Reflexivization patterns in ditransitive sentences. Consequences for thematic theory
Main Article Content
Abstract
This work is framed within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work) and takes as its empirical domain certain patterns of reflexivization in Spanish. Concretely, it focuses on a fact that has not received due attention in the literature as is the impossibility of reflexivizing the direct object of ditransitive constructions in presence of a dative clitic (e.g., *Juan se le entregó a la policía vs. Juan se entregó a la policía intended: “John surrendered to the police”). Assuming that the dative clitic indicates that the goal argument is hierarchically superior to the theme argument, we propose that this phenomenon can be explained as a matter of locality in thematic assignment. This analysis has important theoretical implications regarding thematic theory in general. Basically, we claim that this provides evidence for long-distance approaches to thematic assignment under well-determined conditions of locality and activity. In addition, we discuss a putative counterexample for our relevant pattern (e.g. Juan se le entregó a María por entero, intended “John let María have him”) and show that its distribution parallel quasi-reflexive structures in Spanish (e.g., Juan se levantó “John stood up/woke up”), which calls for a different syntactic analysis of this type of examples. We then sketch a derivation that would account for several morphosyntactic and interpretative properties of these cases in particular and quasi-reflexive sentences in general.
Keywords:
Article Details
References
Bonet i Alsina, M. Eulalia. (1991): Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Tesis doctoral, MIT.
Campos, H. (1986): “Indefinite Object Drop”, Linguistic Inquiry 17,2, pp. 354-359.
Campos, H. (1999): “Transitividad e intrasitividad”, en I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 1519-1574.
Chomsky, N. (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000): “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”, en R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.): Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 89-155.
Chomsky, N. (2001): “Derivation by Phase”, en M. Kenstowicz (ed.): Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge.: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (2007): “Approaching UG from Below”, en U. Sauerland & H. Gärtner (eds.): Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-30.
Chomsky, N. (2008): “On Phases”, en R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. Zubizarreta (eds.): Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 134-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007.
Cuervo, C. (2003): Datives at Large. Tesis doctoral, MIT.
Demonte, V. (1995): “Dative Alternation in Spanish”, Probus 7, pp. 5-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5.
Di Tullio, A. (2005): Manual de gramática del español. Buenos Aires: La isla de la luna.
Eguren, L. & O. Fernández Soriano (2004): Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos.
Embick, D. (2004): “Unaccusative Syntax and Verbal Alternations”, en A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (eds.): The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 137- 158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0006.
Embick, D. & A. Marantz (2008): “Architecture and Blocking”, Linguistic Inquiry 39,1, pp. 1-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1.
Folli, R. & H. Harley (2005): “Flavours of v: Consuming Results in Italian and English”, en P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (eds.): Aspectual Inquiries. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 95- 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5.
Folli, R. & H. Harley (2007): “Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v”, Linguistic Inquiry 38,2, pp.197-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197.
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer (1998): Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, N. (1999): “Movement and Control”, Linguistic Inquiry 30,1, pp. 69-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968.
Larson, R. (1988): “On Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 19,3, pp. 335-391.
Masullo, P. (1992): Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish: A Crosslinguistic perspective. Tesis doctoral, University of Washington.
McFadden, T. (2004): The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Tesis doctoral, University of Pennsylvania.
Müller, G. (2010): “On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC”, Linguistic Inquiry 41,1, pp. 35-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35.
Nunes, J. (2004): Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2010): “The Derivation of Dative Alternations”, en M. Duguine, S. Huidobro, & N. Madariaga (eds.): Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 203-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.158.13orm.
Perlmutter, D. (1968): Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. Tesis doctoral, MIT.
Pujalte, M. (2013): Argumentos (no) agregados. Indagaciones sobre la morfosintaxis de la introducción de argumentos en español. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Pujalte, M. & A. Saab (2012): “Syncretism as PF-Repair: The Case of se-Insertion in Spanish”, en C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (eds.): The End of Argument Structure?, Syntax and Semantics 38. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 229-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9781780523774_011.
Pujalte, M. & A. Saab (2014): “Sobre la interacción entre caso y concordancia en impersonales y pasivas con se”, Traslaciones 1(1), pp. 30-55.
Pujalte, M. & P. Zdrojewski (2013): “Procesos de transitivización en el español del Río de la Plata”, en A. Di Tullio (ed.): El español rioplatense: aspectos gramaticales. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, pp. 37-58.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008): Introducing Arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001.
Reinhart, T. (2006): Interface Strategies. Optimal and Costly Computation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reuland, E. (2011): Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rizzi, L. (1986): “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro”, Linguistic Inquiry 17,3, pp. 501-557.
Saab, A. (2008): Hacia una teoría de la identidad parcial en la elipsis. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Saab, A. (2014): “Syntax or Nothing. Some Theoretical and Empirical Remarks on Implicit Arguments”, Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 3,2, pp. 125-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/1.3.2.2952.
Saab, A. (2015): “On Long-Distance Theta-Role Assignment”, Lingua 160, pp. 91-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.009.
Schäfer, F. (2008): The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Changes-of-States Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.126.
Sheehan, M. (2012): “A New Take on Partial Control: Defective Thematic Intervention”, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6,1, pp. 1-47. [disponible en: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001500].
Zdrojewski, P. (2007): Diferencias en la transitivización de verbos inergativos e inacusativos. Ms., Universidad Nacional del Comahue.