Estructura informativa y orden de palabras en las cláusulas de relativo restrictivas
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Este trabajo analiza la estructura de constituyentes de las cláusulas de relativo restrictivas para explicar por qué en español, frente a lo que ocurre en otras lenguas como el inglés, el sujeto y el verbo pueden ordenarse en ellas de manera distinta a como lo hacen en las oraciones independientes. Se defiende que en las relativas restrictivas, cláusulas subordinadas de contenido presupuesto, el constituyente más prominente desde el punto de vista informativo es el sintagma relativo, que reactiva la referencia del antecedente para conectarlo con la información del fondo común; el relativo será, por tanto, la base intencional bajo la que se organiza el resto del contenido de la oración. Asumiendo las premisas básicas de economía de las teorías generativistas recientes, se analizan en esta línea los factores de tipo discursivo que explican la posición del sujeto en estas cláusulas, así como la imposibilidad de que en ellas se dé el fenómeno de inversión locativa que sí es posible, sin embargo, en otras cláusulas no asertivas.
Palabras clave:
Citado por
Detalles del artículo
Referencias
AYOUN, Dalila. 2005: Verb movement in Spanish: "Mixed Languages" and Bilingualism. En James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad y Jeff MacSwan (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Press, 143-162.
BENINCÀ, Paola; POLETTO, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: defining the CP sublayers. En Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP, The cartography of syntactic structures 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52-75.
BIANCHI, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803372.
BIANCHI, Valentina; FRASCARELLI, Mara. 2010. Is Topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2(1), 43-88.
BOSQUE, Ignacio. 1992. La negación y el principio de las categorías vacías. En Violeta Demonte (ed.), Estudios de gramática española, México: Monográfico de Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica.
BRENTANO, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
BRESNAN, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 72-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/416741.
BREUL, Carsten. 2004. Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.68.
CHOMSKY, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. En Peter Culicover, Tom Wasow y Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, New York: Academic Press, 71-132.
CHOMSKY, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, Noam. 2008. On phases. En Robert A. Freidin, Carlos P. Otero y María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 133-166. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007.
COLLINS, Chris 1997. Local Economy, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
CONTRERAS, Heles. 1991. On the position of subjects. En Susan Rothstein y Stephen R. Anderson (eds.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, New York: Academic Press, 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_005.
CORNILESCU, Alexandra 2015. On the syntax of datives in unaccusative configurations. En Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer y Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119-158. https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.08cor.
DEN DIKKEN, Marcel; NAESS, Åshild. 1993. Case dependencies: The case of predicate inversion. Linguistic Review 10, 303-336. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1993.10.4.303.
DE VRIES, Mark 2002. The syntax of relativization, Utrecht: LOT.
EMONDS, Joseph. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations [tesis doctoral], Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
EMONDS. Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. En David Adger, Cécile De Cat y George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 75-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_4.
FERNÁNDEZ SORIANO, Olga. 1990. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish locative and dative subjects. Syntax 2(2), 101-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017.
FRASCARELLI, Mara; Hinterhölzl, Ronald. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. En Kerstin Schwabe y Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information Structure, Meaning, and Form, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87-116. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.07fra.
GUTIERREZ-BRAVO, Rodrigo. 2005. Subject Inversion in Spanish Relative Clauses. A Case of Prosody-induced word Order Variation without Narrow Focus. En Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken y Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.270.07gut.
HAEGEMAN, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120, 628-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.007.
HAEGEMAN, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001.
HEYCOCK, Caroline 2006. Embedded root phenomena. En Martin Everaert y Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Oxford: Blackwell, vol. 2, 174-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch23.
HOOPER, Joan; THOMPSON, Sandra 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-97.
JIMÉNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, Ángel Luis; MIYAGAWA, Shigeru. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145, 276-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.008.
JIMÉNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, Ángel Luis. 2018. Negative Preposing. Intervention and parametric variation in complement clauses. Atlantis 40(1), 11-37. https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2018-40.1.01.
JIMÉNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, Ángel Luis. 2020. Syntax-Information Structure Interactions in the Sentential, Verbal and Nominal Peripheries, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
KAYNE, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
KEENAN, Edward 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. En Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 303-333.
KISS, Katalin È. 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. En Katalin È. Kiss (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-27.
KURODA, Shigeyuki. 1972. The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax. Foundations of Language 9(2), 153-85.
LADUSAW, William 2000. Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong. En Laurence Horn y Yasuhiko Kato (eds.), Negation and Polarity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232-242.
LAKA, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections [tesis doctoral], Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
LANDAU, Idan 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8387.001.0001
LEONETTI, Manuel. 2016. Definiteness effects: the interplay of information structure and pragmatics. En Susann Fischer, Tanja Kupisch y Esther Rinke (eds.), Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological and Diachronic Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
LEONETTI, Manuel; Escandell, Victoria. 2017. El foco es relativo. En Ángel Gallego, Yolanda Rodríguez y Javier Sánchez-Fernández (eds.), Relaciones sintácticas: homenaje a José M. Brucart y M. Lluïsa Hernanz, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 435-446.
LEVIN, Beth; RAPPAPORT HOVAV, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
LI, Charles N.; THOMPSON, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. En Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 457-489.
MARTY, Anton. 1918. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 2: I. Abteilung; Schriften zur Deskriptiven Psychologie und Sprachphilosophie, Halle: Niemeyer.
MIYAGAWA, Shigeru. 2005. On the EPP. En Norvin Richards y Martha McGinnis (eds.), Perspectives on Phases, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 201-236.
MIYAGAWA, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move?: UnifyingAgreement Based and Discourse Configurational Languages, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001.
MIYAGAWA, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement Beyond Phi, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001.
OJEA, Ana. 2017. Core intentional features in the syntactic computation: deriving the position of the subject in Spanish. Lingua 195, 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.06.007.
OJEA, Ana. 2019. EPP-satisfaction on discourse grounds: The case of Locative Inversion. Syntax 22(2-3), 248-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12181.
OLARREA, Antxon 1996. Pre- and Postverbal Subject Position in Spanish: A Minimalist Account [tesis doctoral], Seattle: University of Washington.
OLARREA, Antxon 1998. On the position of subjects in Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo 32(1), 47-108.
ORTEGA-SANTOS, Iván. 2008. Projecting Subjects in Spanish and English [tesis doctoral], College Park: University of Maryland.
PERLMUTTER, David. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. En Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157-189. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198.
RAE y ASALE 2010 = Real Academia Española; Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2010. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual, Madrid: Espasa.
REINHART, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001.
RIZZI, Luigi. 1997. On the Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. En Adriana Belletti y Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7.
RIZZI, Luigi; Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a Non Subject: English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift. En Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 341-361. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.5.341.
ROSS, John Roberts 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax [tesis doctoral], Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
SASSE, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited. Linguistics 25(3), 511-580. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511.
STALNAKER, Robert 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 701-721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902
STOWELL, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure [tesis doctoral], Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
VERGNAUD, Jean-Roger 1974. French Relative Clauses [tesis doctoral], Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
VILLA-GARCÍA, Julio. 2018. Properties of the extended verb phrase: Agreement, the structure of INFL, and subjects. En Kimberly Geeslin (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Spanish linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 329-350. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.016.
VON HEUSINGER, Klaus 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 19, 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245.
ZUBIZARRETA, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.