quirky subjects and person restrictions in romance: rumanian...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance: Rumanian and
Spanish" Maria Luisa Rioero and Dana Geber
University of Cuaioa
Abstract The aim of this paper is to argue that Rumanian shares with Spanish quirky constructions with Icelandic-like person restrictions (as identified by Rivero 2003b). In these constructions, with a dative logical subject, the nominative logical object triggering verbal agreement must be third person and cannot be first or second person. Romance quirky constructions with person restrictions are characterized by the combination of a dative clitic with a reflexive clitic. The second aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the Person Case Constraint formulated by Bonet (1994) can capture the difference between quirky constructions with person restrictions and quirky constructions without person restrictions. The third goal of this paper is to show that the Person Case Constraint can also capture the contrast between the Romance quirky constructions and Bulgarian constructions which have similar syntax but no person restrictions. The contrast between Spanish and Rumanian, on the one hand, and Bulgarian, on the other hand, suggests that person restrictions in Romance depend on the morphological feature content of the reflexive clitic. namely [person).
Introduction
Quirky subject constructions in Icelandic display person restrictions,
which have attracted much attention, and contributed in important
ways to the development of recent linguistic theory (Anagnostopoulou
2003, Boeckx 2000, Chomsky 1999, Sirgur_sson 2002a, 2002b and
references therein, among others). The received view in the literature
is that such restrictions are particular to Icelandic. Constraints of this
type have not been identified in other languages. Thus, Spanish and
Rumanian are considered languages with quirky subject constructions
free of such restrictions1.
Research for this paper was partially supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grants 410-2000-0120 and 410-2003- 016i. Earlier versions were read at the13 th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Ciudad Real, Spain in April 2003, and at the Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Meeting, Halifax, Nova Scotia in June 2003. We thank members of both audiences for useful comments and questions, and Olga Arnaudova for information on Bulgarian and much help with the data reported in 3. We also thank Rodica Diaconescu for her comments and help with the Romanian data. We thank an anonymous reviewer for the comments for this paper.
I In this paper, we adopt the familiar "quirky subject" label as a descriptive term. See (Masullo 1992, 1993) for differences between Spanish and Icelandic"quirky subjects", (Masullo 1992, Fernandez Soriano 1999, and Cuervo 1999) for diagnostics of "quirky subjects" in Spanish, and (Dumitrescu and Masullo 1996) for "quirky subjects" in
Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa, dcembre/December 2003, Vol. 31: 53-66 ISSN 0315-3167. 2003, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa
-
Rivero and Geber
This paper has three general aims. The first aim is to argue tha t
Rumanian shares with Spanish quirky constructions with Icelandic
like person restrictions of the type first identified by Rivero (2003b) in
Spanish. Thus, the Spanish situation finds a counterpart in another
Romance language. The second goal of this paper is to show that
Bonet's Person Case Constraint (1994) is a preliminary tool that can
capture the difference between quirky constructions with person
restrictions and quirky constructions without person restrictions not
only in Spanish but also in Rumanian. The third aim is to show that
the pee (Person Case Constraint - Bonet 1994) can also capture a contrast between the Romance constructions discussed in this paper
and parallel quirky constructions in Bulgarian which have similar
syntax but no person restrictions.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce two
different types of quirky constructions in Spanish and Rumanian:
those without person restrictions, which are familiar in the literature,
and those with person restrictions. In section 3, we show that the pee can capture the formal difference between the class of Spanish and
Rumanian quirky constructions wi th person restrictions and the
familiar class without person restrictions. In section 4, we contrast
Spanish and Rumanian quirky constructions with Bulgarian quirky
constructions that share similar syntactic characteristics but do not
show person restrictions, and argue that the PCC can capture the
difference between SIavic and Romance, which further supports the
suggestion in section 3 that PCC captures the difference between quirky
constructions with and without person restrictions.
1. Two types of quirky subjects in Spanish and Rumanian We first illustrate person restrictions in Icelandic. The sentences in (la
c) from (Sirgur_sson 2002a: pp.719-720) show that in the presence of a
dative logical subject, a nominative logical object triggering verbal
Rumanian. See also (Rivero and Sheppard 2003) and (Rivero 2oo3a) for different types of 11 quirky subjects" in Slavic, including a class without counterparts in Spanish and Rumanian.
54
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
agreement must be 3 person singular or plural, and cannot be 2 or
15t :
(1) a. eg veit ao honum lika peir. I know that he.DAT like.3PL they.NOM
'I know that he likes them.'
b. *eg veit ao honum likio pia.
I know that he.DAT like.2PL you.NOM.PL
'*1 know that he likes you.'
c. *eg veit aa honum likum via. I know that he.OAT like.1PL we.NOM
'*1 know that he likes us.'
The received view in the literature is that the Icelandic
restriction is language-particular. The general idea in all existing
analyses is that the dative somehow interferes with finite inflection by
entering into an agreement or a checking relation with its person
(Anagnastopoulou 2003, Boeckx 2000, Sigur_sson 2002a, 2002b for
different implementations of this basic idea).
Many well-known languages lack the above person restriction.
At first sight, Spanish and Rumanian seem to be among those
languages because sentences equivalent to (1) do not display person
restrictions, as Spanish (2a-c) and Rumanian (3a-c) illustrate.
Like their Icelandic counterparts, the Romance sentences in (2a
c) and (3a-c) contain dative logical subjects (a Ana and lui Ion
respectively), which must be doubled by a dative clitic glossed Dat.Cl
from now on (k in (2) and ii in (3)). They also contain nominative logical objects that trigger verbal agreement (ellos in (2a) and cl in (3a)). However, it is known that such nominative logical objects can be not
only 3 rd person, but also 21ld or 15t person in the presence of a da tive
logical subject, as (2b-c) and (3b-c) illustrate.
(2) a. Yo se que a Ana le gustan ellos. Spa know that Ann.Dat Oat.CI like.3PL they.NOM
'I know that Ann likes them.'
rd nd
55
-
Rivero and Geber
b. Yo se que a Anale gustais vosotros.
know that Ann.Dat DaLCl like.2Pyou.NOM.PL
'1 know that Ann likes you.'
c. Yo se que a Ana le gustamos nosotros.
know that Ann.Dat Dat.CI like.1PL we.NOM
'1 know that Ann likes us.'
(3) a. Lui Ion ii plac ei. RU111
Iohn.Dat Oat.Cllike.3PI they.Nom
'John likes them.'
b. Lui Ion li placem noi. John.Oat Oat.CI like.1Pl we.Nom
'John likes us.'
c. Lui Ion i i placeti voL
[ohn.Dat Dat.CI like.2Pl you.Nom.Pl
'John likes you.'
The datives in (2a-c) and (3a-c), then, do not seem to interfere
with finite verb agreement, or enter into an agreement relation with
inflection via its person. Many verbs behave like gustar/ a placea 'like'
in (2) and (3), so it would seem that person restrictions of the Icelandic
type do not exist in Spanish and Rumanian. However, Rivero (2003b)
notes some quirky constructions in Spanish that display person
restrictions like Icelandic, and here we go on to show that Rumanian is
very similar to Spanish.
In both languages, there are some previously unnoticed
constructions that resemble those in (2) and (3) above because they
have a dative logical subject obligatorily doubled by a clitic, and a
nominative logical object triggering agreement on the verb. However,
unlike the constructions in (2) and (3), these other constructions
display person restrictions, because their nominative logical object
must be 3rd person, and cannot be 2nd or 1st.
Let us introduce the Spanish and Rumanian quirky
constructions with person restrictions, which in our view fall into
two subtypes. First consider the examples in (4-5), which illustrate
the first subtype. The defining characteristic of the Spanish verb
ocurrir (se) 'imagine' in (4a-c) and the Rumanian verb a (se) cuueni
56
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
'deserve' in (Sa-c) is to take as the only syntactic option a dative as
Jogical subject and a nominative as logical object. In both languages,
this nomina tive object triggers verbal agreement, and is restricted to
3rd person, as in (4a-Sa), so cannot be 1st person (2nd person is also
impossible, but is not illustrated).
(4) a. A Ana se le ocurri6 [unpersonaje / ella} 5pa Ann.Oat 3.Refl Dat.Cl imagine.3Sg {a character / she.Nom]
para su novela.
for her novel
,Ann {imagined/thought of} fa character / her} for her novel.'
b. *A Ana nos le ocurrimos nosotros
Ann.Dat IPI.Refl Dat.CI imagine.IPI
we.Nom
para su novela.
for her novel
'*Ann (imagined / thought of} us for her novel.' (S) a. Anei se cuvine [copilul / ell Rum
Ann.Oat Oat.CI 3.Refl deserve.3Sg {the child / he.Nom}
'Ann deserves the {child/him}.'
b. *Anei ne cuvenim noi Ann.Oat OaLCl IPl.RefI
deserve.lPI we.Nom
'* Ann deserves us.'
Now consider the sentences in (6-7), which illustrate the second
subtype of quirky construction with person restrictions. In this second
case, the verb is not restricted to quirky patterns but can appear in
other frames, in particular with a nominative as logical su.bject, and an
accusative as logical object, as illustrated in (8-9). In the quirky
construction with the dative subject, the nominative logical object n d triggers verbal agreement, and cannot be I" person, (6b-7b), or 2
person, (6c-7c).
57
-
Rivero and Geber
(6) a. A Ana se le olvidaron [esos chicos /ellos} Spa Ann.Dat 3.Refl Dat.CI forgot.3PI {those guys/ they.Nom]
'Ann forgot {those guys/them}.'
b. *A Ana nos le olvidamos nosotros.
Ann.Dat lPl.Refl Dat.Cl forgot.1Pl we.Nom
'*Ann forgot us.'
c. *A Ana os le olvidasteis vosotros.
Ann.Oat 2Pl.Refl Oat.CI forgot.2Pl you.Nom.P
'*Ann forgot you.'
(7) a. Lui Ion i se pierd copiii/ei. R u 111 John.Dat Dat.CI 3.Refl lose.3Pl {children/they.Nom)
'John loses {the children/them}.'
b. "Lui Ion ne pierdem noi.
[ohn.Dat Dat.CI lPl.Refl. 10se.1Pl we.Nom
'*John loses us.'
c. *Lui Ion va pierdeti voi.
John.Dat Dat.Cl 2Pl.Refl. 10se.2PI you.Nom.PI
'*John loses you.'
To repeat, the verbs-in (6) and (7) differ from the verbs in (4-5)
because they can also participate in a frame with the logical subject in
the nominative and the logical object in the accusative, as in (8-9) .
Such nominative-accusative constructions are not subject to person restrictions; this is well known, so needs no illustration.
(8) Ana olvid6 las Haves de Pedro.
Ann.NOM forgot.3sg the keys.At.C of Peter.
'Ann forgot Peter's keys.'
(9) Ion a pierdut cheile Mariei.
John.NOM has lost.Ssg keys-the.ACe Mary.GEN
'John lost Mary's keys.'
In contrast with the patterns in (2) and (3), then, the Dative
subject/Nominative-object patterns in (4-7) suggest that the dative in
Spanish and Rumanian may interfere with finite verb agreement, or enter into an agreement relation with inflection via its person, as
58
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
proposed for Icelandic. However, in the next section we suggest a
different answer.
In sum, in Spanish and Rumanian there are two kinds of quirky
constructions. The familiar type without person restrictions illustrated
with gustar/ a pl_cea 'like' in (2) and (3) makes Spanish and Rumanian
contrast with Icelandic, and the less familiar patterns illustrated with
ocurrir (se) 'imagine', a (se) cuueni 'deserve', olvidar (se) 'forget' and a
pierde 'lose' in (4-7) display person restrictions reminiscent of Icelandic.
In section 3, we propose that the PCC is a preliminary tool to capture
the difference between the two types.
2. The pee and quirky restrictions in Romance Bonet (1991, 1994) proposes the morphological condition in (10) for
combinations of weak elements such as clitics, agreement affixes, or
weak pronouns"
(10) Person Case Constraint (PCC) (Bonet 1994:36):
If OAT then ACC-3rd
In both Spanish and Rumanian, the pce serves for ditransitive contrasts such as the following:
(11) a. Ana nos los envfa.
Ann we.Dat they.Acc sends
I Ann sends them to us.'
b. "Ana nos os envia.
Ann we.Oat you .Acc sends
I Ana sends you to us.'
2 The PCC has been an influential source of subsequent proposals. Based on ditransitive sentences, Orrnazabal and Romero (1998, 2002) argue that the pee is a syntactic condition on animacy, Boeckx (2000)uses the PCC for a morphological account of person restrictions in Icelandic quirky subject constructions. Anagnostopoulou (2003)develops a syntactic account based on movement for feature checking that unifies the person restrictions of ditransitive sentences in many languages with those in quirky constructions in Icelandic.
