Antilogophoricity in Clitic Clusters

Full text

Antilogophoricity in Clitic Clusters
Isabelle Charnavel and Victoria E. Mateu
1. Clitic clusters: the puzzle
Some languages such as French and Spanish exhibit coreference restrictions in clitic clusters
under certain circumstances. Consider the sentences in (1) and (2): in (1), the direct object (DO) clitic
la in the embedded clause can refer to the subject of the matrix clause, Anna. However, when the DO
clitic is clustered with an indirect object (IO) clitic as in (2), coreference with Anna is impossible.
(1) a. Annei croit qu’ on va lai recommander au patron pour la promotion. [Fr]
Annai thinks that s.o. will her:ACC recommend to.the boss for the promotion
b. Anai cree que lai recomendarán al jefe para el ascenso. [Sp]
Annai thinks that her:ACC recommend:FUT:3PL to.the boss for the promotion
‘Annai thinks that they will recommend heri to the boss for the promotion.’
(2) a. Annei croit qu’ on va la*i/j luik recommander, [au patron]k, pour la promotion. [Fr]
Annai thinks that s.o. will her:ACC 3:DAT recommend to.the boss for the promotion
b. Anai cree que sek la*i/j recomendarán [al jefe]k para el ascenso. [Sp]
Annai thinks that 3:DAT her:ACC recommend:FUT:3PL to.the boss for the promotion
‘Annai thinks that they will recommend her*i/j to himk –[the boss]k– for the promotion.’
It has been claimed that this contrast derives from a binding constraint, the Clitic Binding
Restriction (CBR, Bhatt & Šimík, 2009). Based on new data collected with a systematically controlled
questionnaire, we will show that binding is not directly relevant, and instead demonstrate that this
phenomenon is due to antilogophoricity effects, which derive from perspective conflicts. Our analysis
ultimately aims to provide new insight into the understanding of the Person Case Constraint
(henceforth PCC, Bonet, 1991).
2. Background
2.1. A deeper look into the data
The asymmetry between the behavior of isolated clitics and clitic clusters observed in (1-2) is not
only found in French and Spanish, but also in Catalan, Czech, and Serbo-Croatian among others (see
Bhatt & Šimík, 2009), and it only emerges when the clustered DO clitic corefers with a clausemate
antecedent. Coreference is allowed when the DO clitic has no clausemate antecedent, as in (3); when it is
the IO clitic, not the DO clitic, that corefers with a clausemate antecedent, as in (4); when the DO clitic is
clustered with a locative clitic,1 as in (5); and when the IO is expressed with a dative strong pronoun,2 as
in (6) or a full DP as in (1).
* Isabelle Charnavel, Harvard University, icharnavel@fas.harvard.edu. Victoria E. Mateu, UCLA, victoriam@ucla.edu.
We are particularly grateful for discussion with Dominique Sportiche, and the audiences of the UCLA Syntax/Semantics
Seminar and WCCFL 32. We are also greatly indebted to all the participants who completed our linguistic survey.
Abbreviations are standard: ACC: accusative, DAT: dative, EXPL: expletive, FUT: future, LOC: locative, NOM: nominative, PST:
past, PL: plural, REFL: reflexive, s.o.: someone, SG: singular, SUBJ: subjunctive. Glosses are detailed on verbs only in the case
of null subjects. 3 (third person) is used for pronouns that are not specified for gender, and her/him for those that are.
1 Spanish does not have a locative clitic.
2 In Spanish clitic doubling of dative pronouns is obligatory (Anagnostopoulou, 2002, inter alia).
© 2015 Isabelle Charnavel and Victoria E. Mateu. Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, ed. Ulrike Steindl et al., 1-10. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

(3) a. Voici Annei. On va lai luik recommander, [au patron]k, pour la promotion. [Fr]
Here.is Annai S.o. will her:ACC 3:DAT recommend to.the boss for the promotion
b. (Aquí está Anai). Sek lai recomendarán [al jefe]k para el ascenso. [Sp]
(Here is Annai) 3:DAT her:ACC recommend:FUT:3PL to.the boss for the promotion
‘Here’s Annai. They will recommend heri to himk –[the boss]k– for the promotion.’
