Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
This paper focuses on the dative expression in Romance languages, particularly on European Portuguese (EP) and Spanish. Many authors have proposed that clitic(-doubling) constructions and nonclitic(-doubling) constructions in these languages share the same properties of both English double object construction (DOC) and ditransitive prepositional construction (DPC) (e.g. Masullo 1992, Demonte 1994, 1995, Romero 1997, Cuervo 2003, Morais 2006, 2012). Others, such as Pineda (2013), argue that the only strategy available in Romance to express the dative is the DOC. We will argue against these two proposals, showing that the same arguments presented in the literature to claim the occurrence of DOC in Romance languages, namely, binding asymmetries, passivization, clitic-doubling as well as lexical-semantic constraints, can instead be used as arguments to support that EP and Spanish only exhibit a DPC. In addition, we set apart from analyses of the dative as an applied argument, such those following Pylkkänen (2002). Furthermore, we will propose that, if some comparison can be established between Romance and English dative strategies, this should be based on the distinction between a DPC introduced by a functional preposition and a DPC introduced by a directional preposition. In fact, DPC from EP is “similar” to the one that occurs in English with core dative verbs, such as give: in both languages, the preposition a/to acts as a Case marker (e.g. Larson 1988; Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 2008).
Palabras clave:
Citado por
Detalles del artículo
Referencias
Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2003): The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2005): “Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives”, in Melita Stavrou / Arhonto Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 61-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.76.05ana
Baker, Mark (1988): Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barss, Andrew / Howard Lasnik (1986): “A note on anaphora and double objects”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_8
Belletti, Adriana / Ur Shlonsky (1995): “The order of verbal complements: a comparative study”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 489-526.
Belloro, Valeria A. (2007): Spanish Clitic Doubling: a Study of the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface. Phd. Diss., State University of New York at Buffalo.
Bleam, Tonia (2003): “Properties of the double object construction in Spanish”, in Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.238.19ble
Bresnan, Joan / Lioba Moshi (1990): “Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax”, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147-185.
Brito, Ana Maria (2008): “Grammar variation in the expression of verb arguments: the case of the Portuguese Indirect Object”, Phrasis 2, 31-58.
Brito, Ana Maria (2010): “Do European Portuguese and Spanish have the double object construction?”, EGG5. V Encuentro de Gramática Generativa. Neuquén: EDUCO, Editorial Universitaria del Comahue, 81-114.
Brito, Ana Maria (2014): “As construções ditransitivas revisitadas – alternância dativa em PE?”, in António Moreno et al. (eds), Textos Selecionados: XXIX Encontro Nacional da APL. Coimbra: APL, 103-119.
Brito, Ana Maria (2015): “Two base generated structures for ditransitives in European Portuguese”, in António Simões et al. (eds.), Linguística, informática e tradução: mundos que se cruzam, Oslo Studies in Language 7 (1), 337-357.
Cuervo, María Cristina (2003): Datives at large. PhD Diss., MIT.
Demonte, Violeta (1994): “Datives in Spanish”, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (1), 71-96.
Demonte, Violeta (1995): “Dative alternation in Spanish”, Probus 7, 5-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
Diaconescu, Constanta Rodica / María Luisa Rivero (2007): “An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian”, Probus 19 (2), 209-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/probus.2007.007
Duarte, Inês (1987): A construção de topicalização na gramática do português: regência, ligação e condições sobre movimento. PhD. Diss, Universidade de Lisboa.
Duarte, Inês (2003): “Relações gramaticais, esquemas relacionais e ordem de palavras”, in Maria Helena Mira Mateus et al. (eds.), Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa: Caminho, 275-321.
Duarte, Inês (2013): “Construções ativas, passivas, incoativas e médicas”, in Eduardo B. Paiva Raposo et al. (eds.), Gramática do Português. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 429-458.
Fournier, David H. (2010): La structure du prédicat verbal: une étude de la construction à double objet en français. PhD Diss, University of Toronto.
Giorgi, Alessandra / Giuseppe Longobardi (1991): The syntax of noun phrases: configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gonçalves, Perpétua (1990): A construção de uma gramática do português de Moçambique: Aspectos da estrutura argumental dos verbos. PhD Diss. Universidade de Lisboa.
Gonçalves, Perpétua (2002): “The role of ambiguity in second language change: the case of Mozambique African Portuguese”, Second Language Research 18 (4), 325-347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr209oa
Green, Georgia M. (1974). Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harley, Heidi. (2002): “Possession and the double object construction”, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 31-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990): Semantic structures. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1982): Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kayne, Richard (1975): French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard (1984): Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Krifka, Manfred (1999): “Manner in dative alternation”, in Sonya Bird et al. (eds.), WCCFL 18. Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 260-271.
Krifka, Manfred (2004): “Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation”, Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1-32.
Larson, Richard (1988): “On the double object construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Levinson, Lisa (2005): “‘To’ in two places in dative alternation”, in Sudha Arunachalam et al. (eds), The 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia, 155-168.
Masullo, P. J. (1992). Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: a cross-linguistic perspective. Diss, University of Washington.
Mateus, Maria Helena Mira et al. (2003): Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa: Caminho.
Miguel, Matilde / Anabela Gonçalves / Inês Duarte (2011): “Dativos não argumentais em português”, in Armanda Costa / Pilar Barbosa / Isabel Falé (orgs.), Textos Seleccionados, XXVI Encontro da Associação Portuguesa de Lingüística. Lisboa: APL, 388-400.
Morais, Maria Aparecida / Heloisa Maria Lima-Salles (2010): “Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese”, Probus 22 (2), 181-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.007
Morais, Maria Aparecida / Rosane Berlinck (2007): “Eu disse pra ele ou disse-lhe a ele: a expressão do dativo nas variedades brasileira e europeia do português”, in Ataliba Castilho et al. (eds.), Descrição, história e aquisição do português brasileiro. Campinas/SP: Pontes/FAPESP, 61-74.
Morais, Maria Aparecida (2006): “Argumentos dativos: um cenário para o núcleo aplicativo no português europeu”, ABRALIN 5 (1-2), 239-266.
Morais, Maria Aparecida (2012): “Sentenças bitransitivas e objeto indireto no português brasileiro”, Linha de Água 25 (2), 25-50.
Oehrle, Richard (1977): “Review of Georgia M. Green: Semantics and syntactic regularity”, Language 53, 198-208.
Ormazabal, Javier / Juan Romero (2010a): “The derivation of dative alternations”, in Maia Duguine / Susana Huidobro / Nerea Madariaga (eds), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm
Ormazabal, Javier / Juan Romero (2010b): “Ditransitive Predicates, Argument Structure and Selectional Properties of Vs and Ps”. Minimalist and Interfaces, IV Workshop “Sintaxe Gerativa do Português Brasileiro na Entrada do Século XXI”. Universidade de São Paulo. Unpublished presentation.
Pineda, Anna (2013): “Romance double object constructions and transitivity alternations”, in Enrico Boone / Martin Kohlberger / Maartje Schulpen (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XX. Leiden: Universitet Leiden, 185-211.
Pinker, Steven (1989): Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge/ MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina (2002). Introducing Arguments. PhD Diss, MIT: Cambridge.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka / Beth Levin (2008): “The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensivity”, Journal of Linguistics 44, 129-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226707004975
Romero, Juan (1997): Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. Diss, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Suñer, Margarita (1988): “The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled constructions”, Natural language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00133904
Wollford, Ellen (1993): “Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement”, in Paul Kotey (ed), New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages. Florida: Africa World Press, 203-216.