59
-
Rivero and Geber
(12) a. Ion ni le trimite.
John we.Dat they.Ace send
'John sends them to us.'
b. "Ion ni va trimi te. John we.Dat you .Acc sends
'John sends you to us.'
Examples (1Ia) and (12a) which combine a dative clitic with a 3rd
person accusative clitic comply with the PCC and are grammatical.
However, (l Ib) and (12b) which combine a dative clitic with a 2n d
person accusative clitic, are deviant as predicted by the PCC.
Rivero (2003b) proposes that the PCC serves as a preliminary tool
to distinguish between quirky constructions in Spanish. Here we
extend this idea to the Rumanian constructions with and without
person restrictions presented in section 2. In both languages, the two
types of quirky constructions contain nominative logical objects
triggering verbal agreement and an obligatory dative clitic doubling the
dative logical subject, but nevertheless they differ in one respect. The
constructions with person restrictions in (4-7) combine a dative clitic
with a reflexive clitic, while those without person restrictions in (2)
and (3) contain only a dative clitic, We propose that this difference in
clitic composition is at the core of the contrast in person effects.
The PCC tells us that an accusative clitic must be 3rd in the
presence of a dative clitic. Adopting two standard assumptions about
Romance reflexive clitics, such a condition can correctly rule out the
ungrammatical constructions in (4b), (5b), (6b-c) and (7b-c). The first
assumption is that reflexive clitics in these and several other
constructions are accusative. Recall that in GB (Chomsky 1981 and
references) a familiar view was for Romance reflexives to be case
'absorbers' that triggered NP-movement of nominative objects, as in
passive se in Spanish La casa se construvo, "The house was built.' In
view of Chomsky's recent work, a current minimalist implementation
of this idea could be that in our constructions se signals that little v
cannot value structural case on the logical object, which is valued
nominative via Agree with the finite inflection. The second is that
60
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
Spanish and Rumanian reflexives are person forms, or carry a person
specification, which seems uncontroversial on morphological grounds
for 1sI and 2nd person forms. Given these assumptions, the PCC rules
out quirky constructions that combine a dative clitic and a 2nd or 1st
person accusative reflexive clitic in (4), (5), (6) and (7). By contrast, the
quirky patterns in (2) and (3) contain a dative clitic and no accusative
c1itic, so are free of person restrictions because the PCC does not apply
to them.
Recall tha t the core idea in recent accounts of person restrictions
in Icelandic is that the dative somehow interferes with finite inflection.
In our view, the crucial aspect for person restrictions in the Romance
quirky constructions in (4), (5), (6) and (7) is the interaction between the
dative clitic and the accusative clitic, not the relation between dative
and finite inflection or nominative phrases. Let us motivate this
proposal.
Rivero (2003b) notes that dative clitics are always obligatory in
quirky constructions in Spanish, which, we add, is also the case in
Rumanian, but if the dative - nominative relation is not mediated by a
reflexive clitic, no person restrictions arise, as with gustar/a placea 'like' in (2) and (3). Rivero develops another argument based on Spanish
'unagreement' phenomena to support the view that person restrictions
involve the interaction of the two clitics. However, this second
argument is not relevant to Rumanian, which lacks 'unagreement'
phenomena, so we develop a third argument that applies to the two
languages.
Person restrictions are present in non-finite quirky constructions
that combine dative clitics with accusative (reflexive) clitics, but not in
those that contain only dative clitics. To this effect consider the
sentences in (13-14). They contain adjunct quirky constructions with
the verb in the gerund, a nominative logical object and a dative logical
subject doubled by a dative clitic. Spanish and Rumanian gerunds are
not inflected for person, number, or tense, so in (13) and (14) the
nominative logical object does not trigger verbal agreement. However,
such gerunds carry pronominal clitics, and when a quirky dative clitic
combines with an accusative reflexive as in (13b-14b), gerundive
clauses display person restrictions on the nominative. By contrast,
61
-
Rivero and Ceber
when the gerund carries just a quirky dative clitic, there are no person
restrictions, as (13a) and (14a) illustrate.
