Download - "Double object constructions in Romance languages revisited" (Going Romance, Utrecht, December 2011)

Anna Pineda ([email protected]) Going Romance XXV - Workshop Syntactic Variation Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona December 8-10, 2011. Utrecht.

1

Double object constructions in Romance languages revisited1

0. Goal: The aim of this talk is to provide evidence for a new view on Romance double

object constructions (DOC). Against the general trend, we don’t try to prove the

existence of Romance DOC by comparing it to the well-known English-like dative

alternation, but we propose a new approach to Romance ditransitive constructions.

1. State of affairs

1.1. What has been claimed

· Spanish does have DOC (Strozer 1976, Masullo 1992, Demonte 1995, Romero 1997)

(against Kayne 1984)… which is the construction with dative clitic doubling (2b).

· After Pylkkänen’s (2002) work on Applicatives → DOC in Spanish (Cuervo 2003a,b),

Romanian (Diaconescu & Rivero 2007) and Portuguese (Torres Morais & Moreira

Lima Salles 2010).

· All they claim that the same syntactic and semantic differences found between DOC

and Prepositional Construction (PC) in languages as English can also be found in

Spanish:

(1) a. John gave the book to Mary (PC, DO c-commands IO)

b. John gave Mary the book (DOC, IO c-commands DO)

(2) a. Juan dio el libro a María (PC, DO c-commands IO)

b. Juan le dio el libro a María (DOC, IO c-commands DO)

1 This research has been sponsored by the Programa de Formación de Professorado Universitario (FPU) del Ministerio de Educación, and both projects Microvariación: rasgos sintácticos y realización morfofonológica (HUM2006-13295-C02-01) (Ministerio de Educación) and Grup de Lingüística Teòrica (2009 SGR-1079) (Generalitat de Catalunya).


2

1.2. There is no English-type DOC in Romance

Problem: they have to prove that Romance languages show exactly the same structural

asymmetries detected in English –which is not the case, as we will see.

Proposal:

- Don’t identify DOC on the basis of its contrast wrt the prepositional paraphrase (PC)

in English, but look for the real inherent properties of the construction

- A less restrictive definition → DOC in a larger number of languages, as Fournier 2010

does for French

- Data from Catalan and Spanish (particularly that spoken in Catalonia, but also

European Spanish in general) lead us to reject the equivalence in (1)-(2).

Conclusions:

- Catalan and Spanish do have DOC and PC but both of these constructions may appear

with or without dative clitic

- In both languages the use of clitic seems to be a matter of dialectal variation, without

any consequences on syntactic structure (no differences as for anaphoric phenomena,

possessive pronouns binding and distributive reading, weak crossover effects, frozen

scope and passivization, and no regular lexical-semantic differences).


3

2. Evidence supporting our hypothesis

With and without clitic, there is bidirectional c-command.

2.1. What has been already noted: French and Italian

Bidirectional c-command relation between DO and IO in French (3) and Italian (4):

(3) a. Marie a donné soni crayon à [chaque garçon]i

‘Marie gave his pencil to every boy’

b. Jean a présenté [chaque institutrice]i à sesi élèves (Harley 2002: 62) ‘Jean introduced every teacher to her students’

(4) a. Una lunga terapia psicoanalitica ha restituito Mariai a se stessai ‘A long psychoanalytic therapy restored Maria to herself’

b. Una lunga terapia psicoanalitica ha restituito se stessai a Mariai ‘A long psychoanalytic therapy restored herself to Maria’

(Giorgi & Longobardi 1991: 42)

2.2. What we should also note: Spanish and Catalan

Also in Spanish and Catalan there is bidirectional c-command and, crucially, c-

command possibilities are not related to clitic doubling (against Strozer 1976, Masullo

1992, Demonte 1995, Romero 1997, Cuervo 2003a,b).

2.3. Empirical basis

Dative clitic no structural consequences (as different c-command relations).

Data:

(a) Some examples from the above mentioned authors’ studies which usually have

been treated as unaccountable sentences

(b) (European) Spanish and Catalan speakers’ judgments, which confirm that both

structural possibilities of c-command are found irrespective of the presence or

absence of the clitic

(c) Google (occasionally)

2.3.1. Possessive pronouns binding and distributive reading

· English: distributive readings and binding of pronouns in PC is restricted to pronouns

in IO, whereas in DOC is the other way round (Barss & Lasnik 1986).

· Spanish:

(5) PC

a. *La profesora entregó sui dibujo a cada niñoi ‘The teacher gave his drawing to each child’

b. ok

La profesora entregó cada dibujoi a sui autor

‘The teacher gave every drawing to its author’

(6) DOC

a. ok

La profesora le pasó a limpio sui dibujo a cada niñoi (lit.) ‘The teacher cliticDAT gave-back-cleared his drawing to each child’

b. ?La profesora le pasó a limpio cada dibujoi a sui autor

(lit.) ‘The teacher cliticDAT gave-back-cleared each drawing to its author’

(Demonte 1995: 10-11)

But…


4

As for the alleged PC, in European Spanish (5a) is perfectly grammatical, as in other

Romance languages such as French (see (3a)).

As for the alleged DOC in (6), Demonte herself admits that the contrast is no as clear

as in English. In European Spanish (6b) is grammatical (Bleam 2003 and De Pedro

Munilla 2004 agree with us).

The same in Catalan:

(7) a. ok

La professora (li) va donar el seui dibuix a cada neni ‘The teacher (cliticDAT) gave his drawing to each child’

b. ok

La professora (li) va donar cada dibuixi al seu autori ‘The teacher (cliticDAT) gave each drawing to its author’

In Spanish and Catalan there is bidirectional c-command between objects in

ditransitive constructions: both DO and IO can c-command each other irrespective of

the presence or absence of dative clitic doubling.

2.3.2. Lexical-semantic differences

· Oehrle (1976) noted that DOC structure implies some possession relation between

both arguments (if we say John taught Mary Russian, she has learnt it, but this is not

necessarily the case when saying John taught Russian to Mary).

· According to Demonte (1995: 12-13) and Cuervo (2003a: 121-122), in the Spanish

clitic-doubled variant the dative DP is understood as affected (possessor or an intrinsical

part of the DO):

· CONSEQUENCE: if a locative cannot be considered affected, the sentence is rejected

(8b, 9b):

(8) a. Le regalé un libro a cada uno de los asistentes ‘I cliticDAT gave a book to each one of the attendants’

b. ??

Le regalé/doné un libro a la biblioteca ‘I cliticDAT gave/donated a book to the library’

(9) a. Le puse el mantel a la mesa ‘I cliticDAT put the tablecloth on the table’

b. *Le puse los platos a la mesa

‘I cliticDAT put the dishes on the table’ (Adapted from Demonte 1995:

12)

But…

The availability of clitic doubling can be accounted for by other means (see section

3.3.2).

Clitic doubling generally available, but sometimes semantic constraints made it less

grammatical (8b)

Difficulty in Catalonia-Spanish and Catalan to clitic-double locative DPs, affected or

not (even (9a) hardly acceptable by speakers we consulted) (Catalonia-Spanish doesn’t

accept clitic doubling in (8b), but general Spanish yes, although the Goal is non-

affected, against Demonte and Cuervo’s predictions).

Anyway, both in Spanish and even in Catalan speakers are starting to double non-

possessor Goal (10), (11):


5

(10) a. Le han concedido un nuevo premio de diseño al parque que inauguraron el año

pasado

b. Li han concedit un nou premi de disseny al parc que van inaugurar l’any passat ‘They have given a new design award to the park that opened last year’

(11) a. Los nombrados son los que le han concedido un premio al blog de María Narro ‘The mentioned are those that have awarded a prize to the blog of Maria Narro’

b. Lo acabo de leer […], le han concedido un premio al Skoda Octavia ‘I just read it […], they has awarded a prize to the Skoda Octavia’

c. Li han donat un premi a un restaurant de Vilafranca, per tenir tota la seva carta de

vins amb només vins catalans ‘They have given a prize to a restaurant in Vilafranca, for having all its wine list with only Catalan

wines’

(Google)

The difference between Spanish ditransitive variants with and without clitic is in no

way as important as it should be if one variant was DOC and the other PC.

No difference as for the achievement (or not) of a particular knowledge of Russian: (12) a. Juan enseñó ruso a María

a'. El Joan va ensenyar rus a la Maria ‘Joan taught Russian to Maria’

b. Juan le enseñó ruso a María

b'. El Joan li va ensenyar rus a la Maria ‘Joan cliticDAT taught Russian to Maria’

· CONSEQUENCE: ungrammaticality of (13), where soldiers cannot be affected because

they are dead: (13) El presidente (*les) ofreció honores a los soldados muertos en el hundimiento ‘The president (*cliticDAT) offered honours to the soldiers dead in the sinking’

(Adapted from Cuervo 2003a: 122)

But…

In Cuervo’s example DO is part of a collocation (ofrecer honores). Compare to (14):

(14) El presidente les ofreció las oraciones elegidas a los soldados muertos en el

hundimiento ‘The president cliticDAT offered the chosen prayers to the soldiers dead in the sinking’

And even with collocations: (15) a. un foro para rendirles homenaje a las víctimas de la dictadura y que la población

conozca a sus victimarios ‘a forum to pay tribute to victims of the dictatorship and that people know about their killers’

b. [talking about a building in a cemetery] será un sitio para rendirles homenaje a las

víctimas de la violencia en Colombia

‘it will be a place to pay tribute to victims of violence in Colombia’ (Google)

Affectedness/Possession and clitic doubling are not related

=

DOC and clitic doubling are not related


6

3. Proposal

· If the clitic does not have any influence on the structural position of objects, there is

no parallelism to be found between English DOC and Spanish or Catalan clitic-doubled

constructions.

· Also Beavers & Nishida (2010) note that Spanish clitic-doubled ditransitive

constructions cannot be compared to English DOC because the former bear

bidirectional c-command.

· So, irrespective of the clitic, Spanish and Catalan ditransitive sentences can be a reflex

of two different structures. The same as Anagnostopoulou (2005) proposes for French

à-Goals and for Greek se-Goals.

3.1. Claims:

· Romance and English ditransitive constructions don’t share the same structural

asymmetries.

· French, Italian, Spanish and Catalan ditransitive constructions bear bidirectional c-

command, irrespective of the clitic.

· Spanish and Catalan a-Goals may be DP or PP.

· Spanish and Catalan a-Goals (DP or PP) can surface in PC and in DOC –so they are

ambiguous. (No systematic correlation between the categorial status of dative

arguments and their hierarchical position (PP vs. DP), Anagnostopoulou 2005)

· Clitic doubling has no structural consequences: Spanish and Catalan a-Goals can be

optionally clitic-doubled (like Greek genitive DP-Goals), whether they surface in PC or

in DOC.

· Crucially, in Catalan and (European) Spanish clitic doubling is much closer to a

systematic fact present in some dialects and absent in others, and doesn’t seem to be a

matter of real choice made by speakers.

· Clitic doubling is only possible with 3rd

person datives, but DOC is not (She gave me a

book) → This supports our view: no exclusive relation between DOC and clitic

doubling.

3.2. Inspirations:

· Harley (2002), Doggett (2004) and Fournier (2010): in Romance ditransitive sentences

there is a stage in the derivation where IO can c-command DO, although final word

order is DO>IO.

· Anagnostopoulou (2005): This final order DO>IO is the result of DO A-movement

over IO (after A-movement biding takes place, but not after A’-movement).


7

3.3. The analysis

Ditransitive constructions in Spanish and Catalan may surface as DOC or as PC, and in

both cases a-Goal can be DP or PP. And both structural variants may include dative

clitic doubling.

3.3.1. Double Object Construction (DOC)

Three main different analyses have been proposed for ditransitive constructions:

(a) Applicative Hypothesis (Marantz 1993): extra structure above the lexical V.

