Clause union inside-out: reflexives and medio-passives in French causatives - HPSG 2021 Gabriel Aguila-Multner and Berthold Crysmann

Clause union inside-out: reflexives and medio-passives in
 French causatives

 Gabriel Aguila-Multner and Berthold Crysmann

 Laboratoire de linguistique formelle — CNRS & U Paris

 HPSG 2021

 1

General properties
French causative constructions:
 ▶ involve faire “make”
 (1) Le chat le fait tomber.
 ‘The cat makes it fall.’
 ▶ laisser “let” as well as perception verbs like voir “see”, entendre “hear” have
 similar properties
 ▶ A number of properties set them apart from standard infinitival
 complementation constructions, most evidently:
 ▶ unusual placement and marking of the subject of the infinitive

 (2) La panthère fait traverser la route à ses petits.
 ‘The leopard make the cubs cross the road.’
 ▶ “clitic climbing” is possible

 (3) La panthère la leur fait traverser.
 ‘The leopard makes them cross it.”

 2

Clause union
 ▶ French causative constructions have been argued to involve clause union
 like other Romance complex predicates (Aissen & Perlmutter, 1976; Alsina,
 1992; Abeillé et al., 1997): they involve a single complex argument
 structure
→ Clitic climbing is one piece of evidence: faire hosts non-local pronominal
 arguments
 (4) La panthère la leur fait traverser.
 ‘The leopard makes them cross it.’

→ Two valence-affecting phenomena involving se operate across the entire
 argument structure
 (5) Le maire se fera élire frauduleusement.
 ‘The mayor will get (himself) fraudulently elected.’ (reflexivisation)
 (6) Les voitures se font réparer pour pas cher de nos jours.
 ‘Cars get repaired for very little these days.’ (medio-passive se)

 3

Standard HPSG analysis: argument composition

 ▶ In surface-oriented frameworks like HPSG or LFG, clause union was
 implemented using argument composition (Abeillé et al., 1998; Abeillé &
 Godard, 2002; Miller & Sag, 1997; Alsina, 1992)
 ▶ Argument composition unifies the argument structure of the complex
 predicate at the level of faire

 faire-arg-comp-aux
 [ ]
 aRg-st ⟨NP, V[aRg-st 1 ]⟩⊕ 1

 ▶ Is this the right locus for clause union?
 ▶ We consider and argue for the alternative: clause union at the level of the
 infinitive

 4

Double structure (Abeillé et al., 1997)
 ▶ Two types of causatives: control faire vs. non-control faire
 ▶ Syntactic differences
 ▶ control faire:
 ▶ Controller of downstairs subject invariably realised as a direct object
 pronominal affix

 (7) Je l’ ai fait manger des épinards.
 I do.3sg have made eat indef.pl spinach
 ‘I made him eat spinach.’
 ▶ no clitic climbing
 ▶ non-control faire:
 ▶ realisation of downstairs subject varies according to downstairs transitivity

 (8) Je lui ai fait manger des épinards.
 I io.3sg have made eat indef.pl spinach
 ‘I made him eat spinach.’
 ▶ clitic climbing (subject to further constraints)

 5

Double structure (Abeillé et al., 1997)
 ▶ Two types of causatives: control faire vs. non-control faire
 ▶ Syntactic differences
 ▶ control faire:
 ▶ Controller of downstairs subject invariably realised as a direct object
 pronominal affix
 ▶ no clitic climbing

 (9) Je l’ ai fait en manger.
 I do.3sg have made do.indef eat
 ‘I have made him eat some.’
 ▶ non-control faire:
 ▶ realisation of downstairs subject varies according to downstairs transitivity
 ▶ clitic climbing (subject to further constraints)

 (10) Je lui en ai fait manger
 I io.3sg do.indef have made eat
 ‘I have made him eat some.’

