal arguments that are necessarily clitic
doubled and to only accept DPs which do not require double or which disallow it > as pointed by
Cornilescu & Cosma (to appear) this is so because the prepositional supine is a reduced clause lacking
Agreement. If the clitic were to remain inside the vP it would then have no problem in being licensed
inside a prepositional supine.

whenever there is a clitic there is movement:
-
(23)
additional evidence: doubled indirect object DPs > may bind the subject (Tigău 2014,
Cornilescu 2014 ms.)
a. Prietenii lori/j le
ajută
multorai.
Friends.the their them.cl help.they many.Dat
‘Their friends help many.’
b. Prietenii lor*i/j ajută
multorai.
Friends.the their help.they many.Dat
‘Their friends help many.’
 The clitic is the trigger for movement > why?
 Why is there movement?
 What moves and where?
4.2. The status of the clitic & the status of the double
 the status of double:
1. Unilateral dependence of CD on DOM: CD is only possible with direct object DPs that have been
differentially object marked vs. CLRD which allows all types of accusative DPs:
(24)
a. Mihai l-a
ajutat pe copil/*copilul (CD)
Mihai him.cl-has helped pe child/clid.the
‘Mihai helped the child.’
b. Mihai l-a
ajutat, #pe copil/copilul (CLRD)
Mihai him.cl-has helped pe child/clid.the
‘Mihai helped the child.’
7
2. The CD-ed DP may serve as the antecedent of an anaphor and anaphors must be bound from Apositions according to Principle C.
(25) Îi
ştiam pe copiii supăraţi pe ei
înşişii
pentru că
Them.cl. knew.I PE children
upset PE them themselves because
pierduseră meciul.
had lost.they game.the.
‘I knew that the children were upset on themselves because they had lost the game.’
(26) La concursul de matematică am văzut copii
mulţumiţi de ei înşişi,
At contest of Mathematics have.I seen children satisfied with them themselves
dar şi copii supăraţi de performanţa lor.
but also children upset
of performance their.
‘At the contest on Mathematics I saw children that were pleased with themselves and children that
were upset about what they had done.’
3. Small clauses: the DP double may function as the subject of a small clause and these subject DPs
are known to occupy argument positions.
(27) O
consider [SC pe Maria fată deşteaptă].
Her.cl. consider.I PE Mary girl smart.
‘I consider Mary a smart girl.’
 the status of the clitic
1. Rigid Order: fixed order of pronominal clitics in the cluster Cornilescu (2006), Săvescu (2009)
(28) a. Alexandru mil
trimite astăzi
Alexandru CL.DAT CL.ACC sends today
'Alexandru sends it to me today'
b. * Alexandru îlmi
trimite astazi
Alexandru CL.ACC CL.DAT sends today
2. Syntactic Unit with the Host > clitics end up forming a unit; the clitic may no longer be stranded
from its host when it (further) moves in syntax
(29) a. Maria a citit cartea cu uşurinţă.
Maria has read book.the easily.
‘Maria easily read the book.’
b. Maria a citit-o
cu uşurinţă.
Maria has read it.cl.3.sg.fem easily
‘Maria easily read it.’
c. A citi- o
Maria cu uşurinţă sau nu?
Has read-it.cl.3sg.fem Mary easily
or not
‘Has he/she read it easily or not?’
8
3. the clitic does not always seem to saturate the internal argument position of the verb by itself.
(30) a. (L-)ai
văzut pe Ion?
(Him.cl-) have.you seen pe John
‘Have you seen John?’
b. L-am văzut.
Him.cl-have.I seen.
‘I have seen him’
(31) a. Pe cine ai văzut?
Pe who have.you seen
‘Whom did you see?’
b. (L-)am văzut pe Ion.
Him.cl-have.I seen pe John.
‘I have seen John’
c. *L-am
văzut.
Him.cl-have.I seen.
‘I have seen him’
 the clitic and the double are licensed as one event participant > “the same argument”,
saturating one position in the theta structure of the predicate (Delfitto 2002, Aoun 1999)

A. Cl+pe DPs start out as a Big DP
1. the clitic and the double represent “the same argument”, saturating one position in the theta
structure of the predicate
 (Uriagereka (1995), Torrego (1995,1998), Fisher (2000) Boeckx (2001), a.o.)
2. the selectional restrictions that the clitic imposes on its double:
- only  complete pe DPs may be doubled by clitic which is  complete>> this is why Bare
Quantifiers are excluded from doubling :
(32)
Nu
*(l)-am
văzut
Not
*(him.cl)-have.I see
‘I haven’t seen anybody.’
pe nimeni.
pe nobody.
- negative determiners nici un/nici o, which are  complete are perfect candidates for clitic doubling:
(33)
Nu
l-am
văzut
Not
*(him.cl)-have.I see
‘I haven’t seen any one.’
pe nici unul.
pe none.
9
B. the BigDP is stranded from the base-generated position
4.3 The status of the differential object marker
 Romanian has been analysed as a well behaved case of Kayne’s generalization: the clitic
absorbs Case and thus CD is only possible in those languages that have special prepositions
which can license case on the double
 Kayne’s generalization has been shown to encounter difficulties:
o
Balkan languages like (Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian) in which a bare Accusative was
clitic doubled.
o Suner 1988 > Porteno/Rioplatense Spanish: DO clitic doubling is possible without a
o pe also occurrs in the absence of clitic doubling > all CD implied the use of pe, but
not the other way round.
▼
In line with Suner 1988: pe is not a case marker
What does pe do then?

pe may have a semantic role.
o
Niculescu (1965) it has been observed that pe marking is sensitive to person
denoting DPs: obligatory with person denoting proper names and personal pronouns
and optional with person denoting nouns > this is why it has been interpreted as a
mark of personal gender (= semantic gender, which distinguishes between non-neuter
gender i.e., personal gender and neuter gender i.e., non-personal gender) (Cornilescu
2001).

Bare quantifiers
(34) a. nimeni vs. nothing
N-am văzut pe nimeni.
vs.
Not-have.I seen pe nobody
‘I haven’t seen anybody’
N-am văzut (*pe) nimic.
Not-have.I seen (*pe) nothing
‘I haven’t seen anything’
b. cineva vs. ceva
Am văzut pe cineva.
vs. Am văzut (*pe) ceva.
Have.I seen pe somebody Have.I seen (*pe) something
‘I have seen somebody’
‘I have seen something.’
c. oricine vs. orice
Am văzut pe oricine. vs. Am văzut (*pe) orice.
Have.I seen pe anybody Have.I seen (*pe) anything
‘I have seen anybody’
‘I have seen anything.’

Upgrading to person status
10
(35) Iau
pe rață și fac așa
(child language Avram & Coene 2006)
Take.I pe duck and do.I like this.
‘I take a duck and do like this’
o
Bleam (1999), Cornilescu (2001): pe acts as a filter on the DP denotation: direct
mapping between pe-marking and the semantic type of the DP: pe DPs may only
have the argumental, object-level denotations <e> (entity, object) and <<et>t>>
(generalized quantifier), while they lack the predicative, property denotation <et>.

pe marking obligatory with proper names and pronouns:
(36) L-am
văzut *(pe) Matei/*(pe) el..
Him-have.I seen pe Matthew/pe him
‘I have seen Matthew/him.’

the individual-level reading of the verb a avea (have)
(37) I have a car.
a. I own a car
(individual-level)
b. I have a car (with me today) (stage level)
(Bleam 2005)
(38) a. Am mașină/*mașina.
Have.I car/
car.the.
‘I own a car’
b. Am mașina (cu mine).
Have.I car.the (with me)
‘I have the car (with me)’
(39) a. Maria
Mary
Individual-level
Stage-level
are (*pe) o soră.
has (*pe) a sister.
b. Am pe o soră (de-a lui Mihai la mine luna asta).
Have.I pe a sister
(of Michael at me month this)
‘I have one of Michael’s sisters living with me this month.’

Non-incorporating verbs love/hate
(40) *Ion
John
urăște profesori.
hates teachers.
(41) Ion
urăște profesorii/ pe profesori..
John
hates teachers.the/ pe profesori
‘John hates teachers.’
o
Tigău (2014 ms.) pe related to a partitive reading:
(42) a. Șoferul poate duce câte
trei profesori o dată. Mașina e cam mică.
Driver.the can drive câte
three teachers once. Car.the is pretty small
‘The drive can drive home three teachers at a time. The car is pretty small.’
b. Șoferul
poate
duce pe câte trei profesori o dată. Mașina e cam mică.
11
Driver.the can
drive pe câte three teachers once. Car.the is pretty small
‘The drive can drive home three teachers at a time. The car is pretty small.’
5. Integrating the data into an analysis:
Elements to account for:
 evidence for movement
 case assignment: how does the clitic and the associate DP get case? Is pe a case assigner? Is
the attested movement related to case assignment?
 unilateral dependence between the clitic and the associate DP
5.1 The Stranding Derivation3:
(Boeckx 2001, Cornilescu 2002 a.o.) > the clitic is attracted to T, checking the Acc feature of the verb, the
doubled is stranded below
> since clitics are deficient pronominal arguments without an articulated internal structure they may not
be interpreted as arguments if they are not linked to some substantive root (T(ense)) at the LF interface
(Rouveret & Nash 2002). Thus, the clitic (which is merely a bundle of  features) will have to move from
the lexical domain onto a functional head so as to become interpretable: clitics are interpretable and
syntactically active only when they reach Tense.
> clitic movement is initiated only when T merges (under the assumption that movement only takes place
when the head driving it has merged). However, the clitic will not move directly to T, but will first land
together with its double (as an XP), into the closest potential landing site SpecvP, an intermediate
position where Acc case checking takes place. The clitic moves to T as an X 0 , checking the case feature of v
and leaving the double behind. The double does not have to move further up as it is -inert. Furthermore,
it has been granted case by the preposition.
> Thus, the clitic moves in two steps, as an XP to Spec vP and as an X0 to T, the double will be stranded out
of the vP >> CD is thus a means of scoping the DO out if its vP internal position, a movement which is in
agreement with the strong readings of the CD-ed constituents.
5.2 Cornilescu (2014 ms.)
 assumes that the clitic and its double are licensed as one event participant
 proposes a slightly different analysis which regards both the clitic and the double as phrases
licensed in a small clause configuration headed by an empty D, with the clitic as a specifier
and the associate as a complement (Uriagereka 2005, Krivochen 2014)
(43) [DP DPcl [D] DPass]
 The BigDP is assigned a theta role in the a-structure of the verb. The clitic is left with
unvalued case and person features, which it values through the derivation.
o
To check their unvalued person feature clitics move as phrases up to a Person field
above Tense (Bianchi 2006, Savescu 2009)
The Standing derivations is based on the following assumptions derived from Chomsky (1998, 1999):
Case & Agreement represent the reflex of a single operation which a DP may undergo only once. The
implementation of the Case-Agree mechanism amounts to valuing u features through Agree between an
agreeing head (T or v) and a DP; the process of valuing the u features of the verbal head concomitantly
values the K(ase) feature of D. Tense values the Nom feature of a DP, while v values the Acc feature.
3
12
o
clitics value their case on the way to the Person field, they systematically pass
through structural case positions.
5.3 Steps towards a proposal
Basic tenets
1. the BigDP moves out of vP, the clitic aiming for a suitable projection inside the Person field in line with
Bianchi (2006), Săvescu (2009, 2011) and in agreement with recent developments viewing grammar as
an event-speech matching computational device Sigursson (2012))
2. movement takes place in two steps: there is first movement of the BigDP to the edge of vP followed by
further movement of the clitic to the Person field
3. In terms of current phasal locality principles (see Richards, 2004 a.o.), the internal argument bound by
the clitic must be on the edge of the lower vP, so as to be still available for computation after the spell-out
of the vP.
4. in agreement with recent developments in case theory, case is not a driving force, it is not responsible
for NP movement and it is licensed vP internally. In agreement with Sigursson (2012) structural cases
are seen as ‘indices’ assigned to  roles vP-internally, c, thereby making the roles visible to relations with
elements outside of vP.
Extending on the basic tenets of the proposal
> Clitic movement to PersP and the Person field
a. A first argument that clitics target Agreement comes from the realm of prepositional supine clauses
which do not allow obligatorily clitic doubled internal arguments in their structure, on account of their
lacking an Agreement projection which might host the clitic (see above) >> we have thus a clear
connection between Agr and clitic placement. This seems intuitively correct if we consider that clitics are
fully specified for Person and Number
b. it has also been shown above (inverse binding, parasitic gaps, focus projection) that the clitic and its
double undergo movement out of the vP
c. another argument which strengthens the hypothesis that Person is a driving force is the case of quirky
subjects in Icelandic which seem to interfere with the matching of Person (but not with nominative case):
(44) a. Honum mundu
alltaf líka Þeir
him.DAT would.3PL always like they.NOM
‘He would always like them.’
b. *Honum mundu alltaf líka Þi
him.DAT would.2PL always like you.NOM.PL
c. *Honum mundum alltaf líka vi
him.DAT would.1PL always like we.NOM
Sigursson (2007: 123)
- as pointed out by Sigursson, first and second person angreement with the nominative object is
ungrammatical (b,c), while third person nominative triggers plural agreement with the verb. Sigursson
argues that this type of examples suggest that the Infl complex of the verb splits into (at least) Person,
Number and Tense. This structure would account for the phenomenon in (44): the dative DP matches
Person, moving to its immediate c-command/feature matching domain, allowing the nominative object to
match Number.
13
(45) [CP C ….[IP Pers [Num DAT, Num….[vP……DAT…..NOM………
- thus, Person agrees with the dative DP and Number agrees with the nominative DP. Notice that Person
may not agree with the nominative object as it is already engaged in a matching relationship with the
dative subject. This is in fact what leads to the ungrammaticality of (b, c)
> as it seems, Person is a driving force while structural case is not
> it seems thus natural to argue that the movement of the clitic targets the AgrP (PersonP, more
specifically) with the aim of checking an uniterpretable Person feature
>This is in line with Bianchi (2006), Săvescu (2009, 2011) a.o. who convincingly show that clitics head for
specific projections in a Person field which is part of the functional structure of the clause.
- Săvescu (2009, 2011)’s account, the Person field is comprised of several Person projections, each
specified for a particular person feature.
-Thus, each Person projection only attracts the clitic with the right person specification. Agree takes place
between features that have the same value: the probe Person1 will thus see only the clitic argument that
has 1st person specification etc
- The hierarchy of projections in the Person field is arrived at after testing various word order
combinations and looks like (16) below:
(46) Person1P>Person3P>Person2P>Refl3P>Person3P>TP>K-dat>K-acc>..>V
This ordering accounts for several person restrictions in Romanian with respect to clitic ordering:
a) 1stP & 2ndP clitic clusters are fine as long as the 1stP clitic comes first
(47) a. Te
cunosc, Ion mi
te-a
prezentat deja.
You.Acc know.I, John me.Dat you.Acc-has introduced already.
‘I know you, John has already introduced you to me.’
b. Nu mă
cunoști? *Ion ți
m-a
prezentat ieri.
Not me.Acc know.you? * John you.Dat me.Acc-has introduced yesterday.
‘Don’t you know me? John has already introduced me to you yesterday.’
b) there are two 3rdP projections accounting for two possible clitic orders:
- 3rdP clitics may target a projection above the position hosting 2ndP clitics
(48) I
te-au
prezentat.
3P.Dat 2Psg.Acc-have.they presented.
‘They presented you to him/her.’
- two 3rdP clitics may freely combine (the order has to be Dat Clitic>Acc Clitic)
(49) I l-au prezentat.
3P.Dat 3Psg.Acc-have.they presented.
‘They presented him to him/her.’
Very importantly, the low 3rdP clitic position may not host a 3rdP clitic in the dative, it seems to be
specialised with respect to case: in example (20) below the dative 3rdP clitic may not combine with the
2ndP accusative clitic:
(50) * Maria te i-a
ajutat.
Mary 2P.Acc 3P.Dat-has helped
14
- Notice also that Săvescu’s account presupposes the existence of a K(ase) field: our approach only shares
with hers the idea that a Person field is part of the functional structure of the clause; case is solved vP
internally in line with Sigursson (2007, 2012a,b)4.
3.2.2. Why would a PersonP be so important?
> Sigursson (2007) points out the Person is, just like Tense, a basic computational element which
computes or interprets features of the propositional event in relation to features of the speech event.
(51) EventComputation/GrammarSpeech
>There is thus a clearcut correspondence between grammatical features (Mood, Tense,  features) and
the features of the speech event (time/location of speech, speech participants) since grammatical features
compute event features in relation to speech features.
- just as Tense computes the Event Time in relation to Speech Time, in the same way Person
(=grammatical participant features) relate Event Participants with Speech Participants
(52) EPPSP
- event participants will thus have to match Person 5 which will interpret them in relation to the speech
participants
- thus, all arguments enter this kind of matching and a clause may have objectPerson (hosting clitics) in
addition to SubjectPerson
3.2.3. Why isn’t case a movement triggering force?
> as we have seen in the case of the examples from Icelandic, case is not a causal factor in the DP-Infl
Connection i.e., the so-called nexus problem about how subjects relate to their predicate (Jespersen 1924
a.o.), Person is (Person has, to some extent, the status that has been commonly attributed to case).
