A Lexical-Functional Account of Spanish Dative Usage

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 40)

Abstract

This paper explores the interaction between Dative Clitic Doubling (DClD) in Spanish ditransitives and some semantic and syntactic factors. Usage data give statistically significant evidence that a goal is more likely to be doubled when definite or when it precedes the theme. These facts are accounted for under the hypothesis that goals alternate between an oblique function and an object function, and that dative clitics double goals only in the latter case. DClD, then, is seen as the Spanish equivalent of the English dative alternation. Ditransitives like dar ‘give’ and its English translation are analyzed as cloaked causatives, casting the dative alternation is a special case of the alternation between direct and indirect causatives. Some non-trivial differences between English and Spanish in the realization of the goal are pointed out, and are made to follow from a more general typological contrast between accusative languages and primary object languages in their treatment of causatives. The analysis is framed in the formalism of Lexical-Functional Grammar.

Keywords

Word Order Dative Alternation Principal Object Argument Structure Internal Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ideas in this paper have been presented at several meetings and ­seminars. I have benefited greatly from the discussions that took place during and after those occasions. I am indebted to the participants in the 2007 Encuentro de gramática generativa in Mendoza, Argentina, the Workshop on Case, Word Order and Prominence in Argument Structure, held at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the 2008 LSA Annual Meeting in Chicago, and the Berkeley syntax seminar. All shortcomings are my own responsibility.

References

  1. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (1999). Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encoding. Linguistic and Philosophy 22, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alsina, A. (1996a). Passive types and the theory of object asymmetries. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 14, 673–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alsina, A. (1996b). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Alsina, A. (1997). A theory of complex predicates: Evidence from causatives in Bantu and Romance. In Complex Predicates, ed. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells, 203–246. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Alsina, A. and S.A. Mchombo (1993). Object asymmetries and the Chichewa applicative construction. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. S.A. Mchombo, 17–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, M. (1988). Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleam, T. (1999). Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. Ph. D. thesis, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  11. Bossong, G. (1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe, ed. J. Feuillet, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina, and H. Baayen (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. G. Bouma, I. Krämer, and J. Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  13. Bresnan, J. and J. Hay (2008). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bresnan, J. and J.M. Kanerva (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
  15. Bresnan, J. and L. Moshi (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147–185.Google Scholar
  16. Butt, M., M. Dalrymple, and A. Frank (1997). An architecture for linking theory in LFG. In Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Stanford, ed. M. Butt and T.H. King, 1–15. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Butt, M. and T.H. King (2004). The status of case. In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, ed. V. Dayal and A. Mahajan, 153–198. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cuervo, C. (2003). Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In Asymmetries in Grammar, ed. A.M. Di Sciullo, 117–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. de Haan, P. and R. van Hout (1986). Statistics and corpus analysis. In Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora, ed. J. Aarts and W. Meijs, 79–97. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  20. de Hoop, H. and A. Malchukov (2007). On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Demonte, V. (1995). Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dryer, M.S. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62, 808–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, B. (1987). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy revisited. Language 63, 856 – 870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson, J. and E. Raposo (1986). Clause union, the stratal uniqueness law and the chômeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gordon, P.C. and R. Hendrick (2005). Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Volume 2, ed. P. Pica and J. Rooryck, 31–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeggli, O. (1986). Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, ed. H. Borer, 15–42. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Keenan, E. and B. Comrie (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
  32. Kisseberth, C.W. and M.I. Abasheikh (1977). The object relationship in Chi-Mwi:ni, a Bantu language. In Grammatical Relations, Volume 8 of Syntax and Semantics, ed. P. Cole and J.M. Sadock, 179–218. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1–32.Google Scholar
  34. Larson, R.K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  35. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, Volume 1, ed. S.A. Mchombo, 113–150. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Masullo, P. (1992). Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish. A crosslinguistic perspective. Ph. D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  37. Mukherjee, J. (2005). English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description, and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  38. Oehrle, R. (1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Parodi, T. (1998). Aspects of clitic doubling and clitic clusters in Spanish. In Models of Inflection, ed. R. Fabri, A. Ortmann, and T. Parodi, 85–102. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ransom, E.N. (1979). Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object constructions in English. Glossa 13, 215–240.Google Scholar
  42. Vogel, R. (2006). Degraded acceptability and markedness in syntax, and the stochastic interpretation of Optimality Theory. In Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives, ed. G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, and M. Schlesewsky, 247–269. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations