View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt OPTIONAL AGREEMENT AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS: A CORPUS STUDY OF DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING IN SPANISH by Roberto Aranovich Licenciado en Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1997 Magister en Lingüística, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 2002 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2011 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Roberto Aranovich It was defended on February 7th 2011 and approved by Lori Levin, Associate Research Professor, Carnegie Mellon University Alan Juffs, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh Yasuhiro Shirai, Professor, University of Pittsburgh Erin O'Rourke, Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa Roberto Mayoral Hernández, Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham Thesis Advisor: Lori Levin, Associate Research Professor, Carnegie Mellon University Thesis co-Advisor: Alan Juffs, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright © by Roberto Aranovich 2011 iii OPTIONAL AGREEMENT AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS: A CORPUS STUDY OF DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING IN SPANISH Roberto Aranovich, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2011 Spanish ditransitive constructions are characterized by the optionality of dative clitic doubling (DCLD), the co-occurrence of an unstressed dative pronoun with a co-referential indirect object (IO). This fact has not received a satisfactory account in the literature, which has largely overlooked the optionality of the phenomenon or tried to reduce it to syntactic or lexical considerations (Strozer, 1976; Demonte, 1995). Our goal is to describe and explain the distribution of Dative Clitic Doubling in ditransitive sentences, as well as to study the implications of this phenomenon to the overall grammar of Spanish, in particular its interaction with word order. We argue that the optionality of DCLD is an instance of optional object agreement, a widespread phenomenon in the languages of the world (Comrie, 1989; Woolford, 1999), which is favored by the pragmatic salience of the IO (high degree of animacy and givenness). We also argue that the distribution of DCLD is independent of word order, a claim that follows from the fact that Spanish encodes grammatical functions through agreement rather than word order. We support our claims with the results of a quantitative study of ditransitive sentences. iv The study of Spanish ditransitive constructions is complemented by a quantitative study of another dative construction in Spanish, the possessive construction. The conclusion of this comparison is that dative case is favored by pragmatic prominence across different construction types. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the dissertation compares Spanish DCLD and English dative-shift, two constructions that have been considered analogous in the literature (Demonte, 1995). In this respect, our conclusion is that the two constructions are essentially different as a result of an important typological difference between Spanish and English: Spanish is a Direct/Indirect Object language and English is a Primary/Secondary Object language (Dryer, 1986; Raúl Aranovich, 2007). v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.....................................................................................................................................xv 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1.1 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................................7 1.1.1 Argument alternations.............................................................................................................7 1.1.2 Grammatical functions.........................................…..............................................................8 1.1.3 Thematic roles....................................................…..............................................................16 1.1.4 Linking theory.....................................................................................................................21 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION.................................................................................25 2.0 DATIVE CLITIC DOUBLING AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS.........................26 2.1 CLITIC DOUBLING..............................................................................................................26 2.1.1 Accusative clitic doubling....................................................................................................28 2.1.2 Dative clitic doubling...........................................................................................................30 2.1.2.1 Recipient datives................................................................................................................32 2.1.2.2 Experiencer datives............................................................................................................36 2.1.2.3 Benefactive datives............................................................................................................37 2.1.2.4 Possessive datives..............................................................................................................39 2.1.3 Discussion.............................................................................................................................40 2.2 ON THE GRAMMATICAL STATUS OF DATIVE CLITICS...............................................43 2.2.1 Pronominal clitics as agreement markers.............................................................................46 2.2.1.1 Word order and dislocation................................................................................................46 2.2.1.2 Focus and interrogation.....................................................................................................48 2.2.1.3 Emphatic pronuns..............................................................................................................50 2.2.2 Pronominal clitics as inflectional affixes..............................................................................52 vi 2.2.2.1 Degree of selection with respect to the host......................................................................53 2.2.2.2 Rigid ordering....................................................................................................................54 2.2.2.3 Coordination......................................................................................................................57 2.2.2.4 Arbitrary gaps....................................................................................................................59 2.2.2.5 Morphophonological idiosyncrasies..................................................................................60 2.2.2.6 Verb left-detachment..........................................................................................................61 2.2.3 Grammaticalization..............................................................................................................62 2.3 ON THE GRAMMATICAL STATUS OF INDIRECT OBJECTS.........................................65 2.3.1 Semantic restrictions.............................................................................................................66 2.3.2 Overt marking properties......................................................................................................67 2.3.3 Behavioral properties............................................................................................................67 2.4 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................69 3.0 APPROACHES TO DCLD AND DATIVE-SHIFT............................................................70 3.1 SYNTACTIC APPROACH.....................................................................................................70 3.1.1 DCLD and the passive..........................................................................................................78 3.1.2 Word order............................................................................................................................79 3.1.2 An alternative to VP-shells: flat VP......................................................................................80 3.2 LEXICO-SEMANTIC APPROACH.......................................................................................82 3.3 MULTIPLE FACTORS APPROACH.....................................................................................86 3.4 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................87 4.0 QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF DITRANSITIVE SENTENCES.......................................88 4.1 HYPOTHESIS.........................................................................................................................88 4.2 THE DATA..............................................................................................................................91 4.3 THE VARIABLES...................................................................................................................98 4.3.1 Animacy................................................................................................................................98