Spanish Clitics on the Move: Variation in Time and Space 9781614514213, 9781614515883

Citation preview

Elisabeth Mayer Spanish Clitics on the Move

Studies in Language Change

Edited by Cynthia Allen Harold Koch Malcolm Ross

Volume 14

Elisabeth Mayer

Spanish Clitics on the Move Variation in Time and Space

ISBN 978-1-61451-588-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-421-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0088-6 ISSN 2163-0992 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 6 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover image: iStockphoto/thinkstock Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments This book has evolved from my doctoral thesis about the co-evolution of clitics and differential object marking in non-standardized monolingual and bilingual Peruvian Spanish varieties. Clitics are small words with many functions. They are notoriously difficult to define, complex and often highly confusing. All of these attributes make them an intriguing and fascinating topic, they are worthwhile to work on and never boring. While the core arguments have remained the same, the emphasis has shifted from a mainly synchronic account of the complex relationship clitics exhibit in clitic doubling, to a diachronically-based portrayal of a scalar clitic system, arising from dialect/language contact. I want to express my gratitude to the editors of the Studies in Language Change series, Cynthia Allen, Harold Koch and Malcolm Ross for the opportunity to publish this book in their series, and for advice on the book proposal and continuing support. To Cynthia Allen I owe a great deal for critically reading the manuscript and providing constructive and invaluable advice on opening this book to a wider audience. I am indebted to Susan Ford for skilful editorial work on the monograph. I also thank the editors at De Gruyter Mouton, especially Lara Wysong and Wolfgang Konwitschny for their patience and excellent professional support. I gratefully acknowledge financial support for collection of the corpus data for this project from the Australian National University in form of a Fieldwork Grant and a Vice-Chancellor’s Travel Grant. I am deeply indebted to indigenous people, family and friends in Peru for generously sharing their languages, stories, time, and resources. I am also grateful to my colleagues at the PUCP in Lima for an intellectually stimulating and welcoming environment where the original concepts for this book evolved towards maturity. I am particularly thankful to Liliana Sánchez and José Camacho for being a continuous source of learning, support and inspiration. This monograph has greatly benefitted from feedback from colleagues at the Australian National University and valuable comments from colleagues at conferences and seminars. It owes a great deal to them, and most importantly to Avery Andrews for significantly shaping my linguistic thinking over the years. And finally, my deepest personal gratitude goes to my linguistically diverse family around the world, particularly to Jorge – a linguistically not so naïve reader – Johanna and Peter, Bernardo and Kaccey, for allowing me to sacrifice family time and for their unfailing and unflailing encouragement. I dedicate this book to Manu and to our multilingual family. DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-202

Table of contents Acknowledgments v x List of tables xii Abbreviations 1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

1 Introduction 1 Clitics and argument marking Variability and innovations in argument marking 5 Differential object marking 6 Clitic doubling 7 Variability in clitic systems 11 The corpus of fieldwork data 13 Sociohistory 14 Data background 15 Migration, contact and bilingualism 17 Contact and change 19 Variability in language 22 Theoretical framework 23 Organisation of the book

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6

25 The nature of clitics 25 Background 28 Romance clitichood: bound or free forms 33 Dative clitic vs. accusative clitic 39 Specific lo (la) environments 40 Lo as propositional anaphoric topic marker 41 Determiner cliticization An attempt at accommodating determiner clitics 44 Clitic placement and alignment constraints 45 Surface constraints 48 The Person-Case Constraint 51 Markedness constraints 55 Summary

3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2

57 Objects, case and clitic doubling 57 Objects and casemarking 62 Clitic doubling Dialectal variability and evolving clitic doubling sections 66 Agreement and crossreferencing

5

43

63

viii

Table of contents

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5

Referential categories 69 69 Definiteness vs. specificity 71 Animacy Differential object marking, specificity and clitic doubling 80 A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling 80 From constituent structure to functional structure 86 Grammatical functions 89 Optional PRED PRO 92 Summary

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7.1 4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.9 4.9.1 4.10

93 From syntax to information structure 93 The concept of differential object marking 95 Two-dimensional differential object marking 101 Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling 103 Optionality 104 Non-specificity 106 Extended differential object marking 110 Clitic evolution by reanalysis 113 Drivers of change – gender and number Morphological simplification in Limeño Spanish contact 114 varieties 117 Summary of argument thus far 118 Differential object marking and information structure 120 The notion of secondary topic 122 Previous accounts for Spanish 124 Correlation of case marking and information structure 126 Topic vs. focus 129 Topic and secondary topic 136 Anaphora and topic/object drop 138 Morphological blocking 139 Summary

5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2 5.2.1 5.3

141 Variation and continuity in time and space 141 Agreement in time and space 142 Peninsular Spanish leísmo, loísmo, laísmo 143 Limeño Spanish contact varieties 144 Invariant lo 152 Leísmo/laísmo doubling The dative-accusative alternation in contact Spanish 164 Floating agreement in clitic clusters

156

76

Table of contents

5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.5

Person-Case Constraint and case syncretism 166 169 Clitic clusters variability 173 Object drop and anaphoric recoverability 175 Ecuador 178 Brazilian Portuguese and Paraguayan Spanish 179 Basque Spanish 183 Summary

6 6.1 6.1.1 6.2 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.5.3 6.5.4 6.6

187 Contact and change 187 Contact in Peruvian Spanish 188 Comparison with Basque 190 Amazonian Spanish 191 Contact with Brazilian Portguese 192 Contact with Ashaninka 195 Contact with Yagua 196 Quechua 200 Andean Spanish 202 The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa 207 Topicality vs. transitivity 208 Primary object and secondary object marking 211 Semantic roles Mapping of thematic roles to grammatical functions 214 Two primary objects? 217 Object behaviour 219 Object alternations 219 Disambiguation/Agency 221 Affectedness 223 Telicity 225 Double object constructions 226 Dative alternation 229 Dative vs. oblique 233 Ethical datives 234 Ethical datives in passivization 235 Summary

7

Conclusion

242 References 263 Index

237

212

ix

List of tables Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Figure 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 3.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Table 3.2 Figure 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Table 4.9 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3

Etymological system (Fernández-Ordóñez 2012:78) 8 9 Standard and contact head- and dependent marking 10 Limeño Spanish contact varieties scalar clitic system 13 Female interviewees by location and education (Lima only) 13 Male interviewees by location and education (Lima only) 17 Feature pool (Mufwene 2001, 2002) 34 Accusative and dative clitic pronouns in Spanish Accusative and dative reflexive pronouns in Latin American 35 Spanish 35 Syncretism in the Spanish clitic paradigm 36 Clitic morphology and phonology 37 Feature representation of third person clitic pronouns 37 Demonstratives and elsewhere position of /e/ Strong pronouns, definite determiners and accusative 38 clitics 38 Definite determiners and dative clitic 43 Modified projection/dependence matrix 52 Spurious se in the cluster se lo(s)/la(s) Spanish objective marking, case, clitic agreement and thematic 61 roles 82 constituent structure → functional structure 85 constituent structure → functional structure 86 Grammatical functions (Dalrymple 2009: 5) 90 Clitic morphosyntactic features 99 Evolution of differential object marking and clitic doubling 102 Differential object marking system in El Cid 108 Object marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties 112 Evolution of change (Palacios 2005) Anaphoric and grammatical clitic agreement in Limeño Spanish 113 contact varieties and Standard Spanish 119 Markedness hierarchies (Aissen 2003: 445) 120 Default alignment (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 166) 125 Similarities subject and object – Standard Spanish 130 constituent structure → functional structure 134 constituent structure → functional structure 136 Marked and unmarked objects in Spanish Ashéninka-Perené demonstrative pronouns (Reed and Payne 193 1986: 330) Topicality markers in Quechua and Limeño Spanish contact 206 varieties Primary object (PO) properties for the direct object in Spanish 210 varieties

xi Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.7

List of tables

Feature correlation and mapping on to syntactic functions 213 Monotransitive and ditransitive primary and secondary object 213 mapping 214 Primary (PO) and secondary object (SO) in contact Spanish Syntactic properties of direct object, indirect object and primary 218 object in Spanish

Abbreviations ACC AGR ANIM AUX C CL CLD COM COND CONJ DAT DEF DEM DET DIMIN DO DOM ETHDAT F FOC FUT GEND GF IMP IMPERS IND INDEF INF IO LA LS M N NP NUM OBJ OBJθ

accusative case agreeing feature animate auxiliary constraining clitic clitic doubling comitative conditional conjunction dative case definite demonstrative determiner diminutive direct object differential object marking ethical dative feminine gender focus future tense gender grammatical function imperative impersonal indicative indefinite infinitive indirect object Latin America Limeño Standard Spanish masculine gender neuter gender noun phrase number object restricted object

Abbreviations

OBL OM P PARTIC PAST PERF PERS PL PN POSS PP PRED PRO QUANT RECIPR REFL REL RP S SBJV SG SPEC SUBJ TOP TOP2 VP

oblique objective marker preposition participle past tense perfect aspect person plural proper noun possessive prepositional object predicate feature/lexical form pronoun quantifier reciprocal reflexive relative River Plate sentence subjunctive singular specific subject topic secondary topic verb phrase

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction This book is about the genesis of a subset of feature-reduced clitics and their syntactic/pragmatic functions in Limeño Spanish contact varieties of Peruvian Spanish. These clitics, which arise as non-standardized variation embedded in a variety of contact and second language acquisition scenarios, exhibit different grammaticalization stages and extended grammatical functions. The book presents a theoretically oriented description linking the clitic variability and innovation found in these dialects to language change in progress. The argument is then extended to show that these innovations are not restricted geographically but can be found in contact situations across the Spanish-speaking world.

1.1 Clitics and argument marking Clitic pronouns are morphological markers at the interface of syntax and phonology, morphology, semantics and information structure (Belloro 2007; Ordóñez and Repetti 2006; Spencer and Luís 2012; Zwicky 1985). They are phonologically unstressed bound morphemes and as such dependent on a verbal host. Proclitics as in (1b), occur as single words immediately before the verb, enclitics attach verbfinally as suffixes in (1c). In their morphology, Spanish clitics express the features person, gender, number and case, and play an important role in argument marking (Harris, 1995). As anaphores, feature-agreeing clitics replace propositions or noun phrases as in the feminine clitic la in (1b) and (1c) referring to the noun phrase María in (1a). (1)

a.

Ayer vi yesterday see-PAST-1SG ‘Yesterday I saw María.’

a DOM

Maríai . María.FSG

b.

vi. Ayer lai yesterday CL 3FSG see-PAST-1SG ‘Yesterday I saw her.’

c.

ayer. Quise verlai want-PAST-1SG see-INF.CL 3FSG yesterday ‘I wanted to see her yesterday.’

In object-verb agreement, Spanish shows dependent- and head-marking as in showing case and agreement features in the two core grammatical functions, DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-001

2

Introduction

namely the indirect object and the direct object (Bresnan 2001c; Nichols 1986). Dependent-marking uses a syncretic form a to mark indirect objects with dative case obligatorily and direct objects with accusative case differentially (differential object marking [DOM]). Head-marking obtains through a set of featurespecific clitic pronouns (number, gender and case [dative and accusative]), crossreferencing the object on the verb subject to semantic and pragmatic constraints. The combination of head- and dependent marking strategies is shown in the direct object clitic doubling construction in (2) where two elements, feature-specifc clitics (la carries feminine gender and lo masculine) and differential object marking specify information about one single argument, the lexical direct object. (2)

/ Loj Lai CL 3FSG / CL 3MSG ‘I saw Maria/Juan.’

vi see-PAST-1SG

a DOM

Maríai María.FSG

/ /

Juanj. Juan.MSG

Co-occurrence of head- and dependent marking also extends to non-argument or discourse structures via word order arrangements such as preposing or left dislocation1 in (3a) and right dislocation in (3b), marking different grammatical relations and signaling pragmatic functions in particular topicality. Note that in (3), the masculine lo agrees in number and gender with its referential noun phrase al chico. (3)

Topicalization a. Al

María loi chic-oi boy-MSG María CL 3MSG ‘The boy, Maria saw him yesterday.’

DOM - DET. MSG

b.

Right dislocation vio ayer María loi María CL 3MSG see-PAST-3SG yesterday ‘Maria saw him, the boy, yesterday.’

vio see-PAST-3SG

al DOM - DET. MSG

ayer. yesterday

chic-oi . boy-MSG

Clitic doubling and topicalization strategies are governed by a complex configuration of morphosyntacic, semantic and pragmatic factors, and are subject 1 These are two slightly different strategies with dislocation involving a pause after the dislocated object. As both phrase structure positions are used to mark a topical, that is a highly salient object, I will not make a distinction here and treat them under the term topicalization. The relationship between casemarking and information structure will be discussed in depth in chapter 4.

Clitics and argument marking

3

to diachronic and synchronic variability across all Spanish varieties. In language contact situations, hybrid/split or new clitic systems may develop. These new developments in monolingual and bilingual Spanish varieties are the focus of this book. They are illustrated by the following three clitic-doubled structures from two closely related contact varieties, Limeño Spanish contact varieties and Andean Spanish. All examples are considered non-standard or ungrammatical by educated speakers of Spanish across the Spanish speaking world. Firstly, the emergence of invariant accusative lo crossreferencing a plural feminine human object with optional casemarking in (4a) and a feminine inanimate definite object (4b) with case marking. (4)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer 2008: 363) a. Lo vi (a) las chicas. CL 3MSG see-PAST-1SG DOM DET. FPL girl-FPL ‘I saw the girls.’ Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer 2008: 366)2 b. Lo frío a la cebolla. CL 3MSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion?’

Secondly, invariant accusative lo covaries with invariant dative le in extended accusative doubling, crossreferencing a feminine/masculine human and a feminine inanimate object with casemarking as shown in (5). The extension of le to inanimate objects depends on geographic region and intensity of contact. Note the ambiguous role of the syncretic form a as either dative case or differential object marker (accusative case). (5)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer FW) Le veo a Ana/Pablo/mi carro. CL 3SG see-1SG DAT / DOM Ana/Pablo/my car ‘I see Ana/Pablo/my car.’

Thirdly, another function of invariant lo is locative doubling. The syncretic form a in (6) is a locative preposition. 2 This combination is very unusual outside dialect contact regions and considered ungrammatical by educated Spanish speakers. However, per personal communication from native speakers of River Plate in the greater Buenos Aires region – something requiring more evidence – the same variability can be found in River Plate.

4 (6)

Introduction

Andean Spanish (Cerrón Palomino 2003: 168–170) Lo llegaron a este pueblo. CL 3MSG arrive-PAST-3PL LOC DEM . MSG village.MSG ‘They arrived at this village.’

Examples (4)–(6) show the complex argument marking system using clitics of non-standardized Spanish. Educated and dialectal norms perform the same functions with feature-specifying clitics and restricting differential object marking to animate, definite and specific noun phrases and determiner phrases. Before delving deeper into the subject, I introduce some definitions. Throughout this book when I use the term Spanish, I refer to the educated oral and written norm of Spanish spoken around the world as a first and as a second or additional language. Spanish thus refers to the standardized written and oral norm of the Spanish language as laid out and monitored by the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language (Real Academia Española) in Spain and its 21 affiliated Academies in Latin America, the United States and the Philippines. To cover dialectal variability across all Spanish speaking countries, I specify the broader region, for example Peninsular Spanish or Latin American Spanish, as well as the local region as in River Plate Spanish (or Rioplatense Spanish). Lima Spanish refers to the educated and standardized norm as used in all official documents and spoken by educated speakers in Lima and elsewhere in Peru.3 Limeño Spanish contact varieties are mainly acquisitional varities on a continuum dependent on varying access to formal education. This is why I refer to those varieties as ‘non-standardized’ in the sense of Bresnan (1998), referring to a dialect continuum exhibiting extensive microvariation embedded in a range of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors, among them importantly non-standard input and undereducation as further described in section 1.4.1 below. Andean Spanish is mainly an oral Spanish dialect continuum reaching from the southern tip of Colombia to the northern Santiago de Estero region in the Argentine. Another closely related Spanish dialect continuum is Amazonian Spanish. The main difference between Spanish and non-standardized Spanish is that the latter is mainly oral and characterized by lack of or limited access to formal education. In this book examples from Spanish are of written or oral educated origin; examples from Limeño Spanish contact varieties are naturally occurring oral data collected in fieldwork.

3 Lima as an important viceregal city has had a strong prescriptive influence over the rest of the country until quite recently.

Variability and innovations in argument marking

5

1.2 Variability and innovations in argument marking Differential object marking and clitic doubling are the two strategies exhibiting great variability in marking topical arguments.

1.2.1 Differential object marking Differential object marking is a widely attested strategy that many genetically unrelated languages apply to optionally mark a certain range of direct objects, depending on their intrinsic properties (see parts 1 and 2 of chapter four). What triggers differential object marking is language specific and may vary over time. Objects are ranked for their prominence on a two-dimensional scale, based on the interaction of animacy and definiteness (Bossong 1991, 2003; Aissen 2003). Some languages change this scale to animacy and specificity, for example Turkish, Persian, Urdu/Hindi, River Plate Spanish and Limeño Spanish. In Peninsular and most Latin American Spanish dialects, differential object marking obligatorily marks direct objects bearing the features human, animate and definite, as in (7a), extending optional marking to animate and specific personified animals, as shown in (7b), and inanimate and specific places, as in (7c), in accordance with norms set out by the Real Academia Española. In (7a) it is important to note that although both the subject and the object share the highest ranking on the animacy hierarchy, the resulting topicality of both arguments cannot give rise to clitic-doubled constructions in most Spanish dialects. Notable exceptions are River Plate Spanish and Lima Spanish as shall be shown shortly. (7)

a.

Vi a see-PAST-1SG DOM ‘I saw Ana/Pablo.’

Ana/Pablo. Ana/Pablo

Real Academia Española (1985: 372) b. Don Quijote cabalgaba (a) Don Quijote ride-PAST-3SG DOM ‘Don Quijote rode Rocinante.’ Real Academia Española (1985: 372) c. Deseo ver (a) Roma. wish-1SG see-INF DOM Rome ‘I wish to see Rome.’

Rocinante. Rocinante

6

Introduction

To receive differential object marking, both inanimate objects in (7b) and (7c) must be specific, which means they must be referentially recoverable from the context, or identifiable. According to Lambrecht (1994: 78), “the speaker assumes that it4 has a certain representation in the mind of the addressee which can be evoked in a given discourse.” This topic will be discussed in detail in chapters four, five and six.

1.2.2 Clitic doubling In Peninsular and most Latin American Spanish dialects, direct object clitic doubling or accusative doubling requires differential casemarking (DOM) and is subject to different and varying semantic (animacy and definiteness) and pragmatic (topicality) constraints. Co-occurrence of head-marking and dependentmarking in direct object clitic doubling is subject to Kayne’s Generalization (8), again in Standard Spanish varieties (Kayne 1975). (8) The principle stipulates that clitic doubling is only possible when the doubled noun phrase has a case assigner such as a preposition. In Peninsular Spanish, direct object clitic doubling with gender and number distinct accusative clitics as in (9) is obligatory for pronominal noun phrases and constrained to these (Bello 1984; Real Academia Española 1985). (9)

/ Loj / CL 3MSG ‘I saw her/him.’ Lai

CL 3FSG

vi see-PAST-1SG

a DOM

ellai PRO 3FSG

/ /

élj . PRO 3MSG

In Peninsular and most Latin American dialects of Spanish, extension of clitic doubling and differential object marking to inanimate arguments as in (10) is considered ungrammatical. Generally, inanimate, non-specific and definite noun phrases do not show head- and dependent-marking. (10)

Frío la fry-1SG DET. FSG ‘I fry the onion.’

4 It refers to the object.

cebolla. onion.FSG

Variability in clitic systems

7

However, in some Latin American varieties of Spanish we see variability in the application of those prescriptive grammatical rules, specifically in relation to clitic–object agreement, thus representing a new local standard norm. For instance, liberal clitic doubling dialects such as River Plate5 and Lima Spanish in (11) extend clitic doubling and differential object marking to specific inanimates with agreeing (coreferential) clitics, thus ensuring identifiability. (11)

River Plate, Lima Spanish frío a la ¿Lai CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG ‘Shall I fry the onion?’

cebollai? onion.FSG

Extension of clitic doubling to definite/specific animate and inanimate direct object arguments with feature-specifying clitics constitutes the first Latin American Spanish innovation regarding clitic doubling and can be linked to marking the topical or salient object. On the other hand, all indirect objects are obligatorily marked by dative case (dependent-marking) and a dative clitic (head-marking). As shown in (12), the co-occurrence of the clitic and its referential object noun phrase only obtains with argumental datives, and dative clitics show number and case features.6 This topic will be further discussed in chapters 3 and 6. (12)

Lesi

a

CL 3PL

di el libro give-PAST-1SG DET. MSG book ‘I gave the book to Ana and Pablo.’

DAT

Anai Ana

y and

Pabloi . Pablo

In written and most oral educated Spanish dialects, the distinction between indirect and direct objects is marked following pluricentric norms set out by the country-specific Spanish Language Academy. However, the diachronic and synchronic variability is greater than expected as will be shown next.

1.3 Variability in clitic systems The etymological system in Table 1.1 shows the ideal clitic system for the Peninsular Spanish varieties as described in traditional grammars. Consistent with their Latin origin, the clitics reflect the features person, case gender and number

5 River Plate is a spoken and written variety in Buenos Aires and the greater La Plata region, see Estigarribia (2005) and references therein. 6 All uncoded data are constructed examples to illustrate a specific point.

8

Introduction

with lo and le as the last remnants of neuter gender. This system is highly regarded as the educated norm in many Latin American capitals cities. Table 1.1: Etymological system (Fernández-Ordóñez 2012:78) Singular

Plural

Masculine Accusative Dative

lo

Femenine

Masculine

la

los

le

Femenine

neuter

las

lo le

les

Fernández-Ordóñez (2012: 78–79) argues that the well described Peninsular Spanish variability in terms of leísmo (13b), laísmo (14b) and loísmo (15b) is not recognized by traditional grammarians except for leísmo for masculine human objects, which has become part of the Madrid educated norm (Gabaldón et. al 1988). Leísmo refers to the use of the dative le (13b) instead of the accusative lo (13a); laísmo refers to the use of the accusative la (14b) instead of the dative le (14a), and loísmo refers to the use of accusative lo (15b) instead of dative le (15a). The use of laísmo and loísmo represents an extension of accusative morphology to dative, and leísmo the reverse, these variable strategies coexist with the prescribed Peninsular norm. Covariation of both systems and the emergence of leísmo, laísmo and loísmo can be explained by a gradual development from Latin into a Romance dialect continuum undergoing selective standardization processes. (13)

Etymological Spanish / el libroi a. El niñoi DET. MSG boy-MSG / DET. MSG book.MSG ‘The boy/the book, do you see him/it?’ Leísmo b. El

niñ-o / el libr-o DET. MSG boy-MSG / DET. MSG book.MSG ‘The boy/the book, do you see him/it?’

(14)

Etymological Spanish di el a. Lei CL 3SG give-PAST-1SG the ‘I gave the book to Mary.’ Laísmo di el b. Lai CL 3FSG give-PAST-1SG the ‘I gave the book to Mary.’

libro book

libro book

a DAT

a DAT

¿loi CL 3MSG

¿le CL 3SG

Marí-ai . María.FSG

Marí-ai . María.FSG

ves see-2SG

ves see

tú? you

tú? you

Variability in clitic systems

9

(15) Etymological Spanish comprado un juguete a los niñosi . a. Lesi he CL 3PL have-1SG bought a toy DAT DET. MPL children-MPL ‘I bought a toy for the children.’ Loísmo b. Losi he comprado un juguete a los niñosi . CL 3MPL have-1SG bought a toy DAT DET. MPL children-MPL ‘I bought a toy for the children.’ For contact speakers, an extra degree of complexity is added by syncretism of the dependent marker a, with one phonological form corresponding to two cases (dative case and differential object marking), and adpositional marking (locative preposition). The different dependent- and head-marking scenarios of featurespecifying standard clitics and feature-reduced contact clitics are summarized in Table 1.2. The column for case shows the striking syncretism of the formative a as dative case, differential object marker or accusative case, and locative marker. Table 1.2: Standard and contact head- and dependent marking Object

Case

Indirect object Direct object Oblique

dative accusative locative

a a a

Standard clitic

Contact clitic

le(s) M:lo(s), F:la(s) Ø

le > lo > la lo > le > la lo

Note that the interaction of the standard feature-specifying clitics with a marks unambiguously an indirect object and a direct object following a semantic strategy. This is different in the scalar system of contact clitics, which show (i) morphological simplification as in loss of number and progressively gender as has been shown in examples (4a) and (4b), (ii) clitic doubling of a locative argument with invariant lo, as in example (6), resulting in the loss of unambiguous direct and indirect object marking in a pragmatic strategy. In this book, I focus mainly on invariant lo, on its genesis and its morphological classification as affected by grammaticalization processes7 and extended grammatical functions. I also focus on lo and la as they covary with le, on their syntactic expressions and interactions with pragmatic strategies, i.e., marking 7 With grammaticalization I mean a diachronic process whereby meaningful constructions lose their semantic content through reanalysis and become desemanticized forms assuming different grammatical functions. See the discussion in chapter 4.4.

10

Introduction

information structure role, in oral non-standardized Limeño Spanish contact varieties.8 I will argue that the contact clitic conditions in Table 1.3 create a continuum of casemarking with animacy determining the preferred order within the scales. This implies a move from semantic marking towards a preference for pragmatic marking of primary and secondary object (Alsina 2001; Dryer 1986). Table 1.3: Limeño Spanish contact varieties scalar clitic system ACC/DAT +animate –animate

le / lo / la lo / le / la

→

PO/SO le/lo lo/le

General aspects of Andean Spanish in contact with Quechua, in rural and urban areas in the Andean region, have been well studied. In Andean Spanish the feature reduced third-person clitic paradigm le/lo/la expresses the properties of a single grammatical relation (Calvo 1996–1997; Caravedo 1990; Cerrón Palomino 1992, 2003; de Granda 2001; Escobar 1994; Godenzzi 1986; Klee 1990; Lipski 1994; Luján 1987; Muysken 1984; Palacios 1998; Pérez 1997; Rivarola 1992). Camacho and Sánchez (2002) is possibly the first study to examine apparent free variation of the third person clitic paradigm using Optimality Theory. Caravedo (1990: 34) observed that there were difficulties in tracing phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic, and pragmatic variation back to geographical origin and in later work (1999) extended her corpus study on clitic morphosyntactic variation in Andean Spanish to include Amazon Spanish finding relatively minor differences between the two dialectal continua. Pronominal variation in contact Spanish or migration Spanish to the Peruvian capital Lima has been a topic of interest since the late nineteenseventies (Caravedo 1990; Escobar 1978; Escobar 1988, 1990; Garatea Grau 2009; García 1990; Klee and Caravedo 2005, 2006; Mayer 2003; Paredes 1996; Sánchez 2005, 2010; Sánchez and Zdrojewski 2013). Mayer (2006, 2008, 2010, 2013), Mayer and Delicado Cantero (2015) and Mayer and Sánchez (2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c) have linked clitic function in argument marking to a scalar clitic system in monolingual and bilingual contact varieties.

8 Despite the focus on Limeño Spanish contact varieties, in this book I do not restrict the occurrence of invariant lo to those dialects only, as invariant lo (as well as invariant le) also occur elsewhere in Latin American Spanish, and in Peninsular rural Spanish (COSER, Fernández-Ordóñez 2009) and in contact with Basque, as shown by examples throughout the book.

The corpus of fieldwork data

11

Based on this previous body of work together with analysis of the fieldwork corpus, I will argue the following. The empirically grounded findings will account for a certain range of facts while leaving others unaccounted for. – The variability in synchronic and diachronic argument marking can be explained by extending the analysis from purely semantic marking strategies to include the correlation of differential object marking with patterns of information packaging with respect to marking the secondary topic. – The emergence and extension of grammatical functions of invariant lo, covariation with invariant le and optionality, as well as extension and erosion of casemarking are based on historical developments in the form of multiple concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting clitics and the differential object marker a. In addition to an inherent diachronic instability of the clitic paradigm, they are also contact-driven. Contact is mostly mediated by Andean Spanish and not directly with Quechua and Aymara, both of which are non-configurational, non-gender marking languages. I link syntactic variability and change to a period of optionality, pointing to a typological change from dative/accusative to primary/secondary object marking. In the remainder of this chapter I place the corpus data in their local and global language acquisition and language contact context; I then give a brief summary of the theory of language variation and of Lexical-Functional Grammar, the theoretical framework used here. The chapter concludes with an overview of the structure of the book.

1.4 The corpus of fieldwork data The examples of Limeño Spanish contact varieties cited in this book are all taken from a corpus of data collected during fieldwork carried out by the author in Lima, Peru, in several demographically and sociologically contrasting parts of Lima in early two thousand and six. The motivation for choosing different locations was to capture naturally occurring speech data from various facets of life and to test for significant variability, depending on contact and extra-linguistic factors. In the latter case, special attention was given to capturing notable differences between speakers living in their own migrant community and speakers living and working in more upscale areas. To cover both, I chose marginal neighbourhoods in the northern periphery of Lima, with high numbers of migrants from different parts of the country, and migrants separated from their community, living in or working in more upscale neighbourhoods of metropolitan Lima.

12

Introduction

All data were digitally recorded and consisted of two parts. Firstly, a brief sociolinguistic interview in the form of an abridged ethnographic inquiry was conducted to identify the linguistic, educational and migratory background of participants and, equally important, to establish a working relationship between interviewer and interviewee (Duranti and Goodwin 1992). The second part was either a recording of an interview, where interviewees were asked to talk about their life, how and why they migrated to Lima, and other topics of interest to them. Or, on other occasions, longer recordings (up to one hour), usually conducted as group interviews (but including one longitudinal study of an individual), were made while I participated in the work of the interviewees as a volunteer. In addition to the digital recordings, participant observation notes were taken (Macaulay 2002). Weekend newspapers and popular TV shows were also screened to test for variability in written and ‘official’ spoken language. The results of grammatical judgment tasks with educated middle class speakers, speaking Limeño Standard Spanish, were also recorded to form another control factor. The nature of the research topic required the presence of diverse inanimate but also animate objects embedded in a multigenerational and migratory setting. It also required the absence and presence of a communicative context about a topic or task to identify pragmatic strategies. For this specific purpose, short interviews were conducted in a shopping centre (Mega Plaza) in Los Olivos, a fast-growing marginal suburb in the northern part of Lima. These were tested against interviews with taxi drivers and street security guards (guachimanes) in middle to upscale metropolitan areas (Surco and Miraflores). Longer recordings were taken during food preparation with the women of the communal kitchen in La Independencia, also in the north, when I acted as a sales assistant in the central food market (Mercado Central), and as an assistant nurse in the nearby public Children’s Hospital, both located in central (traditional) Lima. Again, these were tested against data from middle to upscale metropolitan areas, namely through short interviews in the craft market (Mercado de Artesanía) in Miraflores, which is heavily frequented by tourists, and with a group of tourism students with migratory background, some of them bilingual. Further interviews were conducted with live-in maids (domestic workers), including one longitudinal study in my host family’s home in Surco. Caravedo (1999) mentions that there are relatively small differences between Amazonian contact Spanish and Andean Spanish with regard to the treatment of object clitics and clitic doubling. To confirm this, I collected a small sample of Ashaninka data with an Ashaninka Campa community,9 and interviewed a 9 Comunidad Nativa Maramkiari Bajo, in the Perené valley in the Eastern Foothills of the Andean Mountains, on the Amazon basin. They are speakers of the endangered AshéninkaPerené dialect with only roughly 1000 speakers.

Sociohistory

13

multilingual guide (Ashaninka, Quechua, Spanish and English) originally from this community for comparative purposes. A total of sixty-six speakers were interviewed and recorded in casual conversation. Participants were randomly selected; interview duration ranged from ten to eighty minutes. Tables 1.4 and 1.5 give interview statistics by gender for data collected in Lima only; numbers in brackets indicate bilinguals. Table 1.4: Female interviewees by location and education (Lima only) Origin

Education

F Age group

∑

Coast

Andes

Amazon

Prim

Sec

He

17–35 ≥36 total

16 23 39

11 (2) 7 (1) 18 (3)

4 (2) 11 (8) 15 (10)

1 5 (2) 6 (2)

7 10 17

9 5 14

8 8

Table 1.5: Male interviewees by location and education (Lima only) Origin

Education

M Age group

∑

Coast

Andes

Amazon

Prim

Sec

He

17–35 ≥36 total

12 15 27

3 4 7

6 (4) 9 (4) 15 (8)

3 (1) 2 (1) 5

3 4 7

8 10 18

1 1 2

The exclusion of children and young adults under seventeen from the data collection allows for three generations while excluding classic child second language acquisition problems. The problem of the continuum of second language learning persists even with adults;10 and it is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where exactly they can be situated on that scale, but the minimum we can say is that they constitute the group that shows potential transfer and contributes to language change.

1.5 Sociohistory The intrinsic variability we find in the data from emergent contact varieties is created by a complex mix of linguistic factors (presented in section 1.3.) and extra-linguistic or language ecological factors to be discussed here. I will begin 10 I refer the reader to Chaudron (2003) for an extensive discussion of data collection in second language acquisition research, and discussions more specifically about adult second-language acquisition (Luján and Parodi 1996; among many others).

14

Introduction

with the immediate sociolinguistic background of the speakers in the sample then move on to place the language data in the global context of migration and contact history.

1.5.1 Data background Migrants hardly ever reach the educated norm of the target language for the following reasons. 1. Poor schooling for children arising from isolation. Children in rural areas may not be able to attend school at all. The estimated average of schooling is three years. Poorly trained teachers, with some having only primary education, also contribute to undereducation.11 2. Adults learn Spanish in naturalistic settings (Ellis 2008) from relatives and friends who often do not speak the language correctly but constitute the network. This has not changed much since the first sociolinguistic study of language shift among migrants living in Lima (Myers 1973). 3. Moreover, extra-linguistic variables, such as cognitive, social and affective factors identified by Wölck (1973), impinge on bilingualism; and stigmatization (perceived lower prestige) cripples language proficiency. In relation to factor (3) and contact, grammaticality judgment tasks were used as a control factor. Lima Spanish speakers (educated middle class) were asked for their native speaker intuition about acceptability of contact forms such as invariant lo. Using a three-point scale they were asked whether they found the variation grammatical, acceptable or ungrammatical. The answers were surprising. Except for two or three prescriptive critiques, the general attitude was one of resigned acceptance. An ever-growing number of migrants12 tend to force educated speakers of Lima Spanish to accept this variability as peculiar to specific acquisitional Spanish varieties, thus creating huge pressure on local dialect norms.

11 Personal communication from the interviewees, including three teachers, as well as from the linguists from the Catholic University in Lima. 12 Today two-thirds of Lima’s population are migrants and live in the northern, eastern and southern peripheral, marginal neighbourhoods, as opposed to 28% in Traditional Lima and 10% in the port town Callao (Arellano 2002b). Also, according to an earlier analysis (Arellano 2002a), only 12.7% of Lima’s population were 4th generation Limeños, 7.6% were third generation, as in having grandparents born in the provinces, 43.5% were second generation migrants, and 36.2% were direct migrants.

Sociohistory

15

1.5.2 Migration, contact and bilingualism Peru has been a cradle of cultures and keeps attracting migrants from around the globe as confirmed by the latest migration wave from Spain. The global extra-linguistic factors relevant to the present study of Limeño Spanish contact varieties involve the consequences of at least two large-scale migrations. The first of these, from Seville to the Americas in the second half of the sixteenth century, resulted in dialect levelling. A second series of migrations from educationally and socioeconomically neglected rural areas to the capital Lima began in nineteen fourty and led to a loss of indigenous languages, to passive and non-functional bilingualism, and to a new contact phenomenon on a very large scale. In a mere seventy years Lima’s population grew from sixhundred and sixty thousand to ten million. At the start of the second migration period, over half of Peru’s population spoke an indigenous language (mainly Quechua), but by nineteen eighty only one-fourth of migrants spoke an indigenous language. Escobar (2000: 3) estimates that by the end of the nineteen eighties approximately sixty percent of those not only spoke their indigenous language but also Spanish. Within roughly fifty years, a significant language shift had taken place. Amerindian migrants from the Andean and Amazon regions primarily speak Quechua, Aymara, or Amazonian languages with Ashaninka and Shipibo as the two major language families, as well as one of the two major Spanish dialects: Andean Spanish or Amazonian Spanish. The third major dialect is coastal Spanish, with Lima Spanish representing the prestigious coastal norm. Their proficiency in Lima Spanish before and after migration can be correlated with educational opportunities and the perceived lower prestige of their indigenous languages. This situation differs significantly from other important ethnic migrant communities in Lima, such as French, German, Japanese and Chinese. Language/ dialect contact here applies to all speakers, monolingual13 or bilingual, who have been in contact with Andean Spanish, Amazonian Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara dialects, or one of the many Amazonian languages. The importance of the urban/rural divide in terms of acces to formal education plays an important role in standardization. Speakers of Limeño Spanish contact varieties show a range of language/ dialect contact with highly variable degrees of linguistic competence in either of their languages/dialects, caused by differences in migration and educational 13 I include monolinguals due to undereducation. I use this term to express too little or poor education mainly caused by lack of access and/or very poorly trained teachers, which is the case for practically all Limeño Spanish contact varieties speakers.

16

Introduction

background. They are either Andean Spanish L114 speakers with non-functional L2 Quechua, or Quechua L1 speakers with L2 Andean Spanish, or monolingual Quechua or Andean Spanish speakers. The same patterns apply to migrants from Amazonian areas with their indigenous languages. Bilingualism involving indigenous languages is nominal rather than functional, in spite of the fact that Peru was the first Latin American country to incorporate language policies into its constitution in 1970 (Escobar 1990, 1994; Mannheim 1984; Pozzi-Escot 1972, 1975; Rivarola 1992). This is the phenomenon known as subtractive bilingualism, which involves shifting from an ethnic language to a prestigious national language by subtracting the less prestigious minority language from bilingual proficiency (Appel and Muysken 1987: 102).15 It is very likely that bilingual speakers fuse the range of options from their two systems to fulfil their communicative need, which in bilingual speakers results in a simplified clitic system (Matras 2013). The Peruvian Andean region formerly represented a bilingual continuum; an interesting question is if and to what extent this is still true today (Cerrón Palomino 1992, 2003; Lipski 2007a; Pérez 1997). Cerrón Palomino (1995) argues that the prestigious coastal Spanish norm – generally in Peru but more specifically Lima Spanish – is under strong pressure from Andean Spanish. The observed variability is much more generalised than we can actually perceive, and the general view of Peruvian linguists is that we are definitely witnessing a language change in flagrante. Data from TV shows, advertisements, and spoken language in public transport corroborate this view, although less so from newspapers. The latest discussions about the linguistic landscape in Lima have raised doubts about the validity of the term Lima Spanish and have opted instead for a more realistic description, calling it “a space where varieties of the Spanish language coexist.” In my view, this “space” is ideally represented by the feature pool couched in an evolutionary model (Mufwene 2001, 2002). As shown in Figure 1.1, input from idiolectal systems or dialect contact, and xenolectal input or language contact, contribute to the feature pool in terms of subsets of features wich are constrained by language ecological factors such as input from social networks and differing levels of access to formal instruction. Idiolectal output systems reflect the selection of the best candidate from these competing features in the pool. 14 L1 = first language, L2 = second language 15 A recent European example are Turkish migrants in Germany and Austria, which have resulted in the creation of a new network language, Kanakisch, which is spoken by young people (generally under 25 years old) in Germany from many different ethnic backgrounds. The interesting fact is that all four oblique cases have collapsed in favour of the dative.

Contact and change

17

Figure 1.1: Feature pool (Mufwene 2001, 2002)16

Feature selection is largely unconscious and not deliberately targeted because of the ecological constraints. In bilingual contexts, feature selection is particularly susceptible to different levels of access to formal instruction in the language, understood as lack of standardizing input, and input from social networks. In contact situations with typologically different languages, new configurations of mapping of functional features e.g. gender, number and case onto a particular morpheme can lead to convergence towards a single set of features that is shared by both languages (Sánchez 2003; Matras 2010). Importantly, not all factors are weighted equally. Different weightings of contact and ecological factors leads to coexistence of different variants in competition with each other. The lack of standardizing input is largely due to the fact that the variability is largely restricted to spoken language. As such it arises from the naturalistic acquisition setting, with a strong focus on practical communication. Crucially, Limeño Spanish contact varieties, Andean Spanish, Amazonian Spanish, Amerindian and Amazonian languages share an important aspect: they are mostly oral languages without an established written standard (Escobar 2000; Givón 1988). It is a well-known fact that clitic systems as part of functional morphology are subject to variability in bilingual acquisition (McCarthy 2008). However, as the observed variability is not restricted to bilingual Spanish nor constrained by geographic location – and there is evidence of extensive leísmo as sole object marking system in Quiteño, Paraguayan Spanish, and Basque Spanish – it can be assumed that the observed morphosyntactic variability is not to be linked simply to ‘ungrammaticality’ but is indeed part of a wider picture pointing to language change in progress.

1.6 Contact and change “All syntactic change involves variation”, and for a while old and new coexist for some time. These words by Aitchison (2001: 98) truly apply to the Limeño 16 Figure 1.1 is inspired by the representation of the feature pool idea in: http://mufwene. uchicago.edu/feature_pool.html.

18

Introduction

Spanish contact varieties data. In Ecuador, where Spanish is in direct contact with Amerindian languages, the shift from accusative to dative has been all but completed in dissociating the patient semantic role of the direct object. In Peruvian contact, however, the invariant lo strategy coexists with a leísmo strategy peculiar to contact Spanish. Recall for example the scalar clitic system in Table 1.3. There seems to be an Andean continuum, which is synonymous with rural conditions, precisely expressed by Cerrón Palomino (2003: 190) as “español rural” (rural Spanish), which has served as the only inter-community language in the region for almost five hundred years. Here we find the same inter- and intraspeaker variability at different stages of evolution, based on extra-linguistic factors favouring and accelerating an ongoing reanalysis process in the third-person pronominal paradigm. In Andean Spanish, language-external factors – such as intense and prolonged contact and second language acquisition – are not all present in every case, but when they are present they can give rise to complexity through transfer and interaction as well as functional interference and convergence (Sánchez 2003, 2010). The Andean region is a “verdadero melting pot idiomático” (true language melting pot) as noted by Cerrón Palomino (2003: 161) and now the same applies to Lima, the capital of Peru. Questions then arise, such as, why lo and what is the function of this invariant form? Is it a topicality or transitivity marker, or both, coexisting at a particular stage in language change? The short answer is that, as the least marked of all clitics, it has the widest distributional possibilities and hence is the best candidate for new functions. Bosque and Moreno (1990) analyze lo as an invariable but versatile form able to take on multiple functions. Lo can refer to individual entities, qualitative properties, and quantities. How can we account for the differences between Ecuadorian Spanish, Andean Spanish, and Limeño Spanish contact varieties and why does only one of them exhibit almost complete leísmo and the other the invariant lo phenomenon? Two plausible explanations have been offered to explain the differences in the Quechua dialects between the two countries. One of them emphasizes the difference in contact between Lima and Quito with the latter characterized by uninterrupted intense contact between Spanish and Quechua. Further, Muysken (1984) argues that the crucial difference between Ecuadorian Quechua and the Southern Quechua spoken in Peru is a fundamental difference in subject-predicate agreement. Whereas southern Quechua shows agreement, Ecuadorian Quechua lacks it. Apart from treating invariant lo as a result of a contact-induced change, it could also be argued that invariant lo represents an intermediate stage during language shift in the sense of Matras (1998, 2013). In fact, assuming that the process of language change is a gradual change (Croft 2000), both Muysken’s and Matras’ theories apply. Since not all linguistic

Variability in language

19

features shift at the same time, different variants may coexist even in the same text (Croft 2000; Joseph and Janda 2003; Kroch 1994). The commonly accepted idea of gradualness of change is evident in my Limeño Spanish contact varieties corpus, where coexistence of variant forms is present even within an individual’s grammar. Also, the change in clitic doubling has been gradual with the first reanalysis process in terms of liberal direct object clitic doubling in River Plate and Lima Spanish to mark highly topical direct objects. Also, as mentioned before, clitics have undergone a reanalysis process from feature-specifying agreement markers to featureless object markers. Both reanalysis processes concerning the argument marking system in certain Spanish varieties find an endpoint in extensive leísmo in Ecuador and Paraguay where lo survives as an anaphor in certain areas only, e.g. in the Ecuadorian Highlands (Haboud 1997; Palacios 2002 ; Suñer and Yépez 1988). Another example for gradualness of language change is presented by the gradual loss of dative experiencer subjects from Old to Early Modern English (Allen 1995) and a gradual shift from objectverb word order to verb-object in Early Middle English (Allen 2000). Another intriguing question concerns the grammaticalization process of the formative a, and its influence on the language, given the fact that neighbouring countries in a similar contact situation do not show exactly the same process and phenomena. It is a well-known fact that language contact speeds up internal change (van Coetsem 1995 ). Is this due to the permeability of a grammar, allowing for convergence and transfer of similar structures in contact languages? Manning (2003: 314) suggests the following gradual change scenario. He argues that at first prescriptive commentators on language start to condemn the innovation. Next, if the innovation continues to spread, general usage is still condemned, but softens as it “may be allowed under certain circumstances”. And in the end ambiguity of the analysis of both versions allows the new usages to become generally diffused.

1.7 Variability in language The extensive inter- as well as intra-speaker variability in the data from the Limeño Spanish contact varieties corpus raises several questions. Can we find a principled pattern in the apparent random variation? Is there a principled relationship to semantic and pragmatic motivation? These questions are the basic starting point to my descriptive analysis in this book and they all will be answered with ‘yes’. There is no doubt that diversity and variability in natural language is by no means rare but expected and ever present. Variation and change are closely connected phenomena, but while change entails variation, the mere existence

20

Introduction

of variation does not imply change. The parts of the grammar affected by variation and leading to change apply according to Wanner (1997: 221) to “. . . peripheral, accessible portions of grammar (parameter settings, agreement, lexicon), rather than to the basic structures and their systemic cohesion (phrase structure and basic principles).” This is certainly the case for the variation in the double object marking strategies we observe in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and elsewhere in Peninsular, and in Latin American Spanish generally, in contact areas. Language variation has always played a central role in sociolinguistic studies. Previous studies have argued that morphosyntactic variation is much more complex and difficult to describe and analyze than for example phonological variation for a number of reasons, among them frequency of occurrence and difficulty of finding enough data in naturally occurring language (Silva-Corvalán 2001). The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the observed phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and pragmatic variation cannot be traced back to geographical origin as mentioned by Caravedo (1990: 34). Furthermore Caravedo (1990, 1993) and Landa (1995) argue that syntactic variation can only indirectly be associated with extra-linguistic factors such as social class, language style, and register, among others it is mainly conditioned by language-internal factors of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic nature. In particular, they suggest that morphosyntactic covariation should be interpreted in terms of communicative strategies, referentiality issues, or syntactic factors including object marking among others. Internal factors cannot be directly compared with extra-linguistic factors, which remain core sociolinguistic issues; making the correlation difficult unless internal factors can be controlled. These findings are corroborated in a detailed study of Quechua Spanish bilinguals by Escobar (1990) who concludes that the variation is probably due to semantic and pragmatic strategies peculiar to non-native Spanish speakers. Adger (2015: 15), in discussing multifarious factors in extensive dialectal variation from a Minimalist perspective, takes an extreme view by assuming that the syntax or grammar remains untouched by sociolinguistic information. Instead he suggests that the individual speaker selects the most appropriate features to express either pragmatic or semantic information. Applying this concept to the Limeño Spanish contact varieties speakers (migrants or not) for example, these would reorganise and adapt the features to finally relink them to new functions. As discussed before in 1.5.2, this view is probably quite compatible with the evolutionary model of competitive selection from a feature pool (Mufwene 2001). For many years, work in Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001c; Dalrymple 2001; Falk 2001) has not only addressed language change and dialect

Variability in language

21

variation (Vincent 2001) but included microvariation as in non-standardized variation (Bresnan and Deo 2000; Bresnan, Deo and Sharma 2007). Also, as a lexicalist-functionalist theory, structures and constraints can be linked to incorporate linear order and information structure. As Bresnan (1998: 30)17 remarks: “Yet anyone who has worked with primary data from non-standardized languages (or from non-standardized linguistic phenomena) knows that variation is far more extensive than is recognised in the generative literature.” This can be extended to extensive intra- as well as interspeaker variation, culminating in some stages of evolution in free variation. Free variation, that is co-occurrence of marked and unmarked forms competing for the same function, may be due to different social registers “leading to the presence of closely related sociolinguistically competing grammars” (Bresnan 2001b: 5) arising from dialectal variability and optionality as a natural co-occurrence, with the former giving rise to the latter. Variability within one single grammar does not entail the existence of multiple grammars in a single speaker; it rather means that the multiple variants within one grammar relate to several different functions. For example, in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, the optional double object marking strategy allows speakers to use either clitic feature agreement or object agreement with a featurally unmarked form to mark the information structural role of the primary object which is the secondary topic18. The first is a semantic strategy which uses marked forms, and the second is a pragmatic strategy using a featurally unmarked invariant form. Dynamic competition of these morphosyntactic forms leads to competing grammars, a process that contributes to language change. Both mark essentially the same grammatical relation, but are motivated by different semantic and pragmatic strategies, or, as Bresnan (1998: 59) puts it, “word structure ‘competes’ with phrase structure in specifying the same grammatical relations.” Syncretism and featurally unmarked forms trigger syntactic ambiguity problems: they can have more than one meaning, as will be shown specifically in leísmo examples throughout this book. It is clear from the above discussion that explaining and structuring the abundant variability which exists in bilingual contexts into a coherent and cohesive argument is a continuing challenge. In this book, I combine formal and functional theories most relevant to the topic, because this allows for a broad 17 The page number here refers to the PDF downloaded from downloadable papers on www. stanford.edu/ bresnan/publications/index.html. 18 With this pragmatic strategy, the subject, which is the primary topic, aims at underlining the close relationship it has with the primary object or the secondary topic.

22

Introduction

but precise treatment of the topic, including all extragrammatical influences. The resulting theoretical considerations will help understand more fully what kinds of conditions lead to variability and what factors are likely to bring about change.19 I believe this endeavour can be a fertile meeting point for typological, sociolinguistic and generative theories which readily incorporate variable data and optionality into their syntactic theory. An example of such an enterprise is Muysken’s (2013) attempt to model and interpret language contact phenomena, more specifically speakers’ bilingual strategies in specific environments, in an Optimality Theoretical Framework.

1.8 Theoretical framework The descriptive theoretical analysis of the variability and changes in argument marking in Limeño Spanish contact varietes is based on Lexical-Functional Grammar, which is a lexicalist, constraint-based theory based on a parallel architecture developed by Joan Bresnan and Ron Kaplan in the nineteenseventies. Bresnan, a syntactician concerned with psycholinguistic evidence against transformations in Chomsky’s Transformational Grammar, developed an alternative approach with strong emphasis on the lexicon (Bresnan 1978). Collaboration with Kaplan, a computational psycholinguist, led to the creation of a formal system for the representation of grammatical relations (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982). The modular nature of this theory allows to adequately represent and realistically model the psychological and computational processes of grammatical structure, synchronic and diachronic variability and language change. The theory uses a clean and simple formal framework to formulate linguistic theory which allows for additions (Bresnan 1982, 2001a, 2001b; Bresnan et al. 2016; Dalrymple 2001; Falk 2001; Kroeger 2004). Unlike other generative linguistic theories, movement and transformations and their underlying assumptions do not play a role in constraint-based approaches, which include Lexical-Functional Grammar and related theories such as HeadDriven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1994). Instead, these approaches allow for the representation of the different aspects of linguistic structure and how those relate to each other in a parallel architecture whose main parts include constituent structure, functional structure and argument structure. Syntactic structure is represented in two ways: constituent structure 19 I refer the reader to Bresnan (2007), who offers an excellent synoptic view of the changing field of generative linguistics and the necessity of opening up the field to typological studies and statistical methods in order to enable adequate analysis of all possible languages.

Organisation of the book

23

and functional structure. The linear organisation of words in sentences is represented on constituent structure in the form of phrase-structure trees. Important to note is that constituent structure is independent from functional structure where grammatical functions and relations such as subject, object, adjunct, and predicate-argument relations are represented in an attribute value matrix. In chapter three, section four I show how clitic doubling is analyzed in this framework and in chapter six, sections four and five I treat object alternations in accordance with Lexical-Functional Grammar. The book can be read and understood without these parts.

1.9 Organisation of the book Chapter 2 provides an overiew of clitic morphology, clitic placement and surface constraints, and briefly exposes the reanalysis processes affecting clitics. I use a fine-grained clitic typology (Toivonen 2003) to accommodate special functions of the direct oject clitics. Chapter 3 discusses casemarking in Spanish and the syntax-semanticsinformation structure interfaces of accusative clitics in clitic doubling, clitic left and clitic right dislocated constructions, and differential object marking. Next I discuss in detail the interaction of the referential categories animacy, definiteness and specificity licensing direct object clitic doubling. This is followed by a brief Lexical-Functional Grammar account in the last section. Chapter 4 illustrates the division of labour between head-marking (by clitics) and dependent-marking (by differential object marking), and its effect on information structure; it is divided into two parts. Part one treats the diachronic development of differential object marking and two-dimensional differential object marking from a cross-linguistic point of view with reference to typological studies of this topic (Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991). I propose a model to deal with the parallel evolution of differential object marking and the concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting clitics. In part two, I apply a new differential object marking theory (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011; Nikolaeva 2001) which allows for the important distinction between feature-specifying clitics as topicality markers in liberal clitic doubling dialects, and invariant clitic forms as proper secondary topic markers in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. This approach is critical because it shows that the variability is not a general breakdown of order, or one affecting unstressed little words, but a phenomenon applying more generally to certain kinds of grammatical structures. Chapter 5 presents morphosyntactic variability from Limeño Spanish contact varieties and a range of Latin American Spanish dialects in comparison with data from Peninsular Spanish dialects, Basque Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese.

24

Introduction

I argue that individual variability reflects dialect variability, and both represent samples of possible grammars within the same typological space (Bresnan, Deo and Sharma 2007: 302). Inherent variability may be constrained by categorical (prescriptive) grammar, or lead through variable grammars to language change. Chapter 6 focusses on language contact and how contact as an external factor – together with internal changes – may be linked to language change in progress. I base this hypothesis on the existence of similar structures and pragmatic strategies in the genetically unrelated contact languages, claiming that these have percolated through the mediating contact language Andean Spanish into Limeño Spanish contact varieties and other contact varieties. I also link contact to primary and secondary object marking (Dryer 1986) and discuss semantic motivations for object alternations. Chapter 7 is an overview and summary of the arguments presented.

Chapter 2

The nature of clitics This chapter offers an in-depth analysis of clitic morphology, clitic placement, surface constraints, and the reanalysis processes affecting clitics. A case in point is the spread of syncretism in the clitic paradigm of Latin American Spanish, which shows an almost complete merger of the second and third person. Third person clitics display a singular concentration of person, number and gender features, split into dative and accusative cases, marking indirect and direct objects, respectively. I propose a fine-grained distinction between first and second person clitics and third person indirect and direct object clitics on the one hand, and the invariant third person clitic lo, including with some restrictions the gender-specifying clitic la, on the other. In chapter four some of these changes will be treated as grammaticalization and linked to topicality and secondary topic marking.

2.1 Background An intriguing aspect of the grammar of Romance clitics is their morphology, especially their status as either independent (free) syntactic forms subcategorized by the verb, or inflectional affixes (agreement morphology), a debate that dates back to Sapir (1921: chapter 5). I base the following discussion on the generally accepted assumption that affixes are bound elements (which cannot occur in isolation), rather than independent words (which are free and syntactically active/visible). The morphology-syntax mismatch inherent in the concept of a clitic means that neither the ‘free’ category nor the ‘independent’ category can be defined in a clear-cut manner, since the criteria used are gradual and not absolute. A further difficulty is that the categories are defined in negative terms, as will be shown in Kayne’s test for clitichood below. Clitics, in short, are notoriously difficult to define and classify: they seem to live and move between the interfaces of phonology, morphology, syntax and discourse. The morphological categorization of Spanish pronominal third person clitics as affix or word is affected by all these uncertainties. Van Riemsdijk’s introduction to clitic syntax in European Languages (1999) exposes the complex nature of clitic phenomena. Spencer and Luís (2012: 328) offer a broad perspective on what they call ‘linguistic beasts’ as well as analysis of clitic-related phenomena across a wide range of languages in a variety of theoretical frameworks. They raise the question whether ‘clitic’ as a discrete category even exists, but find it useful as an umbrella term for elements that DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-002

26

The nature of clitics

show the phonological properties of affixes and distribution as function words. Everett (1996) goes even further and denies the existence of clitics as a morphosyntactic category altogether.1 In view of these debates about the nature of clitics it is worthwhile to review the conclusions reached within different theoretical frameworks. In generative theories, the treatment of clitics is either via a movement approach or a base generation approach. The first well-elaborated movement analysis was Kayne (1975) for French. In a Government and Binding (GB) framework he advanced the view that clitics satisfy the subcategorization requirements of their verbal host by moving from argument position into their respective clitic position – either proclitic or enclitic – obeying surface structure constraints and filters (Perlmutter 1971), and leaving behind a trace in the source position. The movement analysis works well for French (and for Italian) because clitics and their arguments are in complementary distribution. Co-occurrence of clitics and their arguments in Spanish and Romanian, however, makes a movement analysis problematic. Base generation analyses (Borer 1983, 1986; Jaeggli 1982; Lyons 1990; Suñer 1988) treat clitics as agreement markers coindexed with a small pronoun in argument position; the clitic is base-generated in its actual surface structure. In clitic doubling the argument position can be filled by the referential noun phrase. This analysis accommodates the double function of clitics as pronominal clitics and agreement markers, functions which have in common attachment to the verb, but which differ in two important respects: 1. Obligatory with or without overt and non-overt arguments (agreement markers). 2. Show constraints on co-occurrence with overt arguments and can be subject to clitic climbing (pronominal clitics). As discussed in chapter one, the constraint-based theory of Lexical-Functional Grammar rejects structural transformation including movement and scrambling. Therefore, only non-movement analyses, such as base generation, are compatible with this theory. Zwicky (1977) coined the terms special clitics and simple clitics to draw a distinction based on syntactic properties. Simple clitics have two forms, a phonologically reduced and a full form, that occur in the same position and perform the same role. English, for example, has reduced forms ‘s’ or ‘d’ that can be 1 A very comprehensive bibliographic compilation of work up to 1991 is given in Nevis, Joseph, Wanner and Zwicky (1994). Gerlach and Grijjzenhout (2000) provide an overview of different clitic phenomena at the phonology, morphology and syntax interfaces from various perspectives.

Background

27

used instead of the full form is/has, would/have (Zwicky 1985: 295). Special clitics have no alternative form and their special character is related to syntax and semantics. They occur in special positions, for example in second position in Slavic languages, or in Romance languages where they can attach to a verb, and in Warlpiri where they can attach to the tense marker auxiliary either as special clitics or as affixes. According to these criteria, Spanish pronominal clitics are normally categorized as special clitics. Zwicky (1985: 289) claims that “clitics are more marked than either inflectional affixes or independent syntactic units (i.e. words)” based on the ‘Zwicky and Pullum criterion’ (Zwicky and Pullum 1983), which is a series of tests that allows differentiation between clitics, affixes and words.2 Proposals for regarding clitics as inflectional affixes come from linguists working in a variety of formal frameworks. For example, in a Principles and Parameters framework, Zagona (1988: 129, fn12) analyzes Spanish clitics as “inflectional (person, number and gender) spellout of the Case feature of the head” as shown in (16), where the the clitic agrees with the gender and number feature of the lexical head ‘Juan’. (16)

Lo vimos CL 3MSG see-PAST-1PL ‘We saw Juan.’

a DOM

Juan. Juan.MSG

A similar analysis for French is Miller’s (1992) who qualifies French clitics as part of the morphological inflection of the verb. The view that Romance direct object clitics are independent syntactic elements adjoined to functional heads is taken by Kayne (1989; 1990) and Uriagereka (1995), with Torres Cacoullos (2002) principally discussing subject clitics. Other authors focus on typology in a minimalist framework, for instance, Franks and Holloway King (2000) provide a very detailed analysis of Slavic clitics; or, on Romance interfaces such as Monachesi (2005), an extension from work on Italian clitics in Monachesi (1999) in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, a unification-based framework closely related to Lexical-Functional Grammar. Using various theoretical frameworks, Miller and Monachesi (2003) offer a very comprehensive discussion of Romance clitics, including object, subject and adverbial clitics. Work on morphology and clitic placement can be found in Halpern (1995) and Halpern and Zwicky (1996). More recently combined with Optimality Theory, Anderson (2005) provides a very comprehensive 2 For an opposing view of special clitics in favour of treating clitics as affixes see BermúdezOtero and Payne (2011).

28

The nature of clitics

discussion of simple and special clitics at the prosody-syntax interface. The collection of papers in the edited volume Challenging clitics (Meklenborg Salvesen and Helland 2013) presents research on a wide range of clitic-related phenomena in a variety of theoretical approaches and extends it to lesser studied languages and Romance varieties (Asturian and Cajun French). This is to name only some influential works; the list is by no means exhaustive. In comparison to other frameworks, relatively little work on clitics is available in Lexical-Functional Grammar and linguists often resort to ‘I know one when I see one’ (Holloway King 2005). However, various accounts taking different points of view have been proposed for several languages. For example, second position clitics (Wackernagel clitics) have been analyzed for Warlpiri by Simpson (1991), for Tagalog by Kroeger (1993), and for English and SerboCroatian by O’Connor (2002, 2004) with the last two focusing on the interaction of prosody and discourse structure. Hindi discourse clitics have been described by Sharma (2003), Wescoat (2002, 2005) provides an analysis of morphologysyntax mismatches for English auxiliary contraction with lexical sharing. Bögel, Butt and Sulger (2008) explore the morphology-syntax interface in the Urdu ezafe construction. See Wescoat (2009) for person marking, and lexical integrity in Udi, and Dione (2013) for clitic surface position and lexical integrity in Wolof. More recent work concentrates on clitic syntax and prosody and modelling resulting interfaces (Bögel 2010; Bögel, Butt, Kaplan, Holloway King and Maxwell III 2009, 2010) and on the prosody-semantics interface (Dalrymple and Mycock 2011). See Lowe (2011, 2014, 2015) for diachronic work on prosody and accented clitics in Rgvedic Sanskrit and prosodic constraints in Ancient Greek and Pashto in Optimality Theory. Syntactic analyses for Romance clitics have been proposed for French by Grimshaw (1982a), and for Spanish spurious se 3 (which is the use of se for le in clitic cluster, e.g. le lo → se lo) by Grimshaw (2001); for Italian and French by Schwarze (2001).

2.2 Romance clitichood: bound or free forms Clitic systems across the Romance languages are quite comparable and uniform, with the notable exception of a lack of locative clitics in the Iberian subgroup Spanish and Portuguese (Spencer and Luís 2012: 34).

3 For the spurious se rule see this chapter sections 5.1 and 5.2.

Romance clitichood: bound or free forms

29

European Portuguese (EP) displays a mixed clitic system, in many ways similar to Spanish, but showing important differences. In Luís and Otoguro (2005) proclitics are treated as ‘phrasal’ affixes that are syntactically independent; enclitics are seen as stem-level affixes producing an inflectional string. The mixed clitic system in Spanish patterns in a very similar way to European Portuguese, with three significant differences. Firstly, Spanish enclitics in (17b) do not trigger stem allomorphy4 as EP enclitics in (17a) or clitic allomorphy (18a).5 (17)

European Portuguese (Luís and Otoguro 2005: 256–257) a. Levamo-la. *Levamosla. take-1PL = CL 3FSG ‘We will take her.’ Standard Spanish b. Llevémosla. take-1PL = CL 3FSG ‘Let’s take her.’

However, they share person and case syncretism as demonstrated in (18). For Spanish syncretism see Tables 2, 3 and 4 in section 2.1.1 below. (18)

European Portuguese (Luís and Otoguro 2005: 256–257) a. Deu-lho(*lhe-o). gave-DAT.CL 3SG /PL-ACC .CL 3MSG ‘S/he gave it to him/them.’ Standard Spanish b. Se lo dio. CL 3SG CL 3MSG give-PAST-3SG ‘S/he gave it to her/him/them.’

The second remarkable difference is that European Portuguese proclitics can take scope over a coordinated phrase; Portuguese seems to be unique in this among the Romance languages. Note the proclitic lho is a portmanteau cluster. 4 Phonological conditioning by assimilation or merging leaving the meaning unchanged. 5 Notable exceptions are the hortative vámonos instead of *vámosnos ‘let’s go’, and the contraction of the masculine definite determiner el to al following the preposition a. Both facts without doubt count towards an affix theory, but even with the latter crossing word boundaries an incorporation analysis cannot be motivated.

30 (19)

The nature of clitics

European Portuguese (Spencer and Luís 2012: 207) Nós sabemos que a Maria PRO.1PL know.1PL that DET. FSG Maria lho DAT.3SG /ACC .3MSG

comprou buy-PAST-3SG

e and

ofereceu offer-PAST-3SG

à PREP

noite. night

‘We know that Maria bought it for him/her in the morning and gave it (to him/her) in the evening.’ Thirdly, proclitics in European Portuguese can be separated from their host verb by lexical items.6 Klavans (1985) argues that Romance clitics are an “odd sort of affix” rather than an “odd sort of clitic” because of their placement as a lexical head with a verbal host (Luis and Spencer 2012: 47). Enclitics are stem-level inflectional affixes morphologically attached to a verbal host (Andrews 1990; Spencer and Luís 2012). The mismatch between the normally bound status and this looser rule creates problems for a Lexical-Functional Grammar treatment where the representation of phrasal affixes or special clitics on c-structure puts the lexical integrity principle7 at risk (Bresnan 2001c). Based on a series of criteria, Kayne (1975: 81) argues that French clitics are “closely bound” to the verb and as such that they cannot be “attached as a sister to the verb”, however they form a constituent with the verb.8 Examples (20) to (24) use some of these criteria to illustrate the Spanish opposition of strong versus clitic pronouns. A clitic cannot be modified (20a) but a strong pronoun can be (20b). (20)

a. *Juan los a todos John CL 3MPL DOM QUANT ‘John invites all of them.’ b.

Juan los invita John CL 3MPL invite-3SG ‘John invites all of them.’

invita. invite-3SG

a

todos

ellos.

DOM

QUANT

PRO 3MPL

6 As noted by Luís and Otoguro (2005) up to two adverbials can intervene between the verb and the proclitic. This fact could point towards an analysis of these proclitics as weak pronouns. 7 This principle is based on the lexicalist idea that syntactic structure and word structure (morphology) are distinct and separate, see also chapter 3.4. 8 For a very thorough discussion of the complexity of clitic placement and complex predicates in Romance see Manning (1992) and a follow-up solution in Lexical-Functional Grammar specifically dealing with clitic climbing and light verbs in Andrews and Manning (1999).

Romance clitichood: bound or free forms

31

A clitic cannot be contrastively stressed (topicalized) (21a) but a strong pronoun can as shown in (21b). (21)

a. *Juan LA prefiere. John CL 3FSG prefer-3SG ‘John prefers her.’ b.

Juan la prefiere John CL 3FSG prefer-3SG ‘John prefers her.’

a DOM

ELLA. PRO 3FSG

A clitic cannot be conjoined (22a) but strong pronouns (22b) can be conjoined. (22)

a. *Juan la y lo John CL 3FSG and CL 3MSG ‘John invites him and her.’ b.

Juan los invita John CL 3MPL invite-3SG ‘John invites them.’

invita. invite-3SG

a

ella

DOM

PRO 3FSG

y and

a

él.

DOM

PRO 3MSG

A clitic cannot appear in isolation, it needs its verbal host and cannot appear postverbally (23a), but a strong pronoun can (23b). (23)

a. *(Es) lo. is-3SG CL 3MSG ‘It’s him.’ b.

(Es) él. is-3SG PRO 3MSG ‘It’s him.’

A final point to be made is that clitics can appear together in so-called clitic clusters, as proclitics (24a) and enclitics (24b) attached to the nonfinite verb in an instance of clitic climbing. In complex predicates clitic climbing is an optional variant of proclitic placement as in (24c). Clitics when occurring in clusters depend on specific alignment constraints which will be discussed in section 2.5. Strong pronouns can never co-occur in this way (24d).

32 (24)

The nature of clitics

a.

Te

lo

CL 2SG

CL 3MSG

doy. give-1SG

‘I give it to you.’ b.

Quiero dártelo. want-1SG give-INF = CL 2SG .CL 3MSG ‘I want to give it to you.’

c.

Te

lo

CL 2SG

CL 3MSG

quiero want-1SG ‘I want to give it to you.’

dar. give-INF

d. *¿Nosotros tú salimos esta 1PL PRO 2SG go.out-1PL DEM ‘Shall we and you go out tonight?’

noche? night

A further distinction between clitics and pronouns arises from locality restrictions, namely the inability of clitics to occur as the object of a preposition. This is a well-attested crosslinguistic restriction for object clitics.9 Consider (25) where a prepositional construction is possible with a strong pronoun and with a determiner phrase but not with a clitic. (25) El

niño no quiere viajar sin él / su oso / *lo. boy not want-3SG travel-INF PREP PRO 3MSG / POSS bear / *CL 3MSG ‘The boy does not want to travel without him/teddy bear/him.’ DET

To summarize the differences between clitics and strong pronouns, as shown by the examples above, there are four important distinctions. Clitic pronouns can neither be modified ((20) and (21)) nor coordinated (22), and they are subject to strict locality constraints in relation to their verbal host ((23) and (24)); finally, they cannot be the object of a prepositiona (25). For the present we will distinguish between two classes of pronouns for Spanish, strong pronouns and clitics. Most proposals for the typological classification of Spanish pronouns and clitics adopt Cardinaletti and Starke (1996, 1999), who divide pronouns into a syntactically non-deficient class and a syntactically deficient class. The tripartite division shown in the hierarchy of (26) is originally based on the binary division of syntactic clitichood into strong pronouns and clitic (Kayne 1975). (26) PRO > WEAK > CL 9 This restriction also applies to the subject clitic, impersonal se.

Dative clitic vs. accusative clitic

33

The division in (26) is based on the phrase structural properties of each pronominal category. In Cardinaletti and Starke (1996: 36) clitics are deficient pronouns (X0s). Strong pronouns (PRO) are non-deficient, full noun phrases (XPs); weak pronouns are deficient noun phrases with exponents such as Italian loro (Egerland 2005) and German es (Cardinaletti and Starke 1996, 1999). The intermediate category formed by weak pronouns shares properties with clitics such as non-modification and non-coordination. Weak pronouns in Romance represent a true transition between lexical and syntactic status, exemplified best by the hybrid morphosyntactic status of European Portuguese clitics. Unlike Spanish clitics, Portuguese clitics are phrasal and stem-level affixes, clitic clusters undergo stem allomorphy and, unique to Romance languages, clitic clusters can take scope over a coordinated phrase (Spencer and Luís 2012). In Spanish, the weak pronouns disappeared early; there is no written evidence to document the change from weak to clitic, as this happened very early in the transition from Classical Latin to Medieval Romance (Egerland 2005). Also, a distinction into weak and clitic is not warranted, due to their uniform syntactic properties: they cannot be modified, conjoined, topicalized, nor appear in isolation. The PRO in (26) represents the strong, stressed personal pronouns; they are theta-role bearing arguments. Weak pronouns in Spanish do not exist any longer as already mentioned before. Clitics function as agreement markers when they co-occur with an object argument (e.g. in clitic doubling); without an argument, they can also be theta-role bearing arguments, with optionality of the alternate functions specified in lexical entries.10 Both series are morphologically distinct. Clitics, whether proclitics or enclitics, are phonologically dependent on the verb as their syntactic host and cannot occupy the canonical postverbal object position. Above, I have shown the complexity of morphological classification of the dative and accusative clitics in Spanish. The next section introduces Spanish third person clitics with special reference to their unique properties in Latin American Spanish.

2.3 Dative clitic vs. accusative clitic The view that case-marked elements such as third person clitics are deictic and anaphoric agreement affixes is strongly supported by the following facts. An important similarity shared by pronouns and demonstratives – and which justifies grouping them together as opposed to first and second person – is that they 10 See chapter 3 for a discussion of optional PRED PRO in Lexical-Functional Grammar.

34

The nature of clitics

are presumed insufficient to identify a referent based on their descriptive content alone, requiring support from the linguistic or extra-linguistic context. Whereas modern Spanish first and second person clitics originated from personal pronouns, third person clitics originated from the Latin demonstratives (27), preserving the Latin case features gender, case and reflexivity. (27)

third person masculine

lo < illum

third person feminine

la < illam

This general, widespread and cross-linguistically attested assumption is particularly evident in third person Spanish clitics and accounts for their special behaviour as will be shown in section 2.4. Many languages use a double referential system: pronouns for first and second person, and deictics such as demonstratives for third person. The third-person demonstrative pronouns usually have two forms, one referring to human and another to non-human referents, the latter being also open to human referents as, for example, in most indigenous Australian languages (Andrews 2007). This is also the case of Spanish third person clitic pronouns. Table 2.1 illustrates the paradigms for the unstressed accusative and dative clitics which can be doubled but never replaced by strong third person pronouns (stressed, non-reflexive). Table 2.1: Accusative and dative clitic pronouns in Spanish Accusative

Dative

Person

Singular

Plural

Gender

Singular

Plural

1

me

nos

Masc+Fem

me

nos

2 ES

te

os

Masc+Fem

te

os

2LAS

te

los las

Masc Fem

te

les

3

lo la

los las

Masc Fem

le

les

Case-syncretism for accusative and dative forms is complete for the first and second person singular and plural which show perfect agreement. The third person paradigm distinguishes between the dative with case and number features, and the gender and number specifying accusative.11 The repetition of 11 Greek third person pronouns are similar to Spanish with respect to the gender feature (Chatsiou 2006).

35

Dative clitic vs. accusative clitic

the second person paradigm, highlighted in grey, is representative for practically all Latin American Spanish (LAS) varieties where the European Spanish (ES) second person plural forms os have been replaced by the third person forms.12 Note the spread of syncretism due to a complete merger of second and third person plural forms in Latin American Spanish. Table 2.2: Accusative and dative reflexive pronouns in Latin American Spanish Person

Singular

Plural

Gender

1 2 3

me te se

nos se se

Masc+Fem Masc+Fem Masc+Fem

Accusative and dative reflexive forms as they appear in Table 2.2 representing the Latin American Spanish paradigm, show an even more simplified highly syncretic paradigm with se representing half of the forms, assuming the elsewhere position.13 Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are combined in Table 2.3 to give a comprehensive picture of clitic syncretism in Latin American Spanish. Table 2.3: Syncretism in the Spanish clitic paradigm Singular Person 1 2 ES 2 LAS 3 3 Reflexive

Dative

Plural Dat+Acc

Acc

me te te le

Dative

Dat+Acc

Acc

nos os lo/la

les les

los/las los/las

←se→

As Table 2.3 shows, forms for the first person singular object clitics are fully syncretic. They are underspecified for gender, unmarked for case but marked for person, and as such they can be used with both objects indiscriminately. Syncretism in the second person paradigm remains in European Spanish (ES), with os functioning as the sole form. Syncretism extends to the second person plural paradigm in Latin American Spanish where os is replaced by the third 12 I exclude here the voseo forms in Argentinian Spanish and elsewhere in South American Spanish as they have no direct bearing on the topic treated here. 13 Pescarini (2007) ascribes the historical source of syncretism of the kind that produces homophonous forms to paradigm levelling.

36

The nature of clitics

person forms. In the third person paradigm, which displays specific forms for the dative (marked for case and number), and for the accusative (marked for gender and number) some syncretism is operative since there is no gender distinction. The reflexive se in the last row of Table 2.3 is a fully syncretic marker, ‘without explicit reference (gender and number)’ (Pescarini 2005: 253), covering as a portmanteau morpheme third person singular and plural, second person plural reflexive pronouns, impersonal se, passive se and spurious se. Zagona (2002: 17) notes that impersonal se is the only true subject clitic in Spanish and can be replaced by ‘one’. The spread of syncretism in Latin American Spanish causes problems because of the loss of consistency of expression (Spencer and Luís 2012:5), since syncretism breaks the one-to-one correspondence between form and function/meaning. However, the form itself remains consistent in all environments. I will discuss this further in section 2.5, in conjunction with the Person-Case constraint in clitic clusters. The clitic forms can be decomposed ino features as shown in Table 2.4,14 with morphological features corresponding to their phonological segment. Table 2.4: Clitic morphology and phonology

Person Gender Gender Case Number

3 F M Dative Pl

Dative

Accusative

l Ø Ø e s

l a o Ø s

The dative /e/ is considered the marked case value, the accusative is unmarked for case but marked for gender. The feminine /a/, masculine /o/ and plural /s/ features are all present as exponents of declension classes, displaying the exact same features as in the morphological inventory of nouns and adjectives. The accusative clitics are the only ones still reflecting the gender distinction. Greenberg (1966) noted that if nouns of a language display gender, then pronouns will too. In Spanish, all third person strong pronouns show gender distinction. In this respect the accusative clitic is more like a strong pronoun than the dative clitic. This leads to the conclusion that all features of the paradigms are morphologically marked a shown in Table 2.5.

14 The Table is adapted from Alsina’s (1996b: 161) treatment of Catalan.

Dative clitic vs. accusative clitic

37

Table 2.5: Feature representation of third person clitic pronouns

–Plural +Plural

Dative

Accusative

le les

–Feminine lo los

+Feminine la las

Feminine gender and dative case are the marked values in the paradigm, considered so because of the narrow and specific range of application of the feminine gender. Lo as exponent of neuter and masculine genders is the unmarked value, the default, as will be shown below in section 2.4. In a slightly different analysis Pescarini (2005: 250) treats the thematic vowel /e/ as the elsewhere exponent “inserted in the gender slot when [gender] is neutralized”. This view does not clash with the present assumptions and resulting analysis. On the contrary, as shown in Table 2.6, it is supported by the same features of the Spanish three-way distance specifying demonstratives. Table 2.6: Demonstratives and elsewhere position of /e/ Number

Masculine

Neuter

Feminine

Singular

éste ése aquél

esto eso aquello

ésta ésa aquélla

Plural

éstos ésos aquéllos

éstas ésas aquéllas

Note that, unlike the nominal category, the demonstrative forms are traditionally described as having neuter gender, which is a last remnant of the Latin neuter. However, these singular forms only refer to propositional content and cannot be combined, two properties they share with neuter lo. Another approach is given in Harris (1994) (as read in Pescarini (2005)) and in Harris (1995), where the initial /l/ exponent is analyzed as a syncretic case marker for accusative and dative and /o, a, e/ as class markers.15 Parallel to double object constructions – where overt realization of the syncretic case marker a is restricted to the referential argument – the same constraint would

15 This is an interesting idea, as it would accommodate the co-occurrence restriction of dativeaccusative le lo, the Person-Case constraint or the spurious se rule. The constraints as well as the spurious se rule will be discussed in this chapter section 2.5.