(4) a. [La nouvelle stagiaire]i vient d’ arriver et [le directeur]k a demandé qu’on [Fr]
The new intern comes of arrive and the director has asked that s.o.
lai luik présente.
her:ACC 3:DAT introduce
b. [La nueva interna]i acaba de llegar y [el director]k ha pedido que sek lai [Sp]
The new intern finish of arrive and the director has asked that 3:DAT her:ACC
presenten.
introduce:SUBJ:3PL
‘[The new intern]i has just arrived and [the director]k has asked that they introduce heri to himk’
(5) Annei craint qu’ on ne li’ y emmène. [Fr]
Anna fears that s.o. EXPL her:ACC LOC takes
‘Annai is afraid that they will take heri there.’
(6) Annei croit qu’ on ne lai présentera qu’ à lui. [Fr]
Anna thinks that s.o. NE her:ACC introduce QUE to 3:DAT
‘Annai thinks that they will introduce heri only to HIM.’
2.2. Previous account
First observed by Roca (1992), the phenomenon described above has received very little attention
in the literature. The only attempt –to our knowledge– to account for this constraint is that of Bhatt and
Šimík’s (2009), who crucially attribute it to a binding restriction, as defined in (7).
(7) Clitic Binding Restriction (CBR)
When a [3 person] indirect object (IO) clitic and a direct object (DO) clitic co-occur in a cluster,
the DO clitic cannot be bound.
Bhatt and Šimík derive this constraint from the Person Case Constraint (see Adger & Harbour, 2003;
Anagnostopoulou, 2003, 2005; Béjar & Rezac, 2003; Bianchi, 2003; Bonet, 1991; Ormazabal &
Romero 2002, inter alia), defined below and instantiated in (9) vs. (10).
(8) Person Case Constraint (PCC, Strong version)
In a combination of a weak direct object and an indirect object [clitic, agreement marker, or weak
pronoun], the direct object has to be a third person (Bonet, 1991:182).
(9) a. * Pierre me lui a recommandé. [Fr]
Peter me:ACC 3:DAT has recommended
b. * Pedro se me recomendó. [Sp]
Peter 3:DAT me:ACC recommended
‘Peter recommended me to him.’
(10) a. Pierre me l’ a recommandé. [Fr]
Peter 1:DAT him:ACC has recommended
b. Pedro me lo recomendó. [Sp]
Peter 1:DAT him:ACC recommended
‘Peter recommended him to me.’
2

The core idea behind Bhatt and Šimík’s proposal and many approaches to PCC is that 3rd person
pronouns come in two forms: a featurally more specified variant and a featurally underspecified
variant, and PCC requires the DO clitic to be featurally underspecified. Drawing on the idea that
variable binding involves feature transmission (see Kratzer, 2009), Bhatt and Šimík claim that 3rd
person pronouns acquire features as a result of variable binding. In sentences like (2), they thereby
trigger PCC effects because they must respect both the person hierarchy H: {1 > 3, 2 > 3, Bound 3 > 3}
and the argument structure hierarchy IO > DO (see Bhatt and Šimík’s (2009) for details). In sum,
binding of the DO clitic is crucially responsible for CBR effects.
3. Experimental study
3.1. Hypothesis
Given a deeper look into the examples that instantiate this clitic constraint in the literature, we
discover that there is a non-negligible confound, namely, they all involve psychverbs and verbs of
saying whose subjects have perspective over the sentential complement. We thus hypothesize that
binding by itself is not the relevant factor for this clitic cluster restriction, as proposed by Bhatt and
Šimík (2009), but rather, antilogophoricity constraints on the DO clitic antecedent.
A logophor designates one “whose speech, thoughts, feelings, or general state of consciousness
are reported” (Clements, 1975: 141). In particular, we hypothesize that the antecedent of the DO clitic
cannot be an attitude holder corresponding to Sells’s (1987) Source and Self. This does not come as a
surprise. The notions of logophoricity and “point of view” (POV) have been reported to be crucial for
other pronominal phenomena such as the licensing of African pronouns like Ewe yè (Clements, 1975,
inter alia), or the licensing of anaphoric expressions like Mandarin long-distance reflexive ziji (Huang
& Liu, 2001, inter alia), Icelandic reflexive sig (Maling, 1984, inter alia), or Japanese reflexive zibun
(Kuno, 1987, inter alia). To test our hypothesis against Bhatt and Šimík’s (2009), we constructed an
experiment disentangling the two crucial variables, viz., binding and logophoricity. As we will see, the
results of our experimental study show that logophoricity is the crucial factor.