> a natural question would then be: why isn’t case a movement triggering force and what does it do
exactly.
> the basic reason behind the idea that structural case is a movement driving force has to do with the fact
that it is considered uninterpretable (it does not alter the interpretation of nouns). As such, it must delete
under  feature matching/agree between a head (v or T) and a DP, otherwise the derivation will crash
since LF cannot interpret the uninterpretable feature. In case the head has an EPP feature, there is
movement of the DP to the respective head.
> Sigursson observes that structural cases are interpretable in as much as they have relative
interpretability i.e., they are meaningful in relation to each other6. As such, structural cases may be
envisaged as features which distinguish between event participants at a vP-internal level. Thus, event
participants are cased  roles, C:
(53) Nominative: 0Case=event participant1
Accusative: 1Case=event participant2
Sigursson (2007:131)
4
When it comes to solving matters concerning the hierarchy of two clitics the entire responsibility will be
transferred to the nature of the Person projections which specified for a particular person feature
(including the two 3rdP projections)
5 According to Sigursson the Speech Event is syntactic and inside clausal structure; any utterance is a
Speech Phrase which contains elements of the speech event and which dominates the clause (p. 137)
6 Sigursson (2003) speaks about what he calls the Sibling Correlation, showing that the structural
accusative is preconditioned by structural nominative. It is in this sense that structural cases are said to
be interpretable, through the meaningful relation that holds between them.
15
- thus structural cases are assigned vP-internally to  roles, making them visible to relations with
elements outside the vP. Under this account, it becomes clear why structural cases are not movement
driving forces.
3.2.4. How is then case assigned?
As seen above, Case is vP-internally interpretable: it will therefore be analysed in terms of event licensing
and variable PF marking of the licensing relation (Sigursson 2007, 2012a, 2012b)
> Chomsky (2001) claims that in regular Acc systems, Acc is the responsibility of phi-complete v,
designated as v*. Case-star augmentation yields v* in addition to plain v. Case star augmentation is
involved when a first marked case emerges. Defective v cannot assign any case value, thereby rendering
the underlying object in defective VPs accessible to the Nom case.
(54)
a.
b.
c.
We sank them
They were sunk.
They sank.
(55)
… [TP….. Voice/Ag….[NP2
transitive
passive
unaccusative
v*-V
v-V
v-V
Nom- Acc
Nom
Nom
v*--V NP1
|
|
-----------
> Case star augmentation, then yielding v* in addition to plain v, is involved when a language develops
from a no case language to an accusative language, distinguishing AccNPs from non-cased (Nom) NPs.
> Active Acc assignment in the v-system is based on the structure in (26), whereas the corresponding
unaccusative and passive structures yield Nom, as sketched in (27); the arrows connecting v*-V and NP1
indicate a matching relation that gets interpreted in terms of non-Nominative case in PF, here Acc.
(56)
…[TP ….VoiceAG…[NP2….v*-V….NP1…]]
(57)
a.
b.
NP1/ACC in PF
NP2/ NOM in PF
…[TP ….VoicePASS…[ v-V….NP1…]] NP1/NOM in PF
…[TP ….VoiceEXPL…[ v-V….NP1…]] NP1/NOMin PF
> We assume that all predicates are embedded under some Voice head, passives being embedded under
voice passives, while unaccusatives and anticausatives are embedded under expletive VoiceExpl (even
though unaccusatives & anticausatives have different vP internal structures).
> Relating syntax and PF, the decision for a non-Nominative N can be taken in three steps. First syntax
transfers to PF a structure of type (26), where nothing but licensing matching relations are indicated:
Voice(NP)  v/V ( NP]. Language specific PF properties assign a particular type of case star to one
or more than one licensing heads, depending on the particular syntactic structure. This yields the right
part of (26). Thirdly, PF interprets the particular case star as a particular morphologic case of the
language.
> Arguments thus are event licensed by specialized heads: agentive or active subjects by Voice/AG, direct
objects by v-V.
3.2.5. > Deriving cl+pe DP sentences
Unlike current minimalist analyses (Chomsky 2000, 2001) which assume that structural case checking is
the by-product of agreement in the complete set of phi-features between a probe and a goal, we assume
that case is checked independently of person and that case does not trigger movement
- Person triggers movement of the clitic which needs to check its Person feature
- On its way to the Person field the clitic travels to an intermediate landing site together with its
double (as a BigDP)
16
-
(58)
Case is assigned vP internally and amounts to event licensing: the BigDP is assigned accusative by
v*-V and there is agreement between the clitic and the double. As such the clitic and the double
are licensed as one event participant.
