150 Małgorzata Krzek
of them appears in the course of the narrow syntactic derivation. This would allow us
to explain the difference in the interpretation between the following English sentences:
(28) a. I like going to the cinema on Sunday morning.
b. One likes going to the cinema on Sunday morning.
Following these assumptions, we could argue that in (28a) both [iR] and the [speaker]
features on pro are bound by a speech feature whereas in (28b) D does not have [iR]
so the speech feature in the CP only binds the [speech] feature on pro, which gives
rise to an inclusive interpretation. Another consequence of the assumptions made so
far is that theoretically speaking there should be languages that allow overt D (with
or without [iR]) to co-occur with pronouns (both overt and null). And this is exactly
what we find in Romanian and in Modern Greek, as the following examples illustrate.
(29) a. emis i glossologi^24
we the linguists
‘we, linguists’
(Modern Greek, Choi 2012)
b. o ea/ un el
a she/ a he
(Romanian, Melanie Duma, p.c.)
The phrases in (29b) refer to some non-specific female/male human being.
To conclude, this section demonstrates that the assumptions of the feature make-
up of pronouns made above can be fairly straightforwardly accommodated into a
larger framework of the theory of pronouns.- The SIĘ particle
I am now in a position to put forward an analysis of the function of the Polish particle
SIĘ that on the one hand fits in the revised theory of pronouns proposed above, and on
the other hand gets round the issues encountered by the previous analyses of the SI/SE
particles in Italian and Spanish (Cinque 1988; D’Alessandro 2004, 2008 ; Mendikoextea
(2008)),^25 which are considered cognates of the Polish SIĘ. The point of departure for
the analysis of the SIĘ particle is the assumption that is concurrent to some extent with
Cinque’s (1988) and Mendikoextea’s (2008) accounts according to which, SIĘ is not an- The pronoun emis co-occurs with the definite article i, suggesting that pronouns do not
originate or move to D of DP in the course of the derivation but rather to [Spec,DP] (Choi
2012 ). - For a detailed review of these analyses, see Krzek (2013).