(13) a. Custando-rle nosotros a Ana, hubo problemas. Spa
Like.Cer-Dat.Cl we.Nom Ann.Dat, was problems
I Ann liking us, there were problems.'
b. "Olvidando-mos le nosotros a Ana, hubo problemas.
Porget.Ger-Refl.l Pl-Dat.Cl we.Nom Ann.Dat, was problems
'*Ann forgetting us, there were problems.'
(14) a. Pl_candu-i noi Anei, apar probleme. Rum
Like.Ger-Dat.CI we.Nom Ann.Dat, were problems
I Ann liking us, there were problems.'
b. "Anei pierzandu-i-ne noi, apar probleme.
Ann.Oat lose.Ger-Dat.CI-Ref1.1PI we.Nom, were problems.
"Ann losing us, there were problems.'
In other words, finite and nonfinite clauses display similar person
restrictions in Romance, even though non finite clauses are not
inflected for person. Our conclusion then is that the two clitics in (13b)
and (14b) are behind person restrictions in these constructions. The
dative cannot establish a relation with person in inflection, since
person is absent in the gerund.
In sum, person restrictions in Romance involve the interaction
of two clitics, so the PCC can capture the contrast between the two types
of quirky constructions in Spanish and Rumanian: the ones with
person restrictions in (4), (5), (6), (7) and the ones without person
restrictions in (2), (3).
3. Bulgarian quirky constructions in contrast with Romance
In this section, we show that the pec can also capture a contrast in person effects between Spanish and Rumanian on the one hand, and
Bulgarian on the other. Like Spanish and Rumanian, Bulgarian exhibits PCC effects in
ditransitive sentences, as illustrated in example (15) to be compared
with (16), and with (11) and (12) above.
62
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
(15) *Az im te preporchvam. Bul 1 they.Dat you.Acc recommend
'1 am recommending you to them.'
(16) *Eu li va recomand. R li 171
they.Dat you .pl. Ace recommend
'*1 am recommending you to them.'
Bulgarian also exhibits guirky subject constructions that
resemble the two Romance types illustrated in section 2, but aIl quirky
constructions in Bulgarian are free of person restrictions. We propose
that the PCC can also capture this contrast between Romance and
Slavic, further motivating the proposaI in section 3.
On the one hand, xaresiia 'Iike is rather similar to Spanish
gustar 'like' in (2) and Romanian a placea 'Iike' in (3). We see in (17a-c)
that this verb takes a dative subject obIigatorily doubled by a dative
clitic (ln li) in colloguial Bulgarian (in literary style the clitic can be
absent), and a nominative object triggering agreement on the verb in a
construction always free of person restrictions. A difference with
Romance is that x arestia can cooccur with an optional literary
sounding reflexive clitic (se), without effect on the person of the
nominative:
(17) a. Na Ivan mu (se) xaresvat tezi momicheta. B li 1
Ivan.DAI Dat.CL (Refl) like.3PL these girls.NOM 'Ivan likes thse girls.'
b. Na Ivan n1U (se) xaresvarne nie.
Ivan.DAT Oat.CL (Refl) like.lPL
we.NOM
'Ivan likes us.'
c. Na Ivan mu (se) xaresvate vie.
Ivan.DAT Oat.CL (Refl) like.2PL
you.PL.NOM
'Ivan likes yon.'
63
http:you.PL.NOM
-
Rivero and Geber
On the other hand, some Bulgarian quirky patterns with the
same syntax as the Romance constructions with restrictions in (4-7)
also exist. Consider privizhda (se) 'imagine, have a vision of' in (18);
its dative logical subject is obligatorily doubled by a clitic (m 11), the
accusative reflexive (se) is also obligatory, and the nominative triggers
verbal agreement. In contrast with Spanish and Rumanian, however,
the nomina tive can also be 2nd , or 1st person, so no person restriction
occurs, as shown in (18b-c).
(18) a. Na Ivan mu se privizhdat tezi momicheta.
Ivan.DAT Dat.CL Refl imagine.3PL
these girls
'Ivan has a vision of these girls.'
b. Na Ivan mu se privizhdame nie.
Ivan.DAT Dat.CL Refl imagine.1PL
we.NOM
'Ivan has a vision of us.'
c. Na Ivan mu se privizhdate vie.
Ivan.DAT Dat.CL Refl imagine.2PL
you.PL.NOM
'Ivan has a vision of you.'