(b) Small Clause (Kayne 1984), Zero Morpheme (Pesetsky 1995): some extra structure inside the lexical

V

(c) = (a+b) Low and High Applicative Hypothesis (Pylkkänen 2002): extra structure above V for High

Applicatives (those whose interpretation doesn’t involve a Goal argument); extra structure inside V for

Low Applicatives (those whose interpretation involves transfer of possession).

We adopt Pylkkänen’s distinction:

- The Low Applicative Head describes an asymmetric possession relation between two

items.

- As a functional category, its argument is syntactically realized in its Spec position.

- Due to the presence of the Applicative, a transfer of possession interpretation is

necessarily involved.

- The LowAppl Head assigns inherent case (Woolford 2006, Fournier 2010):

· dative case to its Spec in Romance languages (and Recipient/Possessor θ-role)

· accusative case to its Complement in English (and Theme θ-role)

→ In Romance DO passivization, in IO passivization (see appendix 3).

- As a consequence of Case-checking, Romance ditransitive constructions usually

reflect DO-IO ordering, because DO has moved up to check its structural case. On the

other hand, in English-like languages, the one who moves is IO, so final word order will be IO-DO,

which happens to be the same as base word order.

(16) a. Base-generated word order (Romance) b. Surface word order (Romance)


8

Both PPs and DPs fit into this structure.

Anagnostopoulou (2005: 115): not only a-DPs but in DOC also «a-PPs are allowed

to form chains with pronominal clitics in Spanish».

In Spanish and Catalan not only a-DPs but also a-PPs may appear clitic-doubled in

DOCs because the clitic is simply the spell-out of the LowAppl head (phonologically

null or full).

The status of the dative clitic in DOC is really different from the status of dative

clitic in PC, as we will see next.


9

3.3.2. Prepositional Construction (PC)

In PC there’s no way for a PP to appear clitic-doubled, and only DP will have that

option (whereas in DOC both PP and DP could appear clitic-doubled because the clitic was the spell-out

of a functional head).

We analyze clitic doubling following McFadden’s (2004) account of morphological

case and Zdrojewsky’s (2008) proposal on accusative clitic doubling in some American

Spanish varieties.

Mutual c-command in PC

- English (Burzio 1986: 199-203):

(17) a. Sue showed John and Mary to each other’s friends

b. Sue showed each other’s friends to John and Mary (Pesetsky 1995:

222)

- Spanish: Cuervo (2003b: 34) proposes that in PC where DO asymmetrically c-

commands IO but crucially she admits that «the theme DP and the directional PP as a

whole behave as two constituents in a symmetric relation».

- Greek: Anagnostopoulou (2003, 2005), when analyzing PC constructions in Greek

with se-Goals, which display both orderings (DO>IO and IO> DO), proposes three

possible structures:

(i) DO asymmetrically c-commands the IO (as proposed by Larson 1988) for English

(order IO>DO derived by leftward A-scrambling of the IO over the DO)

(ii) IO asymmetrically c-commands the DO (order DO>IO derived by A-movement of

the DO across the IO)

(iii) A free base-generation analysis, where both DO>IO and IO>DO may be base-

generated orders

· Anagnostopoulou (2005: 69): she chooses (iii) for Greek, «there is no linking principle forcing one

argument to be higher than the other.

· Marantz (1993): as for certain thematic roles it doesn’t matter where the one is merged relatively to

the other.

We assume (iii) for Romance languages.

(18) Romance PC


10

In PC, clitic doubling is only available for DP Goals and under certain conditions.

CliticP = ad hoc solution.

We follow Embick & Noyer (2001) proposal for definiteness doubling in Swedish

determiners (Distributed Morphology) Zdrojewsky (2008) applies it to another case

of clitic doubling in Romance: DO clitic doubling in some varieties of American

Spanish (20).

- Clitics in doubling structures are dissociated morphemes which have been lately (meaning post-

syntactically) inserted in the morphological component.

- Accusative clitics appear in order to satisfy at PF a morphosyntactic condition on transitive verbs (at PF

the head of the phase v must be locally associated to the [+DEF] feature it the DO is [+DEF]).

- This condition is generally fulfilled by the configuration which Morphology sends to Syntax (local

relation Spec-Head as in Trajo el libro ‘He brought the book’ (19a) or Lo compré ‘I bought it’ (19b)):

(19) a. Trajo el libro

(Zdrojewsky 2008: 48)

b. Lo compré


- However, sometimes an intervening element prevents that fulfillment. This intervening element is the a

mark (differential object marking, DOM) in animate DO in Spanish, as in (20).

- Following McFadden (2004), case-markers are dissociated nodes inserted at some point in the derivation

at PF as sisters of DPs, see (20).

- In order to satisfy the condition on transitive verbs, a copying operation of dissociated morphemes takes

place in Morphology: the φ-features of the DP are copied in v (local relation Head-Head):

(20) La vi a María

‘I cliticACC saw aDOM María’


11


- Zdrojewsky (2008) doesn’t explain clearly why accusative clitic doubling isn’t a systematic

phenomenon in the varieties at study.

- We will assume that when the DO is not doubled, both sporadically in these American varieties and

generally in the rest of the Romance area, we are dealing with a construction which bears some

differences as for its informational structure or as for the status (active / inactive) of the relevant feature

of the DO.

Turning to Romance PC, we claim that there is one feature in Goal DPs which may

be active or inactive (it could be related to the interpretatibility of sentences).

When this feature is active, v needs to establish a local relation with it and so dative

clitic doubling (copying of features) is required in order to satisfy this necessity –the

configuration which Syntax sends to Morphology will never allow this local relation between both

constituents because of the presence of the intervening a (dative marker).

The alleged lexical-semantic difference between variants with and without clitic (see

section 2.3.2) is accounted for: in PC, clitic doubling is only available depending on

semantic and interpretational features of the DO.

- Clitic doubling is almost always available in Spanish ditransitive constructions, but in some

cases, especially when the Goal doesn’t bear the right semantics, cliticization is less acceptable.

- This is the case of Locative-like Goals, as in *Le puse los platos a la mesa (see (19b)).

- In these cases Spanish has two possible solutions:

(i) forcing a personified interpretation of the Locative and thus accept the dative clitic ??

Le

regalé/doné un libro al auditorio / a la biblioteca (see (18b));

(ii) considering that no personification can be made and, given the lack of locative pronouns,

judge the sentence as ungrammatical (*Le puse los platos a la mesa).

- Likewise, Fournier (2010: 103-104) argues that in French the IO must check dative case

whenever it is possible, but if the Goal cannot possess things then there’s no DOC –and à is a

locative marker.


12

4. Consequences

4.1. Explaining bidirectional c-command

4.1.1. Bidirectional c-command in DOC

The locus where binding and similar facts take place is not universally fixed.

In English they generally take place in the base positions of objects (but see appendix

3).

In French they usually take place once arguments are in their derived position

(Fournier 2010), and occasionally also in the base positions (backward binding).

Spanish and Catalan…

· Cuervo (2003a,b) considers that binding in Spanish only takes place in the base positions and, therefore,

that DO movement doesn’t create new biding relations, something we (and Fournier and

Anagnostopoulou) don’t agree with, as commented.

· Whereas Fournier admits that c-command relations in English and French are not the same, Cuervo

(2003a,b) try to show that Spanish clitic-doubled ditransitives (allegedly DOC) do coincide with English

and, as seen, examples and contrasts are not as clear and sharp as they should be.

· Fournier (2010: 43-45) explicitly says: «Les données, provenant surtout de l’espagnol, montrent que le

liage n’est pas nécessairement pertinent après toute dérivation-A, mais aussi, possiblement avant».

Spanish and Catalan: the most common c-command relation is that in which DO c-

commands IO (as in French)

· PC (free base-generation account)

· DOC: as in French, binding facts usually take place after the derivation is completed (DO higher than

IO), and occasionally also before it. Examples where binding takes place in the base positions (IO c-

commands DO) (21a) and (22a) are more deviant (but not ungrammatical, according to our judgments)

than examples where binding takes place in the derived positions (DO c-commands IO) (21b) and (22b):

(21) a. ok/?

La profesora entregó sui dibujo a cada niñoi

‘The teacher gave his drawing to each child’

b. ok

La profesora entregó cada dibujoi a sui autor

‘The teacher gave every drawing to its author’

(22) a. ok/?

La profesora le pasó a limpio sui dibujo a cada niñoi

(lit.) ‘The teacher cliticDAT gave-back-cleared his drawing to each child’

b. ok

La profesora le pasó a limpio cada dibujoi a sui autor


13

4.1.2. Bidirectional c-command in PC

Bidirectional c-command in PC:

· English, Greek, Romance (French and Italian)

· Spanish and Catalan (something ignored or left aside by Demonte, Romero, Cuervo)

Free base-generated analysis in which both the DO and they IO can c-command each

other.

4.1.3. IO>DO word order in Romance

According to Beavers & Nishida (2010), corpus data show that:

- The most common ordering is DO > IO.

- IO > DO is generally exclusive for cases of heavy DO.

The derivation of these sentences proceeds in the same way, but other factors related

to informational structure and pragmatics give rise to the final (and derived) word order

IO > DO.


14

4.2. Spanish and Catalan ditransitive constructions are generally ambiguous

Romance ditransitive constructions are almost always structurally ambiguous, since

both constructions may bear the possession interpretation: as it has been widely alleged,

cross-linguistically DOC expresses a transfer of possession of the Theme to a Goal

which ends up being affected by the event; this interpretation can also be expressed by

PC.

In short, if a construction has this interpretation, it may be an instantiation of PC or

DOC (in both cases with or without clitic doubling), whereas a sentence lacking this

semantics (no possession relation between objects is established) will be non-

ambiguously an instantiation of PC.

When a transfer of possession is expressed, DOC and PC are indistinguishable:

(23) a. La profesora (le) dio sui dibujo a cada niñoi

‘The teacher (cliticDAT) gave his drawing to each child’

b. La profesora (le) dio cada dibujoi a sui autor ‘The teacher (cliticDAT) gave each drawing to its author’

· No relation is to be found between clitic doubling and structural positions of objects, since irrespective

of the presence of the dative clitic both c-command relations hold. This follows if we consider that the

place where biding facts takes place is not universally fixed and may change cross-linguistically and even

intra-linguistically (see Harley 2002, Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005 and Fournier 2010).

But when no transfer of possession meaning is part of the semantics of the event, the

only structure we have is the one without the Appl head, since only in PC there’s no

obligatory transfer of possession meaning:

(24) a. (Le) han concedido un nuevo premio de diseño al parque que inauguraron el año pasado ‘They have given a new design award to the park that opened last year’

b. (Li) han donat un premi a un restaurant de Vilafranca per la seva carta de vins ‘They have given a prize to a restaurant in Vilafranca for its wine list’

· Clitic doubling doesn’t play any relevant role. As noted above, when dealing with sentences as those in

(24) (no transfer of possession) we will be able to determine the categorial status of the Goal: if it is clitic-

doubled it will be a DP, whereas if it is not it will be a PP.

4.3. So, why don’t we deny Romance DOC?

Because…


15

Romance languages have a ditransitive construction in which a very concrete

semantics is expressed with the contribution of a LowAppl Head which ensures a

possession relation between the DO and the IO.

It doesn’t mean that this semantics can only be expressed by DOC, but also by PC, as

in English and other DOC-languages.

The only difference wrt English-type DOC is that Romance DOC doesn’t bear any

structural (c-command) or superficial (word order) feature which makes it identifiable at

first sight.

Fournier (2010) claims that DOC definition should not include references to surface

word order or structural positions of objects (a matter of linguistic variation). → The

definition should focus on the semantics of the construction (also Malchukov et al.

2007) .


16

5. Extensions

A connection between this new view on Romance DOCs and transitivity alternations

in the area.