38

The nature of clitics

apply to clitic clusters. However, that would rule out clusters of the type me le, se le, which clearly exist in Spanish. Evidence from other Romance languages, as well as the genesis of modern person three clitics from the Latin demonstrative ille, provide further clues for /l/ to be rather a person exponent than case exponent. Also, /l/ appears in the third person strong pronouns él and ella. Moreover, note the almost complete structural overlap between the definite articles and direct object pronouns in Table 2.7. Both are gender-bearing and the only divergence is in the masculine, singular lo. Strong pronouns, definite determiners, and accusative clitics share the gender features masculine and feminine; the accusative clitic lo is the only one to combine masculine and neuter. Table 2.7: Strong pronouns, definite determiners and accusative clitics Singular

Features

Plural

Features

SP él SP ella Det/CL el/lo Det/CL la

masc, singular fem, singular masc/neuter, singular fem, singular

SP ellos SP ellas Det/CL los Det/CL las

masc, plural fem, plural masc/neuter, plural fem, plural

The dative clitic in Table 2.8 on the other hand, only shares the number feature /s/ and the exponent /l/ with the determiner paradigm. The occurrence of /e/ in demonstratives (Table 2.6), in personal pronouns (él, ella), and in the masculine, singular definite article (el) further supports the elsewhere position of /e/. Table 2.8: Definite determiners and dative clitic Singular

Features

Plural

Features

Det el Det la CL le

masc, singular fem, singular case, singular

Det los Det las CL les

masc, plural fem, plural case, plural

In sum, I have shown in this section that the second person clitic paradigm in Latin American Spanish displays two new phenomena in the plural paradigm. Firstly, the loss of the syncretic dative and accusative marker second person plural marker os. Secondly, the latter has given rise to a split into dative and accusative in the second person plural, producing an identical copy of the third person plural paradigm and an increase in syncretism. The comparison of the third person object clitic paradigm with the strong pronoun and definite determiner paradigms shows that – very different from

Specific lo (la) environments

39

the dative clitic – the accusative clitic is strikingly similar to the definite articles.16 Importantly, the case of accusative lo combining both masculine and neuter gender is of high relevance to the discussion of invariant lo as the most important unmarked form in the non-standardized data. It is a featureless form “that can act as a surrogate for the entire category” (Bresnan 2001a: 61; Greenberg 1966) producing interesting morphosyntactic variability which is not restricted to a particular geographic region or dependent on extra-linguistic factors alone. Moreover, this invariant form covers more than one use. Lo is a syncretic form for the neuter, expressing third person only, and for the singular masculine, expressing third person, number and gender. In gender concord, the masculine subsumes the feminine. As shown in chapter one, section three, it is part of a complex aspect of Spanish syntax, namely the variability of the Spanish third person pronominal paradigm as a referential system, leísmo, loísmo and laísmo (Fernández Ordóñez 1999). Leísmo personal (personal leísmo) is the use of the dative le for the accusative lo referring to mainly singular male humans in Peninsular Spanish since the sixteenth century. Loísmo is the use of lo for le, and represents an extension of the accusative into the dative. In traditional grammar, the variability is based on a twofold distinction, either animate (personal) vs. inanimate (things), or on eliminating gender in favour of case distinctions. Leísmo is a highly complex multisystem, showing distinctions based on geographical variability, contact with non-gender marking languages such as Quechua, Basque and some Amazonian languages, different usage in written and oral language, and finally the actual use compared to the educated “standard” use. In fact, co-variation of lo and le has been reported for Basque contact Spanish (Fernández Ordóñez 1994; Suñer 1989), Quechua bilingual Spanish (Mayer and Sánchez 2016) and for L2 English speakers with Hispanic Background in the United States (Luján and Parodi 1996).

2.4 Specific lo (la) environments Ormazabal and Romero (2004, 2007, 2010)17 have presented significant evidence, which justifies the following, now widely accepted categorization: – First and second person accusative clitics can be grouped together with all dative clitics as agreement markers, to form one single agreement system. – The third person clitic lo can be considered “a genuine case of determiner cliticization” (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: 341).18 16 Fernández Ordóñez (2007: 17) calls it “el artículo lo” (the article lo). 17 Based on previous work by Uriagereka (1995), Roca (1996), Torrego (1998) and Bleam (1999). 18 For an opposing view see Bosque and Moreno (1990) who argue that lo is a pronoun and the head of a noun phrase.

40

The nature of clitics

This twofold categorization is warranted by the following differences: 1. Third person direct object clitics show a much richer morphology (gender and number), with the accusative clitic lo the only clitic to preserve the neuter case features from Latin.19 This is a property they share with strong pronouns and determiners, as shown in Table 2.7. 2. Third person clitics originated from demonstratives, while first and second person clitics do not and only the direct object clitic paradigm still exhibits the ‘pointing effect’ of demonstratives (Bhatt 2004). Indirect object clitics show a much more advanced grammaticalization stage and have become agreement morphemes. 3. The single agreement system indiscriminately marks indirect and direct objects. Determiner clitics are direct object markers and have special syntactic functions exclusively available to the direct object clitic paradigm. This categorical distinction not only allows for the default pronoun status of the accusative clitic lo as described below, but also triggers serious consequences for direct object clitic doubling with agreeing and non-agreeing clitics. The default pronoun lo (and some instances of la) participates in at least two syntactic environments where the dative clitic le can never be found. These are (i) topic-anaphoric pronoun referring to topical propositional content; and (ii) determiner function in cleft constructions and nominalizations. The examples of these special functions, treated below, are by no means exhaustive20 but address the main and most relevant points that allow linking the ‘neuter’ accusative clitic to the information structural function of secondary topic;21 and to shed some light on differences between dialects. In the glosses, I use N for neuter in all instances of neuter lo.

2.4.1 Lo as propositional anaphoric topic marker In the double object construction in (28), the neuter clitic lo is an argument clitic in the grammatical role as direct object argument and refers to a propositional

19 An important fact to take into account here is the loss of the neuter case in nouns in Romance languages (Blake 2001). 20 Cf Fernández Ordóñez (2007) for an extensive overview specifically in Peninsular Standard Spanish and its varieties. 21 For a brief definition cf. chapter 1 section 7 and for a thorough discussion cf. chapter 4, section 6 onwards.

Specific lo (la) environments

41

antecedent, to a specific event, or a clause.22 The clitic must appear left adjoined to the verbal host. (28)

¿Ya se lo preguntaste? already SECL 3 CL 3NSG ask-PAST-2SG ‘Have you asked her/him already about it?’

In (29) the argument clitic lo out of context may be open to ambiguous interpretation, as lo here can refer to an animate entity, e.g. a specific person or an inanimate entity, a specific thing.23 This is a perfect example of the double role of lo, linking it to the default clitic. (29)

Ya lo already CL 3MSG /CL 3NSG ‘Now I see him/it.’

veo. see-1SG

In both cases the event and the ‘thing’ must be part of common world knowledge of both participants in the communication or be anaphorically recoverable from the immediate discourse context. The two functions of the direct object clitic lo as topic-anaphoric referring to propositional content and as referring to an animate/inanimate entity, are not available to the dative clitic le in standard Spanish varieties in which le is restricted to referential anaphoricity and indirect object agreement.

2.4.2 Determiner cliticization In certain determiner cliticization constructions the clitic lo lacks agreement and the pragmatic feature referentiality but retains the semantic feature definiteness. Here the clitic is phonologically dependent not on the verb but on another word, it always must appear left adjoined to any syntactic category. An example of this is lo in its function as as determiner in cleft constructions, where anaphoric lo que, lo cual, lo de refers to a sentential complement.

22 This is also called S-Pronominalization in Perlmutter’s terminology and lo should be identical in all aspects to its antecedent. However, replacement can also involve ‘sloppy identity’, as in having two different subjects (Perlmutter 1971: 30). 23 Butt and Benjamin (2004: 88) define neuter lo as referring not to a specific noun, but ‘to an idea, clause or sentence, to some unspecific thing that has no gender, or to something not mentioned before.’

42

The nature of clitics

Example (30) shows neuter lo firstly in a lo que cleft construction followed by lo as a determiner in a coordinated noun phrase. (30)

A. Bryce Echenique, Peru (Butt and Benjamin 2004: 87) Lo que resulta increíble es lo CL 3NSG that result-3SG incredible is-3SG CL 3NSG modernos modern

y and

antiguos antique

que CONJ. REL

son are-3PL

al at.the

mismo same

tiempo. time

‘What’s incredible is how modern and ancient they are at the same time.’ The pointing effect of the direct object clitic is well documented in crosslinguistic studies of pronouns. In these types of constructions lo que shows similarities to indefinite pronouns. Bhat (2004) points out the general need to distinguish between indefinite pronouns and ordinary noun phrases on two grounds: (i) on a semantic level, the location of speaker versus hearer has to be taken into account, and (ii) because indefinite pronouns belong to the pragmatic dimension. As he notes (2004: 3) “demonstratives denote objects that are not actually named, but pointed out”. This applies specifically to direct object clitics as determiners in nominalizations. Neuter lo can also be used for generic expressions of the kind lo bueno, lo malo, lo feo (the good, the bad, the ugly), and is not replaceable by any other determiner. It can function as determiner with a variety of nominal categories (adjectives, adverbs, participles). For example, the noun phrase determiner lo with a nominalized adjective in (31) takes on the role of subject and demonstrates the lack of agreement and the retained semantic feature definiteness. (31)

Lo

grave era de su frente. serious is-PAST-3SG PREP POSS forehead ‘The most serious (injury) was the one on her forehead.’

CL 3NSG

Co-occurrence of a clitic with a preposition as in (32), where lo/la are nominalised, is restricted to the direct object clitics lo(s) and also la(s) in determiner function. Unlike cleft constructions and determiners as nominalized clitics they maintain their gender specification and ensure referential identification of the represented entity. (32)

Nos

vemos en lo de / la de mi hermano. see-1PL at CL 3MSG of / CL 3FSG of POSS brother ‘We’ll see you at my brother’s/sister’s.’ (house, party, event, etc.) REFL .1PL

Specific lo (la) environments

43

These kinds of constructions demonstrate clearly the genetic background of third person clitics as a demonstrative in pointing to the event as cataphoric reference. Lo as a propositional (sentential) anaphor remains restricted to a verbal host, which makes it quite different from determiner clitics, which can select from several nominal and syntactic categories as their phonological host. Clitic placement left adjoined to their phonological host remains unchanged in all cases. This brief exposition of the additional functions of direct object clitics has demonstrated that the third person object clitic paradigm is not a uniform class. Unlike indirect object clitics, the direct object clitic forms lo, la can be used as determiners that project certain kinds of phrases, as well as non-projecting words, as I will argue in the next section.

2.4.3 An attempt at accommodating determiner clitics The last two subsections have shown the unusual and multifunctional status of the direct object clitics, among others as the default direct object pronoun.24 To capture this important distinction I use the idea of a projection / dependence matrix (Toivonen 2003) to show the full distribution of Spanish pronouns and clitics in Table 2.9. Table 2.9: Modified projection/dependence matrix

phonologically dependent not phonologically dependent

non-projecting

projecting

IO , DO

DO

clitics

determiners

strong pronouns

My representation of Spanish pronouns and third person clitics on the matrix shows that strong pronouns are full stress-bearing words, phonologically independent of any host, and able to project full phrases. The clitic paradigm is split into ‘true clitics’, indirect object, and direct object agreement markers, which are phonologically dependent on a verbal host and lack projecting capacity. The direct object clitics lo and la in determiner cliticization constructions, as documented in section 4.2, have some projecting capacity and are phonologically dependent on a range of nominal and syntactic categories.25

24 For interesting similarities to Bulgarian see Jaeger and Gerassimova (2002). 25 In this respect, they show significant similarities to Greek determiners.

44

The nature of clitics

The typological classification of pronouns into PRO > WEAK > CLITIC (Cardinaletti and Starke 1996, 1999) does not allow this important distinction to be captured,26 whereas Toivonen’s new typology does. Hence, it allows the fine distinction between first and second person indirect and direct object clitics and third person indirect object clitics on the one hand, and the third person direct object clitics including the ‘unmarked’ exponent, neuter lo on the other to be brought out. This proposal accommodates the linking of grammaticized clitics and their interaction with semantic and pragmatic strategies of object marking in variation Spanish. Further, it is very useful for the distinction of anaphoric and grammatical agreement, which will be treated in chapter three. In this section I have discussed the complex morphological classification of Spanish clitics and exposed their mixed properties. The genesis of the clitic paradigm in demonstratives, and their classification as deictic elements, has important consequences for clitic cluster constraints. The analysis of third person clitics as deictic elements seems natural and would offer a plausible explanation for the Person-Case Constraint as Spanish, like many other languages, disallows co-occurrence of two deictic elements. This issue will be further discussed in the next section, dealing with clitic cluster constraints.

2.5 Clitic placement and alignment constraints The previous section has established that clitics can occur either alone or in a clitic cluster and, when occurring in a cluster (33), they are subject to specific alignment constraints. (33)

a.

Te

lo

CL 2SG

CL 3MSG ‘I give it to you.’

doy. give-1SG

b.

Quiero dártelo. want-1SG give-INF- CL 2SG .CL 3MSG ‘I want to give it to you.’

c.

Te

lo

quiero CL 2SG CL 3MSG want-1SG ‘I want to give it to you.’

dar. give-INF

26 It could be hypothesised though, that lo could be analyzed as a weak pronoun like Italian loro as described in Cardinaletti and Starke (1996). However, weak pronouns in Toivonen’s projection/dependency matrix are not phonologically dependent and the direct object clitics lo/la are, so the hypothesis does not hold.

Clitic placement and alignment constraints

45

In this section I first present the basic surface structure constraints applied specifically to Spanish, before moving on to the Person-Case Constraint (Bonet 1991, 1995) for further restrictions on clitic clusters. The final subsection discusses various features of these constraints in an Optimality Theoretic approach in terms of more general markedness principles.

2.5.1 Surface constraints Clitic cluster constraints have been widely noticed and described by traditional grammarians. For example Bello (1984: 278) notes “la segunda persona va siempre antes de la primera, y cualquiera de las dos antes de la tercera; pero la forma se (oblicua o refleja) precede a todas” (The second person always precedes the first, and any one of the two has to appear before the third. But the form se (oblique and reflexive) precedes all).27 The most interesting case of first position se is third person clusters of dative le(s) with accusative lo(s), le la(s), where the dative le(s) changes to se as in se lo(s), se la(s).28 This co-occurrence constraint has been widely discussed, originally by Perlmutter (1971) who presented an analysis based on surface constraints in form of a template (35), mainly for Spanish but aiming at some universality. Building on Perlmutter’s work, extra constraints have been proposed in the form of the me lui constraint focusing on high clitic order variation in a subset of closely related Catalan dialects (Bonet 1991, 1995), followed by Person-Case Constraint focusing mainly on morphology (Harris 1994, 1995; Pescarini 2005). The (Generalised) Person-Case Constraint moved on to discuss the syntaxmorphology interface (Adger and Harbour 2007; Albizu 1997; Nevins 2007; Ormazabal and Romero 1998, 2002, 2007) still leaving a number of issues unexplained.