 5

Downstairs subject status
 ▶ The subject of the infinitive is postverbal
 (11) Le chat fait tomber le vase.
 ▶ Its marking depends on a property of the infinitive (its transitivity)
 (12) La panthère fait traverser la route à ses petits.
 ▶ Permutation with other dependents of the infinitive is licit
 (13) La panthère fait traverser à ses petits la route qui les séparait du
 point d’eau.
 ‘The leopard make the cubs cross the road that separates them from the
 watering place.’
 ▶ It can be subject to quantitative en-pronominalisation (normally reserved
 to DOs)
 (14) La panthère en fait traverser un (mais l’autre ne veut pas).
 ‘The leopard makes one of them cross (but the other one doesn’t want
 to).’
→ Local object status
 6

Downstairs constraints: Subject by-phrases (de/par)

 ▶ The subject of the downstairs infinitive can alternatively be realised by a
 by-phrase (Koenig, 1998):
 ▶ Choice of preposition depends on downstairs verb semantics
 ▶ de with stative verbs
 ▶ par with dynamic verbs
 ▶ Construction-specific option must be conditioned inside-out

 (15) a. Marc a fait suivre Jean *de / par Paul.
 Marc has made follow Jean of / by Paul
 ‘Marc had Jean followed by Paul.’
 b. Marc a fait suivre le poisson de / *par des rôtis.
 Marc has made follow the fish of / by some roasts
 ‘Marc had the fish be followed by a roast.’

 7

Downstairs constraints: Trapping
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics resist climbing in the faire construction
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics comprise
 ▶ inherent and medio-passive se
 ▶ reflexive se (some speakers)
 ▶ other lexical clitics

 (16) a. Le snobisme fait se vendre bien les classiques.
 the snobism makes self sell well the classics
 ‘Snobism makes the classics sell well.’ (Abeillé et al., 1998, 24)
 b. Marie lui fait s’ en souvenir.
 Marie io.3sg makes self of.it remember
 ‘Marie makes him remember it.’
 c. (*) Marie a fait se laver les enfants.
 Marie has made self wash the children
 ‘Marie has made the children wash themselves.’ (Abeillé et al., 1998,
 24)
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics “trap” non-intrinsic clitics
 8

Downstairs constraints: Trapping
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics resist climbing in the faire construction
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics comprise
 ▶ inherent and medio-passive se
 ▶ reflexive se (some speakers)
 ▶ other lexical clitics
 ▶ Intrinsic clitics “trap” non-intrinsic clitics
 (17) a. * Tout leur en fait vouloir à Paul.
 everything io.pl en make angry to Paul
 ‘Everything makes them/Paul angry at Paul/them.
 b. Tout leur fait en vouloir à Paul.
 everything io.pl make en angry to Paul
 ‘Everything makes them angry at Paul.
 c. Tout leur fait vous en vouloir.
 everything io.pl make 2.pl en angry
 ‘Everything makes them angry at you.’
 (Miller & Sag, 1997, 609–610)

 8

Interim summary

 ▶ The downstairs subject behaves like a local complement
 ▶ Its marking is systematically decided by the downstairs infinitive
 ▶ Transitivity (NP for intransitives, NP[à] for transitives)
 ▶ Dynamic/stative semantics (NP[par] vs. NP[de])
 ▶ These properties are contingent on embedding under causative predicate
 (Koenig, 1998; Aguila-Multner & Crysmann, 2021)
 ▶ Trapping equally fixed downstairs
→ Clause union at the level of faire does not adequately capture these
 properties

 9

Problems with the argument composition approach I
 ▶ Problem 1: Binding Principle A (Pollard & Sag, 1994, 254)
 “A locally o-commanded anaphor must be locally o-bound”
 (18) Il va se faire offrir des fleurs.
 ‘He’ll get himself offered some flowers.’
 ▶ With argument composition, the downstairs arguments are
 structure-shared and appear twice
 V