The fact is that in some Romance languages (Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, Italian) and

also in Basque there are several verbs (as those meaning ‘phone’, ‘hit’, ‘write’, ‘steal’,

‘pay’…) which show a triple alternation:

(i) ditransitive structure with DO (thing) and IO (person)

(ii) monotransitive structure with DO (person) (26)

(iii) intransitive structure with IO (person) (27)

(25)

only complem. of person

Examples (Catalan):

(25) La Maria (li) telefona un missatge a la seva mare ‘Maria (cliticDAT) phones a message to her mother’

(26) La Maria telefona la seva mare --- La Maria la telefona ‘Maria phones her mother’ ‘Maria cliticACC phones’

(27) La Maria telefona a la seva mare --- La Maria li telefona ‘Maria phones to her mother’ ‘Maria cliticDAT phones’

Irrespective of the clitic doubling, structure in (i) includes two possibilities:

(a) obligatory transfer of possession and thus a more affected IO (person) (DOC)

monotransitive variant in (ii) (26)

(somehow more affected complement of person in accusative)

(b) facultative transfer of possession and thus a less affected IO (person) (PC)

intransitive variant in (iii) (27)

(somehow less affected complement of person in dative)

Probably, also inBasque DOC-PC alternation (Oyharçabal 2010, Arregi & Ormazabal 2003):

(28) a. Mireni mezulari bat bidali diot (DOC) ‘I sent MirenDAT a messengerABS’

b. Mirenengana mezulari bat bidali dut (PC) ‘I sent a messengerABS to MirenALLATIVE’

Support:

DOC denotes an event where a certain entity is transferred and therefore the IO

(complement of person) is necessarily affected by the verbal action (Green 1974, Oehrle

1976, Pinker 1989, Jackendoff 1990).

Codifying the more affected participant (in verbs with one complement) as DO is a

cross-linguistically quite widespread tendency (Smith 1987 for German, Dixon 1994,

Kittilä 2007).

Pronominalization facts in Catalan (a language which preserves prepositional clitics):


17

· Intransitive structures in type (iii) admit a dative clitic (29a) but also a locative (prepositional) clitic

(29b), provided the proper Goal (somehow locative):

(29) a. La Maria telefona a la seva mare --- La Maria li telefona (=27) ‘Maria phones to her mother’ ‘Maria cliticDAT phones’

b. La Maria telefona a l’empresa --- La Maria hi telefona ‘Maria phones to the company’ ‘Maria cliticLOC phones’

· There exists the possibility of personifying the locative Goal in intransitive constructions through the

use of a plural dative (30). Crucially, this personification is nearly obligatory when pronominalizing

ditransitive constructions with locative-like Goals, as in (31):

(30) Ja has telefonat a l’empresa? No, encara no {hiLOC / elsDAT } he telefonat

‘Have you already phoned to the company? No, I haven’t phoned {cliticLOC / cliticDAT } yet’

(31) Has telefonat el missatge a l’empresa? No, després {*l’AC hiLOC / ok

elsDAT elACC}

telefonaré

‘Have you phoned the message to the company? No, I will phone {*cliticAC cliticLOC / ok

cliticDAT cliticACC}

later’

These facts seem to be consistent with our predictions and suggestions:

- Ditransitve constructions → (generally) successful transfer of possession (PC or DOC)

→ Goal being affected. So even locative Goals require a dative clitic and tend to reject a

locative one.

- Facultative transfer of possession (PC) → intransitive variant (30) → they admit

dative and locative clitic (depending on the most salient reading: successful transfer of

possession or lack of possession relation).

- Availability of a locative clitic → a is not always a dative-marker (against

Anagnostopoulou 2005) but it can also be a preposition → in PC we find both a-DP and

a-PP.

Catalan: choice between (26) and (27) (monotransitive or intransitive) is subject to

dialectal (and also diastratic) variation. → Depending on the territory and the

generation, different degrees of generalization of a as a dative marker:

(i) varieties in which the monotransitive variant (26) is used (and the intransitive one is

judged rare) → predominance of DOC ditransitive constructions → dative marked a-

Goal (DP or PP). Example: Central Catalan.

(ii) varieties in which the intransitive variant (27) is used (and the monotransitive one is

judged rare) → predominance of PC ditransitive constructions → a-Goals are

interpreted exclusively as PPs, a as a dative mark is not so extended. Example: Valencià

Catalan.


18

6. Conclusions

- In (European) Spanish and Catalan it cannot be argued that ditransitive constructions

with and without clitic bear the same structural and semantic differences as the variants

of the dative alternation in languages for which the existence of DOC has been widely

recognized.

- Most of the judgments weren’t sharp enough as to support the view that Romance

DOC is completely comparable to English DOC (against Demonte 1995 and Cuervo

2003a,b among others)

- Probably, a more accurate analysis of the data on Romanian and Portugues could

reveal that the extension analysis for English Low Applicative constructions (DOC) to

Romance ditransitive constructions is not as simple as pretended –for the moment, we

can say that diagnostics related to structural asymmetries seem to reveal less sharp than

they should be if a perfect comparison has to be established (against Diaconescu &

Rivero 2007 for Rumanian and Torres Morais & Salles 2010 for Portuguese).


19

Appendix 1. Anaphoric phenomena (reflexives)

Demonte (1995) tries to show that in Spanish PC only IO anaphor is possible (because DO c-

comands it) (1), whereas in the Spanish alleged DOC only DO anaphor is possible (2):2 3

(1) a. ok

El tratamiento devolvió [DO a Maríai] a [IO sí mismai] (lit.) The therapy gave-back María to herself

b. *El tratamiento devolvió [DO a sí mismai] [IO a Maríai ]

(lit.) The therapy gave-back herself to María

(2) a. *El tratamiento le devolvió [DO a Maríai] [IO a la estima de sí mismai] (lit.) The therapy cliticDAT gave-back María to the esteem of herself

b. ok

El tratamiento le devolvió [DO la estima de sí mismai] [IO a Maríai]

(lit.) The therapy cliticDAT gave-back the esteem of herself to María

(Adapted from Demonte 1995: 10)

But…

Demonte (1995: 10) rejects (1b) and accepts (2b) but she does change the sentence: a sí

misma is changed to la estima de sí misma.

Applying the same change to (1b), the resulting sentence is grammatical (3a), and applying

the reverse change to (2b) the resulting sentence becomes ungrammatical (3b):

(3) a. ok

El tratamiento devolvió [DO la estima de sí mismai] [IO a Maríai ] (cf. (1b)) The therapy gave-back the esteem of herself to María

b. *El tratamiento le devolvió [DO a sí mismai] [IO a Maríai] (cf. (2b)) The therapy cliticDAT gave-back herself to María

So…

DO anaphor: la estima de sí misma

IO anaphor: a sí misma

No related to clitic doubling. Related to different semantics and different internal structure of

both reflexives.

As seen in section 4.1.1, binding facts in Spanish and Catalan generally take place in the

derived positions, so only IO anaphors should be possible (or more commonly possible). This

prediction burns out:

(4) a. *El tratamiento le devolvió a sí mismai a Maríai

a'. *El tractament li va tornar a si mateixai a la Mariai

b. *El tratamiento devolvió a sí mismai a Maríai

b' *El tractament va tornar a si mateixai a la Mariai

(5) a. *El tratamiento le devolvió a Maríai a la estima de sí mismai

a'. *El tractament li va tornar la Mariai a l'estima de si mateixai

b. ??/

*El tratamiento devolvió a Maríai a la estima sí mismai

b'. ??/

*El tractament va tornar la Mariai a l'estima de si mateixai

(6) a. ok

El tratamiento le devolvió la estima de sí mismai a Maríai

a'. ok

El tractament li va tornar l'estima de si mateixai a la Mariai

b. ok

El tratamiento devolvió la estima de sí mismai a Maríai

2 Although examples from studies about Spanish use the reflexive sí misma (lit. ‘(her)self same’), it should be noted that speakers use equally or even more frequently alternative forms like ella misma (lit. ‘she same’).

3 Inclusion inside square brackets means a is a case marker, whereas exclusion means it is a preposition.


20

b'. ok

El tractament va tornar l'estima de si mateixai a la Mariai

(7) a. ok

El tratamiento devolvió a Maríai a sí misma

a'. ok

El tractament va tornar la Mariai a si mateixai

b. ok/?

El tratamiento le devolvió a Maríai a sí mismai

b'. ?/??

El tractament li va tornar la Maria a si mateixai

DO anaphor (4) ungrammatical

IO anaphor (7) grammatical (but rejection of clitic doubling and reflexive)

Why is (5) ungrammatical? Semantic and pragmatic oddity (speakers prefer (7))

Why is (6) grammatical? Sometimes, c-command in the base positions is also accepted


21

Appendix 2. Frozen scope

- In English (Aoun & Li 1989) PC the scope is free whereas in DOC it is frozen (the Goal can

cover the Theme but not vice versa (see Bruening (2001: 134, 263-265) for an explanation in

terms of superiority and quantifier raising)

- Cuervo (2003a: 134-135, 2003b: 43-44), following Demonte (1995), notes that in Spanish the

same effect arises because in the clitic-doubled variant (DOC) only quantifiers in IO can take

scope over indefinites in DO (1b, 1d), but not the other way round (1a, 1c):

Possible scopal

relations

(1) a. Andrés le mandó cada cuadro a un museo (#distinto) *cada >

un ‘Andrés cliticDAT sent each painting to a (#different) museum’ b. Carolina le llevó un artículo (distinto) a cada revista cada

> un

‘Carolina cliticDAT took a (different) article to each magazine’

c. Tenés que recomendarle todo candidato a algún buen profesor (#distinto) *todo >

algún ‘You have to recommend cliticDAT every candidate to some (#different) good teacher’ d. Tenés que recomendarle algún candidato (distinto) a todo buen profesor todo >

algún ‘You have to recommend cliticDAT some (different) candidate to every good teacher’

(Adapted from Cuervo 2003a: 134, 2003b: 43-44)

But…

Catalonia-Spanish is reluctant to clitic-double Goals in (1) (treat them as datives) →

examples in (1) sound strange. But see (2):4

Possible scopal

relations

(2) a. El director del orfanato le mandó cada niño a una familia distinta cada > un ‘The orphanage principle cliticDAT sent each child to a different family’

b. El director del orfanato mandó cada niño a una familia distinta cada > un ‘The orphanage principle sent each child to a different family’

Catalan data confirm that clitic has no influence in scope relations:

Possible scopal

relations

(3) a. Ton tio li va donar cada regal a un nebot (diferent) cada > un Your uncle cliticDAT gave each present to a (different) nephew

b. Maria li va enviar un article (diferent) a cada revista cada > un Maria cliticDAT sent a (different) article to each magazine

Ditransitive constructions in Spanish and Catalan usually bear free scope always, irrespective

of the presence or absence of the clitic (against Cuervo (2003a: 134, 2003b: 43-44), who argues

that free scope is only available in non-doubled variants, PC).

4 In fact, for some speakers (2b) is better than (2a). This follows from the considerations in section 4.1.1: as there is transfer of possession and the DO > IO c-command (base positions) is worse than the IO > DO c-command (derived positions), we can conclude that (2a) is an instantiation of DOC, where generally c-command relations are established in the derived positions, whereas when established in the base positions the result is less commonly accepted (but possible). On the other hand, (2a) is probably a PC, where free base-generation ordering ensures bidirectional c-command.


22

Also Fournier (2010: 118-119) concludes that frozen scope is not an inherent property of the

universal DOC, but rather a consequence of word order, something that also Bleam (2003)

points out, or of informational structure considerations (Goldberg 2006).