27 Bello writes further: ‘Las combinaciones me se y te se deben evitarse como groseros vulgarismos.’ (The combinations me se and te se should be avoided as being extremely vulgar.) This comment leads me to assume that these two combinations, which clearly violate the abovementioned rules, though not absolutley ruled out by surface constraints, are forms not generally accepted. 28 Traditional grammars call se a variant of the dative (=le) and constrain the change to clusters of pronouns with an initial /l/. The Real Academia Española (1985: 203–204) further argues that whereas accusative lo has dative le and feminine la as variants, dative le does not have any variants. This would exclude wide spread laísmo, where the feminine accusative la replaces the dative le.

46

The nature of clitics

The earliest Transformational Grammar accounts (Dinnsen 1972; Perlmutter 1971) state that clitic ordering in Spanish is governed by two rules: (34)

Reflexive

(35)

se II I III

>

Benefactive > Dative > Accusative Thematic case hierarchy29 (Dinnsen 1972: 181) The spurious se rule (Perlmutter 1971: 76)

Focusing on Spanish and French, Perlmutter introduced surface structure constraints and filters assuming that clitics require to be generated in the same position in deep structure as the ordinary noun phrase. They then move into their respective clitic position obeying the surface structure constraints and filters in (35). The ‘spurious se rule’ in (35) shows the relative order of clitics applicable at least to Spanish and French (the Roman numerals represent second, first, and third person, respectively). In Spanish, there are two surface positions for clitics; in finite clauses, they occupy the immediate preverbal position, and in non-finite clauses (with infinitives, gerunds and affirmative commands) they adjoin to the verb, verb finally; they are always contiguous.30 The clitic position is not available to noun phrases and nothing but another clitic in a clitic cluster can come between a clitic and the verb. The version in (36) shows the surface order of proclitics and enclitics in Spanish. (36)

V –fin

se II I III (AUX)

V +fin

There is only one third person position, and the dative must precede the accusative. A common solution for this is to have the dative in the se slot. Grimshaw (1982a) argues that this is an unsupported reflexive that fails to parse dative and parses third person instead. Co-occurrence of two third person clitics places 29 See Haspelmath (2004) for an explanation of the ‘Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint’ (DPRC) in terms of Theme (T) and Recipient (R) as macro-roles. In his frequency-based account the role scale R > T interacts with the person scale 1,2 > 3, that is, the Theme is more likely to be third person whereas the Recipient tends to be first and second person. These semantic roles in turn are related by Haspelmath to different grades of topic-worthiness which move the DPRC toward greater crosslinguistic generalisation, namely the Ditransitive Topicality Role Constraint (57). This approach places a strong emphasis on speaker preference while also acknowledging the existence of language-specific constraints. 30 It is an interesting question whether the difference between the terms enclitic and proclitic, referring to phonological binding, and preverbal vs. postverbal placement, referring to constituent order, is significant enough to warrant a distinction.

Clitic placement and alignment constraints

47

the accusative into the third person slot and transforms the dative into so called spurious se (see the spurious se rule in the next section). However, in this position we find two other instances of se, either a third person reflexive pronoun or a so-called ‘impersonal se’ which can only occur with a human subject.31 The extended version is useful for illustration purposes but the extra position is superfluous, as the application of the spurious se rule in (35) discards ungrammatical combinations. A surface structure constraint such as (35) is a surprising and unwelcome addition to the Transformational Grammar framework, but fits much better into Lexical-Functional Grammar, where it can be integrated into the Phrase Structure rules as first developed by Grimshaw (1982a) for French. The extended verb phrase rule (VP) in (37) demonstrates preverbal clitic placement rules for Spanish and describes the surface structure of clitic clusters. The basic phrase-structure rules with their functional annotations generate correct c-structures and well-formed functional structures in dialects with agreeing clitics co-occurring with a co-indexed argument. This approach, originally due to Grimshaw (1982a: 90) for French clitics, is modified here for Spanish to incorporate Latin American leísmo clusters. The notation ↑ (up arrow) refers to the immediately dominating node, the ↓ (down arrow) to the node itself. The notation ↑ = ↓ (up equals down) means that the node’s information maps onto the same functional structure as the information added by the mother node.32 (37)

VP

→

V ↑=↓

NP (↑GF ) = ↓

XP (↑OBJ ) = ↓

V

→

(se) (↑OBJ ) = ↓ (↓PERS ) = 3

(CL) (↑OBJ ) = ↓ (↓PERS ) = 2

(CL) (↑OBJ ) = ↓ (↓PERS ) = 1

(CL) (↑OBJ ) = ↓ (↓PERS ) = 3

V ↑=↓

Second and first person show options of binding either one of the two internal arguments, the direct object (OBJ) or the indirect object (IOBJ), or, the external subject (SUBJ). The immediate and last preverbal position is taken by the third person and only binds either one of the two internal arguments. The first 31 See Contreras and Rojas (1972) for an alternative analysis of impersonal se and the extra non-global constraints suggested by Perlmutter to deal with cases of ungrammaticality arising from some sequences agreeing with his proposed rule in (35). See also Harris (1995) for an extension within the framework of Distributed Morphology to view clitic clusters as a morphological unit, as ‘clitic sequences’. 32 This template could be read in conjunction with the Lexcial-Functional Grammar analysis in chapter 3 section 4. In fact, only a general understanding of the approach rather than a thorough understanding of the details is necessary.

48

The nature of clitics

position is taken by spurious se, which as a reflexive clitic binds two arguments, the external subject, and either one of the two internal objects on argument structure, both expressing the same grammatical function. In addition to these verb phrase rules we still need the ordering restrictions that Perlmutter’s template requires, which however can be regarded as constraints on how the options from rule (37) must be chosen. Italian, Romanian, Greek, and Spanish share the ordering rule that indirect object clitics precede direct object clitics when forming clitic clusters. These rules apply straightforwardly to first and second person, however due to syncretism, grammatical relations are unmarked in their surface structure. On the other hand, third person clitics show overt marking of grammatical relations (indirect and direct object), and consequently a cluster of two third person clitics represents a mismatch between their morphological form and syntactic function.33 Here, an important constraint intervenes, which is based on a crosslinguistically attested dispreference for adjacency of the same morpheme. As it is a markedness constraint, it can be violated and dealt with on a languagespecific basis (Grimshaw 1997a). Recall that in Spanish, except for tensed auxiliaries (lo había dicho- (s)he had said it) and other clitics, no other word can separate the clitic from the verb.34 Clitic clusters are inseparable and can combine up to three, with one of them an ethical dative.35 Similar constraints have been observed for Warlpiri by Hale (1973) and Simpson (1991). Conditions in Slavic languages are similar but clusters can exist of more than two elements at a time. This is also the case for Spanish and Romanian. In the next subsection, I will discuss more recent approaches to alignment and cluster constraints most relevant to Romance and more specifically to Spanish. 2.5.2 The Person-Case Constraint Relevant to Spanish and the present discussion are constraints that disallow the co-occurrence of an accusative and a dative clitic if both are third person clitics. This has already been demonstrated in the extended verb phrase rule in (37). In the literature, the constraint is known as the Person-Case Constraint stating: 33 Ordóñez (2002) discusses unusual clitic cluster variations of first and second person in varieties of Aragonese, Occitan, Catalan and Spanish, as well as unusual orders in colloquial French. I discuss cluster variation in Latin American Spanish in chapter 5. 34 However, Ordoñez (2012: 432) reports that the reiterative re-morpheme (Kornfeld and Kuguel 2006) and dizque can separate the clitic from the verb in colloquial dialectal variation. 35 See Andrews and Manning (1999) chapter five for a non-constructive splitting constraint rule.

Clitic placement and alignment constraints

49

“In a ditransitive, where both internal arguments are realized as phonologically weak elements, the direct object must be third person” (Adger and Harbour 2007: 2). In Spanish, to comply with the surface structure constraints (35) and (37) and to ensure that person agreement on the verb is unambiguous, the dative clitic le is substituted by spurious se when co-occurring with an accusative third person clitic as demonstrated in (38). This gives rise to the only opaque clitic se from a process of delinking and inserting morphosyntactic features.36 (38)

Spurious se rule: *le(s)DAT loACC → se lo

Fernández Soriano (1999) argues that this constraint does not apply to noun phrase objects occurring in canonical position (39) that is in unmarked accusative/ direct object – dative/indirect object word order.37 (39)

Fernández Soriano (1999: 1267) Presentaron a Juan introduce-PAST-3PL DOM John ‘They introduced John to Mary.’

a DAT /TO

María. Mary

The rule does apply to clitic cluster and receives language and dialectal variety specific treatment. As shown in (40a), Peninsular Spanish requires either a strong pronoun in the indirect object position, or adding the full object (40b) to establish the grammatical role of the argument clitics.38 (40)

Peninsular Spanish (Fernández Soriano 1999: 1267) a. Me acercaron a ella. CL 1SG take-closer-3PL DOM PRO 3FSG ‘They took me closer to her.’ b.

Me

le

ella

CL 1SG

CL 3SG

acercaron a take-close-3PL DAT ‘They took me closer to her/him.’

PRO 3FSG

/ /

él. PRO 3MSG

36 A case-driven view is taken by Laenzlinger (1998) who argues that co-occurrence of two casemarked clitics on one and the same node is banned. See also Harris (1994) and Harris (1995) for a similar approach. 37 In double object constructions, double marking is very rare and regulated by the Object Agreement Constraint as defined in (43); see also the ‘Restricted Argument Parameter’ (Alsina 2001). In Spanish, the accusative patient/theme is usually unmarked unless the verb requires a preposition to be there. In Spanish linguistics, this is known as perifrástica verbal. 38 Note that there are no animacy restrictions on strong pronouns forcing them to appear in the immediate postverbal position, however they seem to be constrained to occur as objects of a preposition.

50

The nature of clitics

The Leísta Spanish variant in (41) referring to two animate objects does not violate the rule, as le does not mark the dative and allows to establish grammatical functions. (41)

Latin American Leísta Spanish Me le acercaron. CL 1SG CL 3SG take-closer-PAST-3PL ‘They took me closer to her/him.’

Rather than syntactic casemarking, (40a) is a case of idiosyncratic prepositional marking (Dalrymple 2001: 27), which should instead be glossed as semantic case GoalLOC marking an oblique. Examples (42) on the other hand show core argument marking with gender-specific clitics. (42) a. Me la / lo acercaron a ella / él. CL 1SG CL 3FSG / CL 3MSG brought-close-3PL DAT PRO 3FSG / PRO 3MSG ‘They brought her/him closer to me.’ b. Me la / lo acercaron. CL 1SG CL 3FSG / CL 3MSG brought-close-3PL ‘They brought her/him/it closer to me.’ In sum, Peninsular Spanish seems to express a narrower range of grammatical relations by disallowing me le clusters. A possible reason could be the fact that leísmo is mainly restricted to male humans. Note that the gender-expressing anaphors in (42b) do not only refer to animate objects but also to inanimates, as for example, ella could refer to la piedra (the rock) and lo to el coche (the car). This question leads to Ormazabal and Romero’s Object Agreement Constraint. The Object Agreement Constraint (43) is based on the Person-Case Constraint and an extensive analysis of leísmo, laísmo and loísmo.39 It is more comprehensive than the Person-Case Constraint and subsumes it (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: 336): (43) If the verbal complex encodes object agreement, no other argument can be licensed through verbal agreement. 39 As introduced at the end of section 3, standard (restricted to peninsular Spanish) leísmo extends the use of dative le to human and mainly male (accusative) direct object arguments; laísmo refers to the use of feminine la to dative and accusative, and loísmo refers to an extension of accusative lo to dative arguments.

Clitic placement and alignment constraints

51

In this minimalist account, the Bonet (1995) proposal is extended to include animacy as the important crosslinguistic factor in object marking, backed up by a widely attested restriction of multiple object marking. The constraint is only active when dative and accusative clitics as agreement markers overtly cross-reference the syntactically active objects on the verbal morphology. This aspect is important for the analysis of liberal clitic doubling with non-agreeing clitics; it will be further discussed in chapter five in terms of floating agreement. In a different approach, Nevins (2007) focuses exclusively on person and the binary features [±Participant] and [±Author] for referring expressions. Nevins argues that the me lui effect and spurious se represent a depersonification of the third person, where in the cluster sequence se lo, spurious se “must have a featural representation of person beyond ‘nothing’” (283), hence the third person bears the features [–Author, –Participant] (Nevins 2007: 311). For morphological markedness, the ‘deletion’ of person ensures that person agreement on the verb is unambiguous. This proposal solves the Person Constraint for standard varieties, but as it leaves out the case/gender discussion it is not applicable to dialectal variation with non-agreeing clitics. The proposal by Adger and Harbour (2007) is more applicable to the Latin American Spanish variability. They argue for a strong relationship between the Person-Case Constraint and case syncretism. This is indeed the case for Spanish, as shown in the discussion above (section three) of the Spanish clitic paradigm, the Person-Case Constraint applies only to the third person clitics. It has been found that the syncretic first and second person clitics are phonologically weak and do not distinguish overtly between direct and indirect object, whereas third person clitics do. Case syncretism involves the same marker for two core arguments, the dative and the accusative, where the latter is marked in accordance with a culture-sensitive animacy scale subject to diachronic change. For other languages, such as Greek, where the Person-Case Constraint does not fully correlate with case syncretism, the authors assume only partial case syncretism. The accounts discussed so far do not provide an explicit answer, as they do not consider