Matos, Gabriela2020-06-012020-06-0120000921-4771http://hdl.handle.net/10451/43758Studies on clitics emphasise that Across-the-Board (ATB) clitic placement is licensed only by proclitic pronouns and exhibits a different ehabiour across Romance in what concerns its availability as a regular syntactic construction. Current proposals treat these properties either as the result of the LCA and the special status of clitics as parasitics gaps identifiers in some languages (Kayne 1994), or as the consequence of the projection of a fnctional category above the coordinate structure, where the clitic may remain stranded (Rouveret 1992, Uriagereka 1995). Departing from these analyses, I will laim that ATB clitic placement is not restricted to proclisis and may arise whenever the clitic has scope over the arguments it is related with in each conjunct. I will also argue that the different behaviour of ATB clitic placement in Romance must be entirely imputed to the status of the clitics as autonoous vs. non-autonomous syntatic heads, as well as tothe strategies potentially availabe in each language for evidencing the coordinate stricutire as a unite the overt clitic has scope over.engjournal articlehttps://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2000.12.2.0