[Person…..[T[vP DPSu [v’ v[VP V, BigDP]]

[Person…..[T[vP BigDP [vP DPSu [v’ v[VP V, BigDP]]

[PersonP cl, P[T[vP DPobj [vP DPSu [v’ v[VP V, BigDP]]
References:
Alexiadou, Artemis (1999). On the Properties of Some Greek Word Order Patterns . In: Studies in Greek Syntax
. Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks, and Melita Stavrou(eds.), 46 55.
Dordrecht: Kluwer
Aoun, J. (1999). ‘Clitic Doubled Arguments’. In Johnson, K. and I. Roberts (eds.). Beyond Principles
and Parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bianchi, V. 2006.On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116:2023–2067.
Boeckx, C. 2001. Mechanisms of Chain Formation PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Cornilescu, A. 2001. ‘On the Interpretation of the Prepositional Accusative in Romanian’, in Bucharest Working
Papers in Linguistics
Cornilescu, A. 2002.Clitic Doubling and Parasitic Gaps in Romanian, paper presented at Going
Romance November 2002, Groningen
Cornilescu, A./Cosma, R. to appear. On the syntax of the Romanian supine: the de-constructions. In R.
Cosma/S. Engelberg et al. (eds.), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen. Kontrastive
Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Delfitto, D. 2002. On the Semantics of Pronominal Clitics and some of its Consequences. Catalan
Journal of Linguistics 1: 41-69
Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter
Fisher, S. 2000. Diachronic perspective of the Catalan clitic system and other aspects of Catalan
Syntax, PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.
Kayne, Richard.1989a. Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement . In: Dialect Variation and the
Theory of Grammar . Paola Benincà(Ed.), 85 104. Dordrecht: Foris .
Kayne, Richard.1989b. Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing . In: The Null Subject Parameter . Osvaldo
Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (eds.), 239 261. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
Kayne, R.1991. Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO . Linguistic Inquiry (22) : 647=686.
Kayne, R.1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge: MIT Press .
Monachesi, P. 1995. A Grammar of Italian Clitics.PhD dissertation.Tilburg University.
Richards M. D. 2004. Object Shift and Scrambling in North and west germanic: A Case Study in
Symmetrical Syntax’, doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge
Rivero, María Luisa (1994). Clause Structure and V-Movement in the Languages of the Balkans .
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (12) : 63 120.
Rivero, María Luisa and Arhonto Terzi (1995). Imperatives, V-Movement, and Logical Mood . Journal
of Linguistics (31) : 301 332.
Rouveret A. and Nash L. 2002.Cliticization as Unselective Attract, Ms. University of Paris 7
Săvescu, O. 2009.A Syntactic Analysis of Pronominal Clitic Clusters in Romance: The View from
Romanian.PhD Dissertation.University of New York.
Săvescu, O. 2011. A cartographic approach to clitic clusters in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique.LVI,2, p. 97–114, Bucureşti
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2003. Case: abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory, ed.
Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 223–268. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2007. Argument features, clausal structure and the computation. In Argument
Structure, ed. by Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Eric Reuland, and Giorgos Spathas, 121–158.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2012b. Case variation: viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics.35(3):
313-342. (http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001458)
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2012a. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 191–227.
17
Suñer, Margarita (1988). The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions . Natural Language
and
Linguistic Theory (6) : 391 434.
Terzi, Arhonto (1996). The Linear Correspondence Axiom and the Adjunction Site of Clitics . In:
Configurations . Anna-Maria di Sciullo(Ed.), 185 199. Los Angeles: Cascadilla Press .
Tigău, Alina. 2010.Syntax and Interpretation of the Direct Object in Romance and Germanic
Languages with an Emphasis on Romanian, German, Dutch and English. Bucharest: Editura
Universităţii Bucureşti.
Torrego, E. 1999. Object Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Torrego, E. 1995.On the nature of clitic doubling. In Hector Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.),
Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory. 251-271. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.Linguistic
Inquiry 26 (1): 79-123.
Zanuttini, Raffaella (1991). Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance
Languages. PhD dissertation, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages .
Oxford: Oxford University Press .
Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order . Cambridge: MIT Press .
Alina-Mihaela Tigău
Alina.Tigau@unige.ch
18