Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:03:23.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VSO Order and Weak Pronouns in Goidelic Celtic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

David Adger
David Adger*
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the placement of weak pronominal objects in Goidelic Celtic. These elements appear in a far-right position in the clause, in spite of their prosodic lightness. Previous analyses have put this phenomenon down to either a language and construction specific rule, or to a side effect of clausal organisation. The article examines the most articulated current version of the latter option, shows how it suffers from serious empirical and conceptual problems and develops in its place an approach in which the pronouns remain internal to the verb phrase with their precise position determined by prosodic factors. This collapses the surprising behaviour of weak pronouns in Goidelic with that of weak pronouns in Germanic. The apparent differences in the positioning of pronouns between the two language families derive from independent aspects of clausal architecture. The new approach uses a much less articulated clausal structure but an enriched view of the syntax-prosody interface.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine le placement des pronoms faibles en celtique gœdelique. Ces éléments apparaissent dans une position éloignée dans la partie droite de la phrase en dépit de leur manque de poids prosodique. Les analyses précédentes ont considéré ce phénomène comme spécifique à la langue et à la construction en question ou bien comme un effet secondaire attribuable à l’architecture phrastique. Cet article examine la version courante la plus articulée de cette dernière option, met en lumière ses importants défauts empiriques et conceptuels et développe plutôt une approche qui maintient que les pronoms demeurent dans une position interne au VP, leur positionnement précis étant déterminé par des facteurs prosodiques. Cette approche réduit le comportement surprenant des pronoms faibles en gœdelique à celui des pronoms faibles dans les langues germaniques. Les différences apparentes entre les deux familles de langues sont dues à des différences indépendantes d’architecture phrastique. Cette nouvelle approche fait appel à une architecture phrastique beaucoup moins articulée et à une version enrichie de l’interface entre la syntaxe et la prosodic.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 42 , Special Issue 1-2: Topics in Celtic Syntax , June 1997 , pp. 9 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, David. 1992. On the licensing of quasi-arguments. In Proceedings of CONSOLE 1, ed. Ackema, Peter and Schoorlemmer, Maaike, 1–16. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1993. Aspectual chains and quasi-arguments. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20, ed. Lindblad, Vern and Gamon, Michael, 1–17. Department of Linguistics, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1994. Functional heads and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1996a. Agreement, aspect and measure phrases in Scottish Gaelic. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 200–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1996b. Morphological merger and VSO. Paper read at the International Conference on Syntactic Categories. Bangor.Google Scholar
Adger, David, and Ramchand, Gillian C.. 1997. Copular clauses, relative clauses and movement. Paper read at the 2nd Celtic Linguistics Conference, University College Dublin, Dublin.Google Scholar
Ahlqvist, Anders. 1976. On the position of pronouns in Irish. Éigse 16:171–176.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, El-Abbas. 1995. Agreement asymmetries and the PF interface. Ms., School of Oriental and African Studies, London.Google Scholar
de Bhaldraithe, Tomás. 1966. The Irish of Cois Fhairrge, Co. Galway. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, Hely Thorn.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Carnie, Andrew. 1996. A minimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 223–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D., and Roberts, Ian, eds. 1996. The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breatanach, Risteard B. 1947. The Irish of Ring, Co. Waterford. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, A. Thorn & Co.Google Scholar
Breatnach, Liam. 1994. An Mhéan-Ghaeilge. In Stair na Gaeilge, ed. McConeetal, Kim, 221–333. Maynooth, Ireland: St. Patricks College.Google Scholar
de Búrca, Seán. 1958. The Irish of Tourmakeady, Co. Mayo. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, A. Thorn & Co. Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Roberts, Ian. 1991. Clause structure and X-second. Ms., University of Geneva and University of Wales.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Starke, Michal. 1994. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. Ms., University of Venice.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 1995. Non-verbal predication and head-movement. Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and McCloskey, James. 1987. Government, barriers and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18:173–239.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239–298.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1997. The pronominal augment in Irish identificational sentences. In Dan do Oide, ed. Ahlqvist, Anders and Capková, Vera, 135–147. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. To appear. Particles and projections in Irish syntax: A review. Linguistic Analysis.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1988. On the complementarity of subject and subject-verb agreement. In Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theory, description, ed. Barlow, Michael and Fergusson, Charles, 201–218. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1990. Movement and Mutation in Modern Irish. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 12, ed. Green, Thomas and Uziel, Sigal, 31–45. Department of Linguistics, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1990. Functional categories and phrase-structure parameters. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1987. Incorporation and the Irish synthetic verb forms. Ms., Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz., Alec 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1990. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1983. A VP in a VSO language? In Order, concord, and constituency, ed. Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 9–55. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1993. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Syntax Research Centre Report, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996a. The scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996b. Subjects and subject positions. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:487–533.Google Scholar
McCoy, Elizabeth. 1997. Agus (and), AspP and feature checking in Irish adjunct small clauses. Paper read at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Edinburgh. Ms., University of York.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Reinhart, Tanya. To appear. The syntax and interpretation of scrambling in Dutch. In Argument projection: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Willi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1992. On syntactic geometry. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1995. VP internal and VP external AgrOP. In The Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13, ed. Aranovitch, Raul et al., 318–333. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
O’Murchú, Máirtín. 1989. East Perthshire Gaelic. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Mount Salus Press.Google Scholar
Quiggin, E.C. 1906. A dialect of Donegal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. 1997. Aspect and predication: The semantics of argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. To appear. Deconstructing the lexicon. In Argument projection: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Willi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian, and Shlonsky, Ur. 1996. Pronominal enclisis in VSO languages. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 171–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1991. Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8:353–387.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79–124.Google Scholar
Wyngaerd, Guido J. Vanden. 1989. Object shift as an A-movement rule. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11, ed. Branigan, Phil et al., 256–271. Department of Linguistics, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar