Pancheva & Zubizarreta (2018): The Person Case Constraint #
@cite{pancheva-zubizarreta-2018} @cite{sells-1987}
The Person Case Constraint: The Syntactic Encoding of Perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 1291–1337.
Summary #
Empirical predictions of the P-Constraint theory (formalized in
Theories/Syntax/Minimalism/PConstraint.lean) for the eight grammar
instances P&Z discuss: five attested PCC varieties (strong, ultra-strong,
weak, super-strong, me-first) plus three predicted varieties (PG1, PG2,
PG3) that the four-parameter space generates.
Key derivations (beyond per-cell predictions) #
personHierarchy_from_features— the paper's central claim that the Person Hierarchy 1P > 2P > 3P is derived from the count of positive features indecomposePerson(§2.1, p. 1296), not stipulated.isLicit_imp_io_pov— the four parametric clauses are recovered as the conditions under which selecting the IO as point-of-view center satisfies the P-Constraint semantically (§6.3, eq. 48).pProminence_to_sellsRole— P&Z's identification of their P-Prominence values with @cite{sells-1987}'s logophoric roles (§6.2). This mapping is P&Z's specific theoretical claim, not a framework-neutral fact; @cite{charnavel-mateu-2015} (page 10) reject the claim that pivot is the relevant role for clitic clusters.readings_disagree_on_proximateandmefirst_wedge_with_cm— P&Z's rejection (page 1308) of @cite{charnavel-mateu-2015}'s unification of PCC and CLR (§ 10 below).
Forward references #
This study is extended by @cite{adamson-zompi-2025} (study file
AdamsonZompi2025.lean), who use the dual-feature distinction to argue
that PCC effects diagnose interpretable (not agreement) person.
P&Z's identification of P-Prominence values with @cite{sells-1987}'s logophoric roles (paper §6.2). This is the paper's theoretical claim, not a framework-neutral fact.
Equations
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_sellsRole Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.proximate = Features.Logophoricity.LogophoricRole.pivot
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_sellsRole Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.participant = Features.Logophoricity.LogophoricRole.self
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_sellsRole Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.author = Features.Logophoricity.LogophoricRole.source
Instances For
Number of positive features in a person decomposition. By the implicational hierarchy of (paper eq. 11), 1P bears all three (proximate, participant, author), 2P bears two, 3P bears none.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The numeric values of positiveFeatureCount per person.
The Person Hierarchy is derived, not stipulated (paper §2.1, p. 1296:
"We seek to derive it from more fundamental principles"). The order
induced by PersonLevel.rank (1P > 2P > 3P) coincides with the order
induced by the count of positive features in the decomposition.
Note: The two functions are not pointwise equal (3 vs 2, 2 vs 1, 0 vs 0)
because rank collapses the SAP/non-SAP gap, but the orders match.
Strong PCC (paper §4.1.1, eq. 14a): DO must be 3P.
Ultra-strong PCC (§4.1.2, eq. 14d): adds P-Primacy, so 1P-IO can rescue 1P/2P DO. ⟨1,2⟩ allowed but ⟨2,1⟩ banned.
Weak PCC (§4.1.3, eq. 14b): drops P-Uniqueness, so any SAP IO licenses any DO. Bans only 3P-IO with 1P/2P DO.
Super-strong PCC (§4.2, eq. 14e): IO must be SAP, DO must be 3P. Strictly the most restrictive variety.
Me-first PCC (§4.3, eq. 14c): bans 1P DO with non-1P IO; restricted domain exempts ⟨2P,2P⟩, ⟨2P,3P⟩, ⟨3P,2P⟩, ⟨3P,3P⟩ entirely.
NB: The implementation also bans ⟨1P,1P⟩ via P-Uniqueness. The paper
(§4.3, p. 1314: "allows all other combinations") does not explicitly
address this case; see mefirst_one_one_excluded below.
PG1 (predicted, §4.5, eq. 32a-ii): [+participant] + P-Primacy.
PG2 (predicted, §4.5, eq. 32b): [+participant], no P-Uniqueness.
PG3 (predicted, §4.5, eq. 33): [+author] with unrestricted domain. Only 1P-IO is licensed; uniqueness then rules out 1P-DO.
The markedness rank of each grammar as the number of parameter departures from the strong PCC default. Strong is the unique 0-rank grammar; the four 1-rank grammars (ultra/weak/super/pg3) are the "minimal departures"; the three 2-rank grammars (me-first/pg1/pg2) are doubly marked.
Strong PCC entails Weak PCC: every cell licit in strong is licit in
weak. Falls out of the Preorder PCCGrammar instance.
Strong PCC entails Ultra-strong PCC.
Super-strong PCC entails Strong PCC: super-strong's prominence on [+participant] is strictly more restrictive than strong's on [+proximate].
P&Z's claim (§6.2): each P-Prominence setting corresponds to a logophoric
role of @cite{sells-1987}. This is the paper's theoretical reading.