23

Appendix 3. Passivization

- Spanish allows Theme passivization of a transfer verb (1), but when predicates with

benefactive or interest datives are involved, passivization becomes impossible (2) (as in English

fix-type predicates):

(1) El premio Nobel (le) fue concedido a Cela el año pasado ‘The Nobel prize (cliticDAT) was awarded to Cela last year’

(2) a. *La casa le fue pintada a Juan ‘The house cliticDAT was painted for Juan’

b. *La mancha le fue frotada a la camisa ‘The stain cliticDAT was scrubbed out of the shirt’

(3) La casa fue pintada ayer ‘The house was painted yesterday’

(Adapted from Demonte 1995: 12)

- As predicates in (2) require clitic doubling obligatorily, Demonte concludes that the presence

of an affected dative blocks raising of the internal argument (compare to (3)) → same

constraints on passivization depending on the verb lexical type.

But…

Demonte compares English fix-type verbs (which do enter dative alternation) with a group of

Spanish predicates with benefactive or interest datives which, crucially, don’t enter the alleged

alternation.

Moreover, Spanish spoken (at least) in Catalonia behaves differently: fix-type predicates (4)

cannot passivize (5) in spite of not having clitic (thus not being comparable to English DOC):

(4) a. Los trabajadores pintaron la casa a Juan y terminaron enseguida ‘The workers painted the house for Juan and ended immediately’

b. Juan estaba a punto de preparar la comida a su familia cuando sonó el teléfono ‘Juan was about to prepare the meal for his family when the phone rang’

(5) a. */??

La casa fue pintada a Juan por los trabajadores ‘The house was painted for Juan by the workers’

b. */??

La comida estaba a punto de ser preparada a la familia cuando sonó el teléfono. ‘The meal was about to be prepared for his family when the phone’

Catalan data confirm the facts: clitic is not at all compulsory in fix-type predicates (6) and

passivization is impossible irrespective of the clitic (7):

(6) a. Fan veure que taquen el turista accidentalment amb un líquid, un dels lladres

s'ofereix a netejar la taca a la víctima amb un mocador, mentre l'altre aprofita la confusió del

moment i roba la cartera de la víctima (El Punt, 8-X-2009) ‘They pretend to accidentally stain the tourist with a liquid, one of the thieves offers to clean the stain off (of) the

victim with a tissue, while the other takes advantage of the confusion of the moment and steals the victim's wallet’ b. El pintor va pintar la casa al Joan amb molta eficàcia

‘The painter painted the house for Joan very effectively’

(7) a. */??

La taca és netejada a la víctima ‘The stain is cleaned off (of) the victim’

b. */??

La casa va ser pintada al Joan ‘The house was painted for Joan’

Passivization is related to the verb lexical type or maybe simply to pragmatic factors (other

impersonalizing strategies can be used, as pronominal passives), and the clitic and the


24

purported structural differences don’t play any relevant role.

Another important point (not developed in the handout, but in our final work) against

Demonte and Cuervo’s view comes from work on applicatives and phases by McGinnis (2001).5

7. References

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena (2003): The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena (2005): «Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives», in Melita Stavrou & Arhonto Terzi

(ed): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pg. 61-126.

AOUN, Joseph & Yen-Hui Audrey LI (1989): «Scope and constituency», Linguistic Inquiry, 20, pg. 141-172. ARAD, Maya (1998): VP-structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. PhD Thesis, University College London.

ARREGI, Eurídice & Javier ORMAZABAL (2003): «Aditz ditransitiboen barne-egitura», in Euskal gramaticari buruzko eta literaturari

buruzko ikerketak XX. Mendean. Gramatika gaiak. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia, pg. 119-136. BARSS, Andrew & Howard LASNIK (1986): «A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects», Linguistic Inquiry, 17, pg. 347-354.

BEAVERS, John & Chiyo NISHIDA (2010): «The Spanish Dative Alternation Revisited», in Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea & Ana

Carvalho (ed.): Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

BELLETTI, Adriana & Luigi RIZZI (1988): «Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory», Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, pg. 291-352.

BLEAM, Tonia (2003): «Properties of the Double Object Construction in Spanish», in Rafael Nunez-Cedeno, Luis Lopez & Richard Cameron (ed.): A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pg. 233-252.

BRANCHADELL, Albert (1994-1995): «La identitat formal dels datius lèxics i no-lèxics», Llengua i literatura, 6, pg. 233-251.

BRUENING, Benjamin (2001): «QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD», Linguistic Inquiry, 32, pg. 233-273. BURZIO, Luigi (1986): Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Hingham: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

CUERVO, María Cristina (2003a): «Structural asymmetries but same word order. The dative alternation in Spanish», in Anna Maria Di

Sciullo (ed.) (2003): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semanics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pg. 117-144.

CUERVO, María Cristina (2003b): Datives at Large. PhD Thesis, MIT.

DEMONTE, Violeta (1995): «Dative alternation in Spanish», Probus, 7, pg. 5-30. DE PEDRO MUNILLA, Mónica (2004): «Dative Doubling Structures in Spanish: Are they Double Object Constructions?», in Vineeta

Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez & Benjamin Schmeiser (ed.), WCCFL 23 WCCFL 23: Proceedings of the 23rd West

Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pg. 169-182 DIACONESCU, Constanţa Rodica & María Luisa RIVERO (2007): «An applicative analysis of double object constructions in

Romanian», Probus, 7, pg. 5-30.

DIXON, Robert M.W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOGGETT, Teal Bissell (2004): All things being unequal: Locality in movement. PhD Thesis, MIT.

EMBICK, David & Rolf NOYER (2001): «Movement Operations after Syntax», Linguistic Inquiry, 32, pg. 555-595. FOURNIER, David H. (2007a): «De la nature sémantique et transformationnelle de l’alternance dative», in Milica Radisic (ed.):

Proceedings of the 2007 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference.

FOURNIER, David H. (2007b): «On the Double Object Construction in English and French». Abstract, MLA Comparative Romance Linguistics Discussion Group (CRLDG), Chicago, 29th December 2007.

FOURNIER, David H. (2008): «L'universalité et l'autonomie de la construction à double objet», in Susie JONES (ed.): Proceedings of

the 2008 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference FOURNIER, David H. (2010): La structure du prédicat verbal: une étude de la construction à double objet en français. PhD Thesis,

University of Toronto.

