0. Introduction Romance clitics, and more precisely, clitic pronouns, have been a topic in generative linguistics since the seventies. For linguists like Perlmutter (1971) and Kayne (1975), their most striking property was their linear order, which is different from the order of the phrases that realize the same grammatical functions. The direct object, e.g., follows the verb when it is noun phrase, but precedes it when it is a clitic pronoun. Given the basic assumption of the generative theory of that period, accounts were proposed in terms of derivations from canonical abstract representations of the sentences containing them. In more recent work, the focus has shifted from how clitics how can be derived to how they are to be represented. New proposals on the treatment of Romance clitics have been made in the framework of optimality theory (OT, Grimshaw 1997) and of feature and exponence theories, also known under the label of Distributed Morphology (Monachesi 1999, 2000, Everett 2000, Luís & Sadler 2001).
[1]
Paola Monachesi,et al.
Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex
,
2001
.
[2]
Paola Monachesi,et al.
A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization
,
1999
.
[3]
David M. Perlmutter.
Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax
,
1973
.
[4]
Ivan A. Sag,et al.
Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar
,
1996,
CL.
[5]
D. Everett.
Why There Are no Clitics
,
2000
.
[6]
M. Baltin,et al.
The Mental representation of grammatical relations
,
1985
.
[7]
J. Bresnan.
Lexical-Functional Syntax
,
2000
.
[8]
Lucien Foulet,et al.
Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français
,
1920
.
[9]
Tibor Kiss,et al.
Agreement and the Syntax-morphology Interface in Hpsg
,
1997
.
[10]
Jane Grimshaw,et al.
The Best Clitic: Constraint Conflict in Morphosyntax
,
1997
.