Advertisement

Spanish Clitics, Events and Opposition Structure

  • José M. Castaño
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 46)

Abstract

We present a unified account of the Spanish clitic se. We address the issue of the so called non-argument clitics, and the multiplicity of thematic roles these clitics might be able to participate in. We use the Generative Lexicon framework, in particular the notions of Event, Opposition Structure and Qualia roles.

Keywords

Event Structure Noun Phrase Lexical Entry Argument Structure Event Description 
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

I would like to thank James Pustejovsky for his continuous inspiration and discussions on this and related topics. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for careful reading and suggestions on how to improve this paper and to the organizers and participants of GL2001 for giving me the opportunity to present my ideas. Finally I would like to thank Jess Littman who helped me to prepare the final version.

References

  1. Abeill’e, A., Godard, D., & Sag, I. A. (1998). Two kinds of composition in French complex predicates. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol, & T. Nakazawa (Eds.), Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 30, pp. 1–41). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Alsina, A. (1996). The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, J. (1985). On the formal nature of anaphoric relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arce-Arenales, M. (1989). Semantic structure and syntactic function: The case of Spanish se. Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 607.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borer, H. (1983). Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Borer, H. E. (1986). The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 19). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, H., & Grodzinsky, Y. (1986). Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization. The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 19, pp. 175–217). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Bouchard, D. (1995). The semantics of syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Castaño, J. M. (2001). Spanish dative clitics: Event and opposition structure. In P. Bouillon & K. Kanzaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the GL2001 University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  13. Charniak, E., & Goldman, R. (1988). A logic for semantic interpretation. In Proceedings of the 26th meeting of the ACL.Google Scholar
  14. Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 521–581.Google Scholar
  15. De Miguel Aparicio, E. (1992). El Aspecto en la Sintaxis del Español: Perfectividad e Impersonalidad. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  16. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 399–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
  19. Everett, D. L. (1996). Why there are no clitics: An alternative perspective on pronominal allomorphy. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington publications in linguistics, publication 123.Google Scholar
  20. Fernandez Soriano, O. (1999). El pronombre personal. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, Vol. 1, pp. 1210–217). Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
  21. Garcia, E. (1975). The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Grimshaw, J. (1981). On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 87–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Martin, P., & Edwards, D. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  27. Jaeggli, O. (1986). Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 19, pp. 175–217). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, B. (2000) Aspect, lexical semantic representation, and argument expression. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  31. Manzini, M. R. (1986). On Italian si. In H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 19, pp. 175–217). San Francisco: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Masullo, P. J. (1992). Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: A cross linguistic perspective. Ph.D. thesis. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, P. H., & Sag, I. A. (1997). French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monachesi, P. (1999). A lexical approach to Italian cliticization (CSLI lecture notes, No. 84). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Ng, H., & Mooney, R. (1990). The role of coherence in constructing and evaluating abductive explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on automated abduction.Google Scholar
  36. Nishida, C. (1994). The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics, 32, 425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Otero, C. P. (1986). Arbitrary subjects in finite clasuses. In I. Bordelois et al. (Eds.), Generative studies in Spanish syntax (pp. 81–109). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  38. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pustejovsky, J. (2000). Event structure and opposition structure. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects (pp. 350–400). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1999). Two types of compositionally derived events. Ramat Gan/Evanston: Bar Ilan University/Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  42. Real Academia Española. (1998). Esbozo de una Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
  43. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
  44. Rigau, G. (1994). Les propietas dels verbs pronominals. Els Marges 50. Barcelona: Curial.Google Scholar
  45. Sanz Yagüe, M. M. (1996). Telicity, objects and the mapping onto predicate types. Ph.D. thesis. Rochester: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  46. Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and atoms of clause structure: Subjects, agreement, case, and clitics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  48. Tenny, C. (1992). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  49. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1982). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • José M. Castaño
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Computación, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y NaturalesUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations