Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T17:57:14.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clitics and the Completedness Parameter*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova and
Lars Hellan
Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova
Affiliation:
English Department, Sofia University, 15 Russki Blvd, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Lars Hellan
Affiliation:
Linguistics Department, University of Trondheim, N-7055 Dragvoll, Norway.
Get access

Abstract

This paper analyses phenomena of argument reduction with dative and reflexive clitics, as well as clitic doubling, in Bulgarian, arguing that both types of phenomena reflect values of what we call the Completedness Parameter, a cross-linguistically attested parameter involving a combination of diathesis and aspectual properties. For the representation of values relevant to this parameter, we introduce the construct of a (propositional) GESTALT, understood as follows: the gestalt of a sentence S is a conceptual model of the “situation-in-the-world” referred to by S, reflecting the perspective on this situation imposed by S, and aspectual and other properties induced by S.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , June 1991, pp. 1 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barwise, Jon, & Perry, John 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, , émile, 1966. Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bresnan, , Joan, (ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Representations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collinder, , Björn, 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Comrie, , Bernard, 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, , David, , Wall, , Robert, & Peters, , Stanley, 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fretheim, , Thorstein, & Halvorsen, P.-K. 1975. ‘Norwegian Cliticization’. In Dahlstedt, , Karl, H. (ed.), The Nordic Languagues and Modern Linguistics 2. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. pp. 446–465.Google Scholar
Hellan, , Lars, 1988a. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, , Lars, 1988b. The Phrasal Nature of Double Object Clusters. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 42.Google Scholar
Hellan, , Lars, & Dimitrova-Vulchanova, , Mila, (forthcoming): Propositional Gestalts and Grammar.Google Scholar
Holmberg, , Anders, 1990. Clitics in the Scandinavian Languages. Paper read at the workshop “Clitics and their Hosts”, Univ. of Geneva.Google Scholar
Hopper, , Paul, & Thompson, , Sandra, 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56.2, 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, , Ray, 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, , Ray, 1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory. Lingustic inquiry 18.3, 369–411.Google Scholar
Jespersen, , Otto, 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnsen, , Lars, 1991. Doctoral dissertation, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Konstantinov, , Julian, & Kovaçeva, , Mira, 1988. A Model of Early Phylogenetic Cognitive and Linguistic Development. To appear in University of Sofia English Papers, vol. IV, Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’.Google Scholar
Lakoff, , George, 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous-Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, , Robert, 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meŝĉaninov, I. I. 1963. Sruktura predloženija. Moskva/Leningrad: Izd-vo Nauk.Google Scholar
Rudin, , Catherine, 1988. On Multiple Questions and Multiple WH Fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.4, 445–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenker, A. 1988. Slavic Reflexive and Indo-European Middle: Typological Study. In Schenker, A. (ed), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1988, Slavica, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Shieber, , Stuart, M. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 4, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
Valin, , Robert, van 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66.2, 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, , Henk, 1989. Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12.1, 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, , Max, 1923. Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. In Ellis, , Willis, D. (ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1938, 71–88.Google Scholar