Romance (Spanish/Rumanian) and Bulgarian reflexive clitics
differ in person status, because reflexive clitics in Bulgarian are
nonperson forms. One aspect that supports this idea is that Bulgarian
reflexive clitics are invariable and serve for all persons, as (17) and (18)
illustrate. On this view, the contrast in person effects in the quirky
constructions of the two Romance languages and the Slavic language
can be captured by the PCC. If Bulgarian reflexive clitics are nonperson
forms, they do not violate the pce when they combine with dative clitics in the quirky constructions in (17) and (18), so no person
restrictions arise. In sum, the pec can also serve as preliminary tool to successfully capture the difference in person effects between
Spanish/Rumanian and Bulgarian quirky constructions with similar
syntax.
64
-
Quirky Subjects and Person Restrictions in Romance
Conclusion
Icelandic person restrictions are not unique, since they have
equivalents in both Spanish and Rumanian. Romance quirky
constructions with person restrictions are characterized by the
combination of a dative clitic with a reflexive clitic. We have proposed
that the PCC captures why Romance quirky constructions with
reflexives are subject to person restrictions and those without
reflexives do not display person restrictions, arguing that there is no
direct interaction between dative logical subjects and finite inflection or
nominative logical objects, with the crucial aspect being the interaction
of dative and accusative clitics. We also noted a difference in person
effects between Spanish and Rumanian on the one hand, and
Bulgarian on the other. We proposed that the difference between
Romance and Slavic can be captured by the PCC under the hypothesis
that reflexive clitics in the two Romance languages and in Bulgarian
differ in morphoJogical specification. The contrast between Spanish
and Rumanian, on the one hand. and Bulgarian, on the other hand,
suggests that person restrictions in Romance depend on the
morphological feature content of the reflexive clitic, namely [person].
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitiues: evidence
[rom clitics. Berlin.Mouton De Gruyter.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky Agreement. Studia Linguisiica 54: 354-380.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morph010gy after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in
R0111al1ce Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Benet. Eulalia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A Morphological
Approach. In The Morphology-SYl1tax Connection, ed. H. Harley and C. Phillips. 33-52. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures 011 Gouernmeni and Binding. Foris,
Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.
Cuervo, Marfa Cristina. 1999. Quirky but not eccentric: Dative 5ubjects
in Spanish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34: 213-227.
65
-
Rivero and Geber
Durnitrescu, Domni_a and Pascual Masullo. 1996. Romanian and the
Non-Nominative Subject Parameter" In Aspects of Romance
Linguistics, ed. by C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli, and M.L.
Zubizarreta, 213-226. Georgetown University Press, Washington.
Fernandez Soriano, Olga. 1999. Datives in Constructions with
Unaccusative SE. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 89-105.
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. Incorporation and Case Theory i11 Spanish. A
crosslinguist ic perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Masullo, Pascual. 1993. Two types of Quirky Subjects: Spanish versus
Icelandic. NELS 23: 303-317.
Ormazabal, [avier and Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of
the me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint. ASjU XXXII.2: 415-434.
Orrnazabal, Iavier and Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement Restrictions.
Ms., University of the Basque Country and University of Alcala.
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2003a. Reflexive clitic constructions with datives:
syntax and semantics. Formal Approaches to Slauic Linguistics
(FASL) 11. The AmherstMeeting 2002: 469-494. Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Rivero, M. L. 2003b. Spanish Quirky Subjects, Person Restrictions, and
the PCC. Squib to appear in Linguistic Inquiry 35.2 (Spring 2004).
Rivero Maria Luisa and Milena M. Sheppard. 2003. Indefinite Reflexive
clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. NLLT 21: 89-155.
Sigurosson, Halld6r A. 2002a. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs.
Icelandic. NLLT 20: 691-724.
Sigurosson, Halld6r A. 2002b. Agree and Agreement. Evidence from
Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinauian Syntax 70: 101-156.
Maria-Luisa Rivero Dana Geber
e-mail : 111 riuero@aixl. uot falua .ca da nageber@/tot 111 aiI.C0111 University of Ottawa
66
mailto:[email protected]@hotmail.com
TitleAbstractIntroduction1. Two types of quirky subjects in Spanish and Rumanian2. The PCC and quirky restrictions in Romance 3. Bulgarian quirky constructions in contrast with RomanceConclusionReferences