3.2. Participants
A total of 97 adult French native speakers participated in the French version of this study. They
were all born and raised in France and were aged between 23 and 76 (M = 40.1). Additionally, 35 adult
Spanish native speakers participated in the Spanish version of this study. They were all born and raised
in Spain or Mexico, and were aged between 23 and 59 (M = 28.9).
3.3. Materials and method
Participants had to provide grammaticality judgments on a continuous scale online. They were
asked to click towards the right edge of the bar if the sentence sounded natural, or towards the left edge
of the bar of it did not sound natural. Subjects were also asked to pay close attention to the reference of
the pronouns, indicated in parentheses after the sentence. There were three training items involving
clitics, and six control items with full DPs as the IO. We employed a between-subjects design so that
no participant was presented with both the test item and the corresponding control sentence.
The task included 24 test items with clitic clusters which were constructed around three variables
(see Table 1): (i) whether the DO clitic had a c-commanding antecedent or a non-commanding
antecedent; (ii) whether the DO clitic antecedent was a logophoric center or a non-logophoric center;
and (iii) whether the IO clitic was a local 1st/2nd person or a non-local 3rd person. With respect to
variable (ii), we guaranteed that the antecedent was an attitude holder by using intensional predicates
(e.g. ‘think’, ‘believe’) or expressions (e.g. ‘according to’, ‘someone’s letter’).
3.4. Results and discussion
The results obtained from the French and Spanish grammaticality judgment tasks first confirm the
clitic cluster effect: participants gave lower scores in conditions 1 and 5 as compared to the control
3

sentences with a full DP IO. Paired-sample t-tests confirmed that this difference was statistically
significant for both French (p < 0.001) and Spanish (p < 0.001).
Table 1. Results of the grammaticality judgment task.
Condition
c-commanding
antecedent
logophoric center
as antecedent
IO person
Grammaticality
1
yes
yes
3
*
2
yes
yes
1/2
OK
3
yes
no
3
OK
4
yes
no
1/2
OK
5
no
yes
3
*
6
no
yes
1/2
OK
7
no
no
3
OK
8
no
no
1/2
OK
Furthermore, the results in conditions 3 and 5 crucially show that it is logophoricity, not binding, that
is relevant for this restriction on clitic clusters (contra Bhatt & Šimík, 2009). CBR effects arise when
the antecedent of the DO clitic is a logophoric center, even if it does not c-command the DO clitic
(condition 5), as we see in examples (11-12).
(11) a. * D'après [l' enfant]i, les maîtresses vont lei luik confier, à [ l' assistante]k. [Fr]
According.to the boy the teachers will him:ACC 3:DAT entrust to the assistant
b. * Según [el niño]i, las maestras sek loi encomendarán a [la asistenta]k. [Sp]
According.to the boy the teachers 3:DAT him:ACC will.entrust to the assistant
‘According to [the boy]i, the teachers will entrust himi to herk, –[the assistant]k.’
(12) a. * La lettre [du prisonnier]i explique qu'on lei luik a livré sans [Fr]
The letter of.the prisoner explains that.s.o. him:ACC 3:DAT has handed without
preuve, [au juge]k.
evidence to.the judge
b. * La carta [del prisionero]i explica que sek loi entregaron [al juez]k [Sp]
The letter of.the prisoner explains that 3:DAT him:ACC hand:PST:3PL to.the judge
sin pruebas.
without evidence
‘[The prisoner]i's letter explains that they handed himi over to himk –[the judge]k– without
evidence.’
Conversely, we do not observe CBR effects when the antecedent c-commands the DO clitic but is not a
logophoric center (condition 3), as we see in (13) where the antecedent is inanimate, or in (14), where
the antecedent is animate, but it is not an attitude holder.
(13) a. [Le paquet]i spécifie qu’ il faut lei luik remettre, [au concierge]k. [Fr]
The package indicates that it must it:ACC 3:DAT give to.the doorman
b. [El paquete]i especifica que sek loi entreguen [al portero]k. [Sp]
The package indicates that 3:DAT it:ACC give:SUBJ:3PL to.the doorman
‘[The package]i specifies that they should hand iti over to himk –[the doorman]k.’
(14) a. [Le criminel]i s’ est échappé avant qu’ on ne lei luik livre, [au directeur]k. [Fr]
The criminal REFL is escaped before that s.o. EXPL him:ACC 3:DAT hand to.the director
b. [El criminal]i huyó antes de que sek loi entregaran [al director]k. [Sp]
The criminal escaped before of that 3:DAT him:ACC hand:SUBJ:3PL to.the director
‘[The criminal]i escaped before they handed himi over to himk –[the director]k.’
4

Finally, we also do not observe CBR effects when the DO clitic antecedent is a logophoric center but
the IO clitic is a 1st or 2nd person pronoun (conditions 2 and 6) as shown in (15). These cases will be
discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.
(15) a. [La petite fille]i espère qu’ on va te lai confier. [Fr]
The little girl hopes that s.o. will 2:DAT her:ACC entrust
b. [La niña pequeña]i espera que tek lai entreguen [a ti]k [Sp]
The girl little hopes that 2:DAT her:ACC entrust:SUBJ:3PL to you
‘[The little girl]i hopes that that they will entrust heri to you.’
4. Proposal
By disentangling binding and logophoricity, our experimental study provides evidence in support
of the idea that DO clitics are antilogophoric when clustered with 3rd person IO clitics. In view of
these results, we propose to replace Bhatt and Šimík’s (2009) CBR with the following generalization:
(16) Clitic Logophoric Restriction (CLR)
When a 3rd person IO clitic and a DO clitic co-occur in a cluster, the DO clitic cannot corefer
with a logophoric center.
Further evidence in support of this hypothesis comes from parallel constructions with other
antilogophors, such as epithets, as well as the fact that CLR effects only emerge when the pronoun is read
de se. These are discussed in the two following sections. Subsequently, we will present our proposal.
4.1. Antilogophoricity effects
Antilogophoricity effects have also been observed for epithets (Dubinsky & Hamilton, 1998).
Thus, we can diagnose antilogophoricity effects and guarantee that the antecedent is indeed a
logophoric center by using a parallel structure containing an epithet. For instance, example (17), which
contains an epithet, is just as ungrammatical as its counterpart (11) (repeated below), which involves a
clitic cluster. On the other hand, (18) with an epithet is as acceptable as its counterpart with a clitic
cluster, (14) (repeated below). Crucially, the former cases, unlike the latter, involve coreference with a
logophoric center.
(17) a. * D’après [l’enfant]i, les maîtresses vont confier [le coquin]i à l’ assistante.
[Fr]
According.to the child the teachers will entrust the brat to the assistant
b. * Según [el niño]i, las maestras encomendarán [el mocoso]i a la asistenta. [Sp]
According.to the boy the teachers will.entrust the brat to the assistant
‘According to [the boy]i, the teachers will entrust [the brat]i to the assistant.’
(11) a. * D'après [l' enfant]i, les maîtresses vont lei luik confier, à [ l' assistante]k. [Fr]
According.to the boy the teachers will him:ACC 3:DAT entrust to the assistant
b. * Según [el niño]i, las maestras sek loi encomendarán a [la asistenta]k. [Sp]
According.to the boy the teachers 3:DAT him:ACC will.entrust to the assistant
‘According to [the boy]i, the teachers will entrust himi to herk, –[the assistant]k.’
(18) a. [Le criminel]i s’ est échappé avant qu’ on ne livre [le crétin]i. [Fr]
The criminal REFL is escaped before that s.o. EXPL hand the bastard
au directeur.
to.the director
b. [El criminal]i huyó antes de que entregaran [el cabrón]i al director. [Sp]
The criminal escaped before of that hand:SUBJ:3PL the bastard to.the director
‘[The criminal]i escaped before the guards handed over [the bastard]i to the director.’
5

(14) a. [Le criminel]i s’ est échappé avant qu’ on ne lei luik livre, [Fr]
The criminal REFL is escaped before that s.o. EXPL him:ACC 3:DAT hand
[au directeur]k.
to.the director
b. [El criminal]i huyó antes de que sek loi entregaran [al director]k. [Sp]
The criminal escaped before of that 3:DAT him:ACC hand:SUBJ:3PL to.the director
‘[The criminal]i escaped before they handed himi over to himk –[the director]k.’
4.2. De se reading
Another interesting fact about CLR effects is that they only arise if the DO clitic is read de se. If
we force a non-de se interpretation of the antecedent (à la Chierchia 1989), CLR effects disappear, as
exemplified in (19). This provides further evidence for antilogophoricity, since logophors are often
characterized as de se elements (Anand, 2006; Huang & Liu, 2001; Schlenker, 2003). This also means
that coreference between the DO clitic and an attitude holder is not sufficient for CLR effects to
emerge: more specifically, the DO clitic has to be construed as a de se element.
(19) An intern is participating in the assignment of all the interns for the summer. Instead of names,
the list has numbers. When asked where to assign intern #1234567, the intern, who does not
know it is her, suggests assigning that intern to Dr. Edmonds:
a. [L’ interne]i a suggéré qu’ on lai luik assigne, [au Dr. Edmonds]k. [Fr]
The intern has suggested that s.o. her:ACC 3:DAT assign to.the Dr. Edmonds
b. [La interna]i sugirió que sek lai asignaran [al Dr. Edmonds]k. [Sp]
The intern suggested that 3:DAT her:ACC assign:SUBJ3PL to.the Dr. Edmonds
‘[The intern]i suggested to assign heri to himk, –[Dr. Edmonds]k.’
4.3. Hypothesis: antilogophoricity effects derive from perspective conflicts
We propose that the antilogophoricity effects responsible for the CLR derive from conflicts of
perspectives. This phenomenon is found in Mandarin with respect to the logophoric long-distance anaphor
ziji: two instances of long-distance ziji in a single clause must corefer (Huang & Liu, 2001). In the case of
French and Spanish clitic clusters, we hypothesize that perspective conflicts arise in the presence of IO
clitics because dative clitics are inherently logophoric, i.e. they always encode a point of view.
The idea that IO clitics occupy a position encoding point of view is supported by several facts.
First, dative clitics, as opposed to IO full DPs and locative clitics, generally have to be animate, as
exemplified in (21b-c) vs. (20b-c) and (21b’), which is a necessary condition for being a logophor.3
This parallels the fact that inanimate indirect objects cannot participate in double object constructions
(DOC) in English (Baker, 1996; Stowell, 1981) as in (21a) vs. (20a). Drawing on Anagnostopoulou
(2003), we thus hypothesize that only clitic constructions (vs. ditransitive constructions with full DPs)
qualify as DOC in Romance languages, in the sense of including an applicative head (vAppl; Marantz
1993). That is why IO clitics have to be animate in French and Spanish while IO full DPs do not.
(20) a. John sent a letter to Mary. / John sent a letter to Barcelona.
b. Jean a envoyé une lettre à Marie / à Barcelone. [Fr]
John has sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona
c. Juan envió una carta a María / a Barcelona. [Sp]
John sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona
‘John sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona.’
3 In Spanish the restriction on datives is not so much in animacy but in the possibility of ‘receiving’ and/or
‘possessing’ the object, which typically coincides with [+animate] entities (see Demonte, 1995).
6

(21) a. John sent Mary a letter. / *John sent Barcelona a letter.
b. Jean lui a envoyé une lettre, à Marie. / *à Barcelone. [Fr]
John 3:DAT has sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona
b’. Jean y a envoyé une lettre, % à Marie. / à Barcelone. [Fr]
John LOC has sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona
c. Juan le envió una carta a María / *a Barcelona. [Sp]
John 3:DAT sent a letter to Mary / to Barcelona
‘John sent her –Mary– a letter’ / ‘John sent it –Barcelona– a letter.’
Similarly, possessor raising is impossible with inanimates in French and Spanish (Baker, 1988; Blake
1990; inter alia) as shown in (22).
(22) a. Je lui ai marché sur le pied / *la branche. [Fr]
I 3:DAT have stepped on the foot / the branch
b. Le pisé el pie / *la rama. [Sp]
3:DAT step:PST:1SG the foot / the branch
‘I stepped on his/her foot / *its branch.’
Furthermore, certain verbs require dative case marking on the semantic subject (e.g. quirky subjects),
such as French sembler ‘seem’ (23a), or Spanish gustar ‘please’ (23b) (see Anagnostopoulou, 2003;
Boeckx, 2000). In these cases, the IO clitic is an experiencer, which is a type of logophoric center.
(23) a. Jeank luij semble tj [tk avoir du talent]. [Fr]
John 3:DAT seems have of.the talent
‘Johnk seems to himj/herj to have talent.’
b. [A Maria]k lej gusta él. [Sp]
To Mary 3:DAT likes he:NOM
‘Maríak likes himj.’
Based on these observations, it seems reasonable to suppose that IO clitics in French and Spanish
must be inherently logophoric. Note that PCC analyses based on feature checking make similar
assumptions in specifying dative clitics for person (e.g. Adger & Harbour’s (2003) [± participant] and
[± empathy] features; Anagnostopoulou’s (2003, 2005) [± person/participant] feature; Boeckx’s (2000)
[± person] feature; Reinhart’s (2000) [± mental state] feature, inter alia) as opposed to accusative 3rd
person clitics that are assumed to lack a [person/participant] feature altogether (Anagnostopoulou,
2003; Adger & Harbour, 2003). This is outlined in (24).
(24) 1st person: [+person/+participant]
2nd person: [+person/+participant]
3rd person IO: [–person/–participant]
3rd person DO: -------
Perspective conflicts then arise, we claim, because only one logophoric center can occur in a
particular domain (cf. Koopman & Sportiche, 1989; Huang & Liu, 2001; Sundaresan, 2012). In French
and Spanish, the domain we consider as relevant is the one represented in (25); it excludes the subject,
since a logophoric DO clitic clustered with a subject clitic does not trigger CLR as shown in (26).
(25) a. French (see Sportiche’s French clitic template (1996: 5))
NOM [ 1/2.DAT/REFL 3.ACC 3.DAT ]
Il/elle/je me/te/se le/la lui
b. Spanish:
NOM [ 1/2.DAT/REFL 3.DAT 3.ACC ]
Él/ella/yo me/te/se se/le lo/la
7

(26) a. Pierrei dit qu’ ili luik a présenté son fils, à [la Reine]k. [Fr]
Peter says that he:NOM 3:DAT has introduced his son to the Queen.
b. Pedroi dice que éli lek presentó su hijo a [la Reina]k. [Sp]
Peter says that he:NOM 3:DAT introduced his son to the Queen.
‘Peteri says that hei introduced his son to herk –[the Queen]k.’
4.4. Link to the PCC
We hypothesize that just like CLR, PCC effects are also due to perspective conflicts, that is, they
derive from a ban on several conflicting centers of perspective in the same domain. Strikingly, if we
transpose sentence (2), repeated below, into direct discourse (see Kuno, 1987), PCC applies:
(2) a. Annei croit qu’ on va la*i/j luik recommander, [au patron]k, pour la promotion. [Fr]
Annai thinks that s.o. will her:ACC 3:DAT recommend to.the boss for the promotion
b. Anai cree que sek la*i/j recomendarán [al jefe]k para el ascenso. [Sp]
Annai thinks that 3:DAT her:ACC recommend:FUT:3PL to.the boss for the promotion
‘Annai thinks that they will recommend her*i/j to himk –[the boss]k– for the promotion.’
(27) a. Anne pense: “ *on va me lui recommander […]”.
Anna thinks: s.o. will me:ACC 3:DAT recommend
b. Ana piensa: “ *se me recomendarán […]”.
Anna thinks: 3:DAT me:ACC recommend:FUT:3PL
‘Anna thinks: “they will recommend me to him.”’
In (27) a perspective conflict arises between the inherently logophoric dative lui/se and the speaker me,
a discourse participant, which is also inherently a perspective center. Further evidence for this
hypothesis comes from the fact that PCC can be overridden when the 1st person is not read de se. This
is possible in the case of dream reports, such as the one in example (28).
(28) a. ? Ji’ai rêvé que j’ étais Marilyn Monroem, que j’étais chez Kennedyk et que [Fr]
I have dreamed that I was Marilyn Monroe that I was house Kennedy and that
jem mei luik présentais.