 V V

 se faire offrir
 [aRg-st ⟨NP , V, NP , NP , NP :ana⟩] [aRg-st ⟨NP , NP , NP :ana⟩]
 ▶ Different binding-theoretical results on the two verbs
 ▶ On faire, the anaphor is bound by the subject
 ▶ On offrir, it is unbound, contrary to Principle A
 10

Problems with the argument composition approach II
 ▶ Problem 2: Non-local en-pronominalisation
 ▶ NP[de] complements of DOs can be pronominalised as en

 (19) J’ai lu la fin du livre. J’en ai lu la fin.
 ‘I read the end of the book. I read the end of it.’
 ▶ NP[de] complement can be deeply embedded in a complement
 ▶ Locality parallel to dont relativisation
 ▶ Miller & Sag (1997) capture the parallelism by having a lexical rule on verbs
 intercept the slash dependency
 ▶ This use of en is (un)surprisingly trapped in the presence of intrinsic
 pronominals:
 (20) J’ai fait s’en rappeler la fin aux élèves.
 ‘I made the students remember the end of it.’
 (21) ⁇ J’en ai fait se rappeler la fin aux élèves.
 ▶ Application of en-cliticisation rule cannot be blocked on faire
 ▶ presence of inherent clitics not detectable upstairs

 11

Problems with the argument composition approach III
 ▶ Problem 3: Modifier attachment
 ▶ Downstairs modifiers are interpreted as referring to the caused event

 (22) Le pharaon a fait construire la pyramide péniblement aux esclaves.
 ‘The pharaoh made the slaves build tirelessly the pyramid.’
 (23) ⁇ Le pharaon a fait construire la pyramide impitoyablement aux
 esclaves.
 ‘The pharaoh made the slaves build mercilessly the pyramid.’
 ▶ In a flat structure, adjuncts should be expected to modify only the head
 (faire), not a co-dependent, failing to account for (22)
 ▶ Alternatively, if modifiers are treated as complements (Bouma et al., 2001), a
 complement modifier of faire should be expected to permute with the
 downstairs dependents, incorrectly predicting (23)
 VP

 V V … AdvP …

 faire construire péniblement
 impitoyablement

 12

The alternative
 VP

 V V … …

 faire 1 [aRg-st 2 arg-list]
 [aRg-st ⟨NP, 1 V⟩⊕ 2 ]

 ▶ To give the downstairs verb full control over the various realisation
 properties of its arguments, let’s take clause union one storey down
 ▶ Argument composition raises an entire argument structure - our
 approach only needs to augment the downstairs verb’s by 1
 VP

 V 2 VP

 faire
 [aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP, 2 VP⟩] V … …

 [aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP, …⟩]

 13

Causativisation inside-out
 ▶ We rely on previous approaches to inflectional periphrasis (Vincent &
 Börjars, 1996; Ackerman & Webelhuth, 1998; Bonami & Webelhuth, 2013;
 Bonami, 2015)
 ▶ We can think of clitic climbing as part of inflectional periphrasis
 (Aguila-Multner & Crysmann, 2020), including with causatives
 (Aguila-Multner & Crysmann, 2021)
 ▶ We now picture clause union in causatives as a similar case of periphrasis,
 with argument extension of the downstairs verb, akin to a lexical causative
 ▶ This is implemented as a lexical rule that anticipates a causer argument
 ▶ Reverse selection lets us condition causativised infinitives to only be licit
 when there is a suitable ancillary element (faire)

 [aRg-st ] ⇒[aRg-st ⟨NP⟩⊕ ]

 14

Benefits
 ▶ Local complement status of downstairs subject
 [aRg-st ⟨NP , NP ⟩] ⇒[aRg-st ⟨NP ⟩⊕ ⟨NP [maRK à], NP ⟩]
 ▶ The local complement status derives naturally from its demotion after the
 addition of the external subject (causer) to aRg-st
 ▶ Permutation with other dependents possible
 ▶ Marking (bare/à/par/de) decided locally
 ▶ No need for faire to look into its complement’s lexical semantics to choose
 between par and de