GIORGI, Alessandra & Giuseppe LONGOBARDI (1991): The syntax of Noun Phrases. Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GOLDBERG, Adele E. (1995): Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. GOLDBERG, Adele E. (2006): Constructions At Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GREEN, G. M. (1974): Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana U. Press.

GROSS, Maurice (1975): Méthodes en syntaxe. Régime des constructions complétives. París: Herman.

GROSS, Maurice (1988): «La phrase élémentaire et ses composants: une discussion de discussion de quelques exemples», La

prédication seconde, Travaux de linguistique 17, Paris, pg. 13-32.

HAEGEMAN, Liliane M. V. (1991/1994): Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

HARLEY, Heidi (2002): «Possession and the Double Object Construction», Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, pg. 31-70.

HERSLUND, Michael (1980) : Problèmes de syntaxe de l'ancien français: compléments datifs et génitifs. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

5 Jeong (2007) account for passivization facts through the Anti-Locality Condition (shortly, movement of a lower item is only allowed if it satisfies a feature that anyone else can satisfy).

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/actes2007.html




25

HOLMBERG, Anders & Christer PLATZACK (1995): The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York: Oxford University

Press.

JACKENDOFF, Ray S. (1990): Semantic structures. Cambridge: The MIT Press. JAEGGLI, Osvaldo (1986): «Three issues in the theory of clitics: case, doubled NPs and extraction», in Hagit BORER (ed): Syntax and

Semantics: Vol. 19, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Academic Press, pg. 15-42.

JEONG, Youngmi (2007): Applicatives: Structure and Interpretation from a Minimalist Perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. KAYNE, Richard S. (1975): French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

KAYNE, Richard S. (1984): Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

KAYNE, Richard S. (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press. KITTILÄ, Seppo (2007): «On the encoding of transitivity-related features on the indirect object», Functions of Language, 14:1, pg.

149-164.

KOOPMAN, Hilda & Dominique SPORTICHE (1991): «The position of subjects», Lingua, 85, pg. 211-258. KRIFKA, Manfred (2004): «Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation», Korean Journal of English Language and

Linguistics 4, pg. 1-32.

LARJAVAARA, Meri (2000): Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain. PhD Thesis, Universitat de Helsinki.

LARSON, Richard (1988): «On the double object construction», Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pg. 335-392.

MALCHUKOV, Andrej, Martin HASPELMATH & Bernard COMRIE (2007): «Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview», talk at the Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, Leipzig, Germany, Nov. 2007.

MARANTZ, Alec (1993): «Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions», in Sam Mchombo (ed.): Theoretical aspects of

Bantu grammar. Standford: CSLI Publications, pg. 113-150.

MARANTZ, Alec (1997): «No Escape From Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon», in

Alexis Dimitriadis et al.: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4.2, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn

Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pg. 201-225. MASULLO, Pascual J. (1992): Incorporation and case theory in Spanish. A cross-linguistic perspective. PhD Thesis, University of

Washington.

MCFADDEN, Thomas (2004). The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

MCGINNIS, Martha J. (2001): «Variation in the phase structure of Applicatives», in JOHAN ROORYCK & PIERRE PICA (ed.): Linguistic

Variation Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pg. 105-146. MCGINNIS, Martha J. (2005): «UTAH at Merge: Evidence from multiple applicatives», MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, pg.

183-200.

MIYAGAWA, Shigeru & Takae TSUJIOKA (2004): «Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese», Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, pg. 1-38.

MIYAGAWA, Shigeru & Yeun-Jin JUNG (2004): «Decomposing Ditransitive Verbs», in Proceedings of the Seoul International

Conference on Generative Grammar, pg. 101-120. OEHRLE, Richard (1976): The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. PhD Thesis, MIT. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

ORDÓÑEZ, Francisco: Postverbal asymmetries in Spanish. Ms, CUNY.

ORMAZABAL, Javier & Juan ROMERO (2010): «The derivation of dative alternations», in Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro & Nerea MADARIAGA (2010): Argument Structures and Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective, pg. 233-260.

OYHARÇABAL, Beñat (2010): «Basque ditransitives», in Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro & Nerea Madariaga (2010): Argument Structures and Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective, pg. 233-260.

PAUL, Waltraud & John WHITMAN (2010): «Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives», in Susana Huidobro & Nerea

Madariaga (ed.) (2010): Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, pg. 261-282.

PÉREZ SALDANYA, Manuel (1996): «Aproximació cognitiva al complement indirecte en català», in August Bover, Jaume Martí-

Olivella & Mary Anna Newman (ed.) (1996): Actes del Setè Col·loqui d’Estudis Catalans a Nord-Amèrica. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, pg. 191-209.

PESETSKY, David (1995): Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

PINKER, Steven (1989): Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. PYLKKÄNEN, Liina (2002): Introducing Arguments. PhD Thesis, MIT.

REINHART, Tania (1976): The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD Thesis, MIT.

RIGAU, Gemma (2002): «§ 15. Els complements adjunts», in Joan Solà, Maria Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró & Manuel Pérez Saldanya (ed.): Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2. Barcelona: Empúries, pg. 2045-2110.

ROMERO, Juan (1997): Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. PhD Thesis, UAM.

SMITH, Michael Brockman (1987): The Semantics of Dative and Accusative in German: An Investigation in Cognitive Grammar. PhD Thesis, University of California.

STROZER, Judith Reina (1977): Clitics in Spanish. PhD Thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.

TODOLÍ, Júlia (2002): «§ 6. Els pronoms», in Joan Solà, Maria Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró & Manuel Pérez Saldanya (ed.): Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2. Barcelona: Empúries, pg. 1337-1433.

TORRES MORAIS, Maria Aparecida & Heloisa Maria Moreira Lima SALLES (2010): «Parametric change in the grammatical endocing

of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese», Probus, 22, pg. 181-209. WOOLFORD, Ellen (2006): «Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure», Linguistic Inquiry, 37, pg. 111-130.

ZDROJEWSKY, Pablo (2008): ¿Por quién doblan los clíticos? Restricciones morfosintácticas sobre la uplicación pronominal en el

español rioplatense. PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional del Comahue.