I me:ACC 3:DAT introduced
b. ? Yoi soñé que era Marilyn Monroem, que estaba en casa de [Sp]
I dreamed that be:PST:1SG Marilyn Monroe that be:PST:1SG in house of
Kennedyk y que sek mei presentaba.
Kennedy and that 3:DAT me:ACC introduce:PST:1SG
‘Ii dreamed that I was M. Monroem, that I was at Kennedyk’s house and that Im introduced
mei to himk.’
4.5. Analysis
So far, our generalization is that two perspective centers cannot co-occur in the domain
represented in (25). However, recall that 1st/2d IO clitics, while creating PCC effects as seen in the
previous section, do not trigger CLR effects, as was illustrated in (15). Since 1st and 2nd person
pronouns are by definition discourse participants, and thus perspective centers, we must infer that not
all combinations of logophoric centers create perspective conflicts. To account for this, we assume the
classification of perspective centers in (29) (cf. Charnavel, 2014).
(29) a. Discourse participant: The speaker and hearer of the actual discourse, i.e. 1/2 person clitics.
b. Empathy locus: The event participant with whom the speaker empathizes or identifies (see
Kuno, 1987; Oshima, 2007), e.g. 3rd person IO clitics.
c. Attitude holder: The event participant whose discourse or thoughts are being reported, e.g.
3rd person DO clitics read de se.
8

We moreover hypothesize the following hierarchy of logophoric centers based on the degree of
perspective integration in the discourse: discourse participant > empathy locus > attitude holder.
Discourse participants and empathy loci both involve the speaker (directly or by identification) while
empathy loci and attitude holders both involve a perspective center different from the speaker.
Antilogophoricity effects emerge, we propose, when two identical or adjacent logophoric centers
on this hierarchy co-occur in the domain represented in (25). Specifically, CLR effects arise when an
empathy locus (3rd person IO clitic) and an attitude holder (3rd person DO clitic read de se) appear in
the same domain and PCC effects emerge when a discourse participant (1/2 person clitics) and an
empathy locus (3rd person IO clitic) co-occur. Table 2 summarizes the various possibilities of clitic
combinations correctly predicted by our analysis.
Table 2. Grammaticality of clitic combinations in French and Spanish
Predictions
Grammaticality
Violation
Logophoric centers in the domain
French
Spanish
* discourse participant + empathy locus
*me/te lui
*se me/te
PCC
* attitude holder (read de se) + empathy locus
*le lui
*se lo
CLR
discourse participant + attitude holder (read de se)
me/te le
me/te lo
4.6. Implementation
It has been proposed that logophors are bound by logophoric operators (e.g. Anand, 2006;
Koopman & Sportiche, 1989; Sundaresan, 2012). These are similar to silent pronouns that corefer with
the antecedent and bind logophoric elements, thereby assigning a de se reading. According to these
proponents, there can be at most one logophoric operator in the relevant domain, which will check the
interpretable feature of the closest logophoric element. Consequently, given more than one relevant
logophor in the domain, the derivation will not converge. Based on this, we hypothesize that the
antilogophoricity effects are due to intervention effects because of Closest Attract/Agree. We must
thus assume that discourse participants and empathy loci share a particular feature, say B, and empathy
loci and attitude holders share a different one, say C, since the combination of a discourse participant
and an attitude holder is possible as in (15). This is illustrated in (30) (see more details in Charnavel &
Mateu, to appear). The configurations yielding restrictions on clitic clusters are represented in (31).
(30) a. Discourse participant: [A, B] i.e. 1/2
b. Empathy locus: [B, C] i.e. 3.DAT
c. Attitude holder: [C] i.e. 3.ACC read de se
(31) a. * OPLOG[A,B,C] [laC lui[B, C] ] (CLR)
b. * OPLOG [A,B,C] [me[A,B] lui[B,C] ] (PCC)
c. OPLOG [A,B,C] [me[A,B] laC ]
5. Conclusion
We have provided empirical evidence that the clitic cluster constraint found in languages like
French and Spanish is in fact due to antilogophoricity effects, and not binding restrictions. According
to the Clitic Logophoric Restriction (CLR), when a DO clitic anteceded by a logophoric element is
clustered with an IO clitic, a conflict of perspectives arises –because dative clitics are inherently
logophoric. Specifically, we hypothesize that no two identical or adjacent logophors in the hierarchy
discourse participant > empathy locus > attitude holder may co-occur in a single domain, thus
correctly predicting the impossibility of the combination 3.DAT + 3.ACC (read de se), but the
grammaticality of 1/2.DAT + 3.ACC (read de se). This can be analyzed as intervention effects due to the
sharing of features between logophors adjacent on the hierarchy that have to be checked by the same
logophoric operator. These observations provide new insight into the Person Case Constraint, which
9

we hypothesize also derives from perspective conflicts, that is, a 3rd person IO clitic (i.e. an empathy
locus) cannot co-occur with a 1/2 DO clitic (i.e. a discourse participant).