 15

Benefits
 ▶ Local complement status of downstairs subject
 ▶ Downstairs verb has full control over upstairs vs. downstairs realisation
 of clitic clusters (trapping)
 ▶ No need for faire to look into its complement’s morphology to check the
 presence or absence of intrinsic arguments

 15

Benefits
 ▶ Local complement status of downstairs subject
 ▶ Downstairs verb has full control over upstairs vs. downstairs realisation
 of clitic clusters (trapping)
 ▶ The downstairs verb complies with Principle A
 (24) Il s’est fait offrir des fleurs.
 offrir
 [ ]
 aRg-st ⟨NP , NP , NP :ana, (PP )⟩
 ▶ faire trivially complies as well, having no anaphor on its argument list

 15

Benefits
 ▶ Local complement status of downstairs subject
 ▶ Downstairs verb has full control over upstairs vs. downstairs realisation
 of clitic clusters (trapping)
 ▶ The downstairs verb complies with Principle A
 ▶ The hierarchical structure correctly predicts the semantics of modifier
 attachment
 ▶ Modifiers inside the internal VP attach to the caused event
 ▶ Modifiers external to it attach to the causing event
 VP

 V VP

 faire

 V NP AdvP NP

 construire la pyramide péniblement aux esclaves

 15

Benefits
 ▶ Local complement status of downstairs subject
 ▶ Downstairs verb has full control over upstairs vs. downstairs realisation
 of clitic clusters (trapping)
 ▶ The downstairs verb complies with Principle A
 ▶ The hierarchical structure correctly predicts the semantics of modifier
 attachment
 ▶ Also gives a straightforward account of VP coordination
 (24) Elle leur fait [ traverser la route ] et [ boire l’eau du lac ].
 VP

 V VP

 leur fait
 VP Conj VP

 traverser la route et boire l’eau du lac

 15

Analysis I
 ▶ Causativised verbs generated with an argument extension lexical rule
 ▶ Prepends an argument corresponding to the external subject/causer
 ▶ Adds a requirement for a verb of causing
 ▶ Requirement is now an Elementary Predication containing the external
 argument’s index

 ⎡head.vfoRm nonfinite ⎤
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢aRg-st ⟨NP , NP [à/bare]⟩⊕ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ caus-rel ⎥
 ⎢infl {[ ]} ⎥
 ⎢ aRg1 i ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ aRg-st ⟨NP ⟩⊕ ⎥
 ⎢dtR [ ] ⎥
 ⎢ infl {} ⎥
 ⎣ ⎦
 Figure: Lexical rule for causativised verbs

 16

Analysis II
 ▶ No synthetic exponent of causative property in French: the property is
 deferred to an ancillary element by a periphrasis rule (Aguila-Multner &
 Crysmann, 2020, 2021)
 ▶ This rule also defers expression of any pronominal affixes found on the
 infl(ection) set, covering clitic climbing
 ▶ Interaction with trapping unchanged from previous analysis
 ⎡head.vfoRm nonfinite ⎤
 ⎢Rev-sel {1 ⋃ 2} ⋃ 3 ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢infl {} ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎡Rev-sel
 ⎢ 3
 ⎤⎥
 ⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎥
 ⎢dtR ⎢ caus-rel ⎥⎥
 ⎢ ⎢infl 1 {[ ]} ⋃ 2 praf-set⎥⎥
 aRg1 i
 ⎣ ⎣ ⎦⎦
 Figure: Morphological rule for causative periphrasis

 17

Analysis III
 ▶ Faire satisfies morphological requirements of its complement
 ▶ Semantic constraint also matched

 ⎡ caus-rel ⎤
 ⎢cont [Rels { 2 [ ]}] ⎥
 ⎢ aRg2 ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎡subj ⟨ ⟩
 1 ⎤⎥
 ⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎥
 ⎢ ⎢ caus-rel ⎥⎥
 ⎢aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP, VP ⎢Rev-sel { 2 [ ]} ⋃ set(praf)⎥⟩⎥
 