@cite{charnavel-mateu-2015} dispute that pivot is the relevant role for
clitic clusters; the bridge file Anaphora/Antilogophoricity.lean
documents this disagreement explicitly.
Under P&Z's reading: the five attested grammars and the [+author]-prominence predicted family map onto Sells's hierarchy as strong/ultra/weak ⇒ pivot, super ⇒ self, me-first/pg3 ⇒ source.
Whenever ⟨IO, DO⟩ is licit, selecting the IO as point-of-view center yields an Appl domain that semantically satisfies the P-Constraint. The four parametric clauses in (12) are not free-standing stipulations: they are precisely the conditions on IO-as-POV consistency.
Conversely, if any Appl domain over ⟨io, do_⟩ with IO as POV center
satisfies the P-Constraint, the combination is licit. Together with
isLicit_imp_io_pov, this characterizes IsLicit semantically.
For [+participant] and [+author] grammars, the IO-as-POV semantics
automatically interprets the IO as an attitude holder (self or
source). The Point-of-View Principle (eq. 48) then holds with the
AH = POV identification.
Italian dative gli is 3rd person; accusative ti is 2nd. The weak PCC prediction ⟨3,2⟩ ⇒ illicit is therefore satisfied at these two actual clitic forms.
The Italian licit pair ti la (2.DAT > 3.ACC) under weak PCC.
Spanish te me (2.DAT > 1.ACC) is licit under weak PCC. The
interpretable persons are read off the actual te_dat/me_acc clitic
forms in Fragments/Spanish/Clitics.lean.
Spanish me te (1.DAT > 2.ACC) is also licit (weak PCC ⟨1,2⟩).
Spanish le me (3.DAT > 1.ACC) is illicit (paper ex. 24).
French strong PCC (§4.1.1, ex. 16): *Elle te me présentera.
No Fragments/French/Pronouns.lean exists; theorem reads off the
parameter settings rather than fragment data.
Catalan ultra-strong PCC (§4.1.2, ex. 20): the ⟨1,2⟩ vs ⟨2,1⟩ asymmetry that distinguishes ultra-strong from strong.
Kambera super-strong PCC (§4.2, ex. 27): IO must be SAP, DO must be 3P; ⟨3,3⟩ is also banned.
Bulgarian me-first PCC (§4.3, ex. 29): only ⟨2,1⟩ and ⟨3,1⟩ banned; crucially, ⟨3,2⟩ is licit (where it is illicit in all [+proximate] varieties).
The implementation rules out ⟨1P, 1P⟩ in me-first by P-Uniqueness on [+author]: both arguments are [+author], so neither can be uniquely the perspectival source. The paper (§4.3) explicitly bans only ⟨3,1⟩ and ⟨2,1⟩, leaving ⟨1,1⟩ unaddressed. The implementation's verdict follows from (12c) applied to two coreferential [+author] DPs.
The me-first family does not show *⟨3,3⟩ effects: 3P-IO with 3P-DO is domain-exempt (no [+author] DP triggers the constraint), so the spurious-se restriction documented for [+proximate] varieties is structurally unavailable here (paper §4.4).
P&Z's reading of the dative clitic — as a pivot (Sells's broadest
role) — is incompatible with @cite{charnavel-mateu-2015}'s reading
(page 10), which assigns the dative clitic to empathyLocus and
rejects pivot as relevant for clitic clusters. The two readings map
.proximate to incompatible places.
Equations
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_cmCenter Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.proximate = Studies.Anaphora.CharnavelMateu2015.LogoCenter.empathyLocus
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_cmCenter Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.participant = Studies.Anaphora.CharnavelMateu2015.LogoCenter.discourseParticipant
- Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.PanchevaZubizarreta2018.pProminence_to_cmCenter Minimalist.PConstraint.PProminence.author = Studies.Anaphora.CharnavelMateu2015.LogoCenter.discourseParticipant
Instances For
The me-first wedge. P&Z predict me-first speakers should lack CLR effects: the P-Constraint marks the IO as a perspectival centre only when triggered, and me-first restricts the trigger to contexts with a [+author] DP. In ⟨3,3⟩ contexts no centre is marked, so no perspective conflict.
C&M predict me-first speakers should still show CLR effects: dative clitics are inherently empathy loci (paper §3.5.1), independent of any P-Constraint setting. The accusative clitic read de se is then an attitude holder, and the antilogophoric clash obtains regardless of the syntactic licensing of the IO.
Formally: under P&Z's account, ⟨3,3⟩ in a me-first grammar is licit
(mefirst_three_three_exempt) and there is no separate CLR predicate
to check. Under C&M's account, the configuration is CLRViolated.
Resolution requires Bulgarian/Romanian me-first speakers tested on de se readings of accusative clitics in 3.DAT 3.ACC clusters; P&Z (page 1316) cite indirect evidence supporting their position; C&M did not test me-first varieties.