References
Adger, David, & Daniel Harbour. 2003. The Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Ms. Queen Mary,
University of London and MIT.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2002. Case 17. Clitic Doubling. SYNCOM project.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from Clitics. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and Weak Person Restrictions. In Clitic and affix combinations - Theoretical
perspectives, ed. Lorie Heggie & Francisco Ordóñez, 199–235. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge MA.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Béjar Susana, & Milan Rezac, 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics, ed. A.
T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On the syntax of personal arguments. Paper presented at the XXIX Incontro di Grammatica
Generativa, Urbino.
Bhatt, Rajesh, & Radek Šimík. 2009. Variable Binding and The Person-Case Constraint. 25th Annual Meeting of the
Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL 25). Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational Grammar. London. Routledge.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54. 354–380.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Pronominal clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2014. Exempt anaphors and logophoricity in French. Ms. Harvard University.
Charnavel, Isabelle & Victoria E. Mateu. To appear. The Clitic Binding Restriction Revisited: Evidence for
Antilogophoricity. The Linguistic Review.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Semantics and contextual expressions, ed. Renate Bartsch,
Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas, 1–31. Dordrecht, Foris.
Clements, George N. 1975. The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe. Its Role in Discourse. Journal of West African Languages
10. 141–177.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7.1. 5-30.
Dubinsky, Stanley W. & Robert Hamilton. 1998. Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4). 685-693.
Huang, C.-T. James, & Cheng-Sheng Luther Liu. 2001. Logophoricity, Attitudes and ziji at the Interface. In Long
Distance Reflexives, Syntax and Semantics 33. ed. Peter Cole et al., 141-195. Academic Press, New York, 2001.
Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1989. Pronouns, Logical Variables and Logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic
Inquiry 20. 555-589.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun. Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic
Inquiry 40. 187–237.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax. Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-Clause Bounded Reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 211–41.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu
grammar, ed. Sam Mchombo, 113-150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement restrictions. Ms., University of the Basque Country and University
of Alcalá.
Oshima, David Y. 2007. On Empathic and Logophoric Binding. Research on Language and Computation 5(1). 19-35.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The theta system. Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. Utrecht. UiL OTS Working Papers.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6. 156–182.
Roca, Francesc. 1992. On the licensing of pronominal clitics. The properties of object clitics in Spanish and Catalan.
Master’s thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. Indexicality, Logophoricity, and Plural Pronouns. In Jacqueline Lecarme (ed), Research on
Afroasiatic grammar, 409-428. Amsterdam. J. Benjamins.
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 445–79.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic Constructions. Phrase structure and the lexicon.
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge MA.
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart, Tromsø.
10

Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics
edited by Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer,
Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter
Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara,
and Iris Chuoying Ouyang
Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville, MA 2015
Copyright information
Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics
© 2015 Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. All rights reserved
ISBN 978-1-57473-466-9 library binding
A copyright notice for each paper is located at the bottom of the first page of the paper.
Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Ordering information
Orders for the library binding edition are handled by Cascadilla Press.
To place an order, go to www.lingref.com or contact:
Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA
phone: 1-617-776-2370, fax: 1-617-776-2271, sales@cascadilla.com
Web access and citation information
This entire proceedings can also be viewed on the web at www.lingref.com. Each paper has a unique document #
which can be added to citations to facilitate access. The document # should not replace the full citation.
This paper can be cited as:
Charnavel, Isabelle and Victoria E. Mateu. 2015. Antilogophoricity in Clitic Clusters. In Proceedings of the 32nd
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Ulrike Steindl et al., 1-10. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #3151.