 ⎢ ⎢ aRg1 i ⎥⎥
 ⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎥
 ⎢ ⎣cont ⎦⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎣infl set ⋃ ⎦
 Figure: Lexical entry for causative faire

 18

Sample derivation
 VP

 V VP
 ⎡subj ⟨ 1 ⟩⎤
 la leur fait
 ⎢
 2 ⎢comps ⟨⟩ ⎥
 ⎥
 ⎡subj ⟨ 1 ⟩⎤ ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣Rev-sel ⎦
 ⎢comps ⟨ 2 ⟩⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎣cont.Rels { }⎦

 V Adv

 traverser rapidement
 ⎡subj ⟨1⟩ ⎤
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢comps ⟨⟩ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎧ caus-rel ⎡praf ⎤ ⎡praf ⎤⎫⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢Rev-sel [ ], ⎢ind j ⎥, ⎢ind k ⎥ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎨ aRg1 i ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎬⎥
 ⎩ ⎣ maRK dat ⎦⎣ maRK acc⎦⎭⎥
 ⎢
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ aff-ss ⎥
 ⎢aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP , NP [aff-ss], NP [ ]⟩ ⎥
 maRK à
 ⎣ ⎦

 [aRg-st ⟨NP [aff-ss], NP [aff-ss]⟩]
 19

Sample derivation - Reflexive
 VP

 V VP
 ⎡subj ⟨ 1 ⟩⎤
 se fait
 ⎢
 2 ⎢comps ⟨⟩ ⎥
 ⎥
⎡subj ⟨ 1 ⟩⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣Rev-sel ⎦
⎢comps ⟨ 2 ⟩⎥
⎢ ⎥
 ▶ Argument extension
⎣KeyRel ⎦ makes the binder
 V 3 NP available downstairs
 offrir des fleurs ▶ Reflexive use covered by
 ⎡subj ⟨1⟩ ⎤ binding theory
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢comps ⟨3⟩ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎧ caus-rel ⎡refl-praf ⎤⎫ ⎥
 ⎢ [ ], ⎢ind i ⎥ ⎥
 ⎢Rev-sel ⎨ aRg1 i ⎢ ⎥⎬ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎣maRK dat⎦⎭ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎩ ⎥
 ⎢ ⟨ 1 NP , 3 NP , NP :ana,(PP )⟩⎥
 aRg-st
 ⎣ ⎦

 [aRg-st ⟨NP , NP , NP ⟩]
 20

Medio-passive se
 ▶ Usually treated as argument reduction (Grimshaw, 1982; Wehrli, 1986)
(25) Les voitures se réparent rapidement de nos jours.
 ‘Cars are repaired quickly these days.’
(26) Les voitures se font réparer pour pas cher de nos jours.
 ‘Cars get repaired for very little these days.’

 ⎡
 ⎢ ⎡aff-ss ⎤ ⎤
 ⎥
 ⎢ ana ⎥
 ⎢aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP , NP ⎢ ⎥⟩⊕ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎢cont [ ]⎥ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎣ ind j ⎦ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢dtR [aRg-st ⟨NP , 1 NP ⟩⊕ ] ⎥
 ⎣ ⎦
 Figure: Lexical rule for medio-passives

 ▶ Promotion of a (usually inanimate) DO
 ▶ Suppression of the subject
 ▶ Exponent: reflexive se
 21

