Extended Doubling and the vP-Periphery
Much work within Principle and Parameters (P&P) over the late eighties and the nineties concerned the issue of looking for a ‘solution’ to the problem(s) posed by doubling structures. Most of the work focused in particular on clitic doubling structures (CLD) of the kind found in languages like Spanish, illustrated by examples like the following (1), rst discussed in detail in Jaeggli (1982):
(1) Lo vi a Juan (I) him(cl) saw to Juan ‘I saw Juan’
The doubling problem(s) can be phrased as follows: there are two ‘arguments,’ the clitic and the lexical noun phrase, for one Th-role and (presumably) one Case. Whence the term ‘doubling,’ suggesting the existence of a ‘duplication’ of one single argument. Based on Spanish examples like (1), the Case problem was given a descriptive solution through what has come to be known as Kayne’s generalization: Clitic doubling is only possible in languages that avail themselves of an extra Case marker for the extra argument. Spanish and Romanian appear to illustrate the operation of the generalization as in both languages a preposition (‘a’ and ‘pe’ respectively) is involved in doubling. Upon closer investigation, however, CLD did not appear to completely conform to the generalization. For instance, the construction known as CLLD, studied in Cinque (1977, 1990a) and illustrated by the following Italian example (2) a., and right dislocation structures (RD) of the type in (2) b. do not, even if they share obvious similarities with CLD:
(2) a. Gianni, lo vedo Gianni, (I) him(cl) see
b. Lo vedo, Gianni (I) him(cl) see, Gianni
Moreover, even if the Case side of the problem could be taken care of through Kayne’s generalization assuming that the examples in (2) are of a different nature, despite their resemblance, the Th-side remains open. Essentially, the question is: How is it possible that the same argument (same Throle) is realized twice?