Sample derivation - Medio-passive
 VP

 V VP
 ⎡subj ⟨ 1 ⟩⎤
 se font
 ⎢ ⎥
⎡subj ⟨1⟩ ⎤
 2 ⎢comps ⟨⟩ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥ ▶ Medio-passive rule
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ Rev-sel ⎦
⎢comps ⟨2⟩
⎢
 ⎥
 ⎥ applies to causativised
⎢ caus-rel ⎥
⎢cont.Rels { [
 aRg1 i
 ]}⎥ infinitive
⎣ ⎦ V PP

 réparer pour pas cher
 ▶ Mismatch between raised
 ⎡subj
 ⎢
 ⟨1⟩ ⎤
 ⎥
 subject and aRg1
 ⎢comps ⟨⟩ ⎥
 ⎢
 ⎢ caus-rel
 ⎥
 ⎥
 ▶ We need to reverse-select
 ⎢Rev-sel { [ ],[refl-praf]} ⎥
 ⎢
 ⎢
 aRg1 i ⎥
 ⎥
 for Elementary
 ⎢aRg-st ⟨ 1 NP , NP :ana[aff-ss],(PP )⟩⎥
 ⎣ ⎦ Predications
 ⎡aRg-st ⟨NP , 1 NP ,(PP )⟩⎤
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢infl { [caus-rel]} ⎥
 ⎢ aRg1 i ⎥
 ⎣ ⎦

 [aRg-st ⟨NP , 1 NP ⟩]

 22

Conclusion

 ▶ Clause union in French causatives effected on downstairs verb
 ▶ Argument structure extension, similar to a lexical causative
 ▶ Augmentation of aRg-st with causer argument
 ▶ Inside-out selection for a causer role
 ▶ Faire as an ancillary element in a periphrastic causative
 ▶ Periphrastic approach now covers the full range of clause union
 phenomena
 ▶ Clitic climbing/trapping still covered
 ▶ Long reflexives, compatible with binding theory
 ▶ Long medio-passives

 23

Clause union inside-out: reflexives and medio-passives in
 French causatives

 Gabriel Aguila-Multner and Berthold Crysmann

 Laboratoire de linguistique formelle — CNRS & U Paris

 HPSG 2021

References I
Abeillé, Anne & Danièle Godard. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language
 78(3). 404–452.
Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard & Philip Miller. 1997. Les causatives en français : un cas de
 compétition syntaxique. Langue française 62–74.
Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard & Ivan Sag. 1998. Two kinds of composition in French complex
 predicates. In Erhard Hinrichs, Andreas Kathol & Tsuneko Nakazawa (eds.), Complex
 predicates in nonderivational syntax, 1–41. New York: Academic Press.
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth. 1998. A theory of predicates. CSLI Publications.
Aguila-Multner, Gabriel & Berthold Crysmann. 2020. French clitic climbing as periphrasis.
 Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43. 23–61.
Aguila-Multner, Gabriel & Berthold Crysmann. 2021. Clitic climbing in French complex
 predicates: a periphrasis account. 27th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase
 Structure Grammar. 17–19 August, Seattle/Berlin.
Aissen, Judith & David M Perlmutter. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Annual meeting of
 the Berkeley linguistics society, vol. 2, 1–30.
Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic inquiry 23(4). 517–555.
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25(1). 63–110.

 25

References II
Bonami, Olivier & Gert Webelhuth. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: a
 lexicalist account. In Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of
 syntax and morphology in paradigms, 141–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bouma, Gosse, Robert Malouf & Ivan A Sag. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and
 adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(1). 1–65.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Joan
 Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 87–148. Cambridge,
 Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1998. Inside-out constraints and description languages for HPSG. In
 Andreas Kathol, Jean-Pierre Koenig & Gert Webelhuth (eds.), Lexical and constructional
 aspects of linguistic explanation Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 265–279. Stanford:
 CSLI publications.
Miller, Philip H. & Ivan A. Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement.
 Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(3). 573–639.
Pollard, Carl & Ivan A Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago
 Press.
Vincent, Nigel & Kersti Börjars. 1996. Suppletion and syntactic theory. In 1st lfg colloquium,
 448–62. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King.

 26

References III

Wehrli, Eric. 1986. On some properties of French clitic se in the syntax of pronominal clitics.
 Syntax and semantics 19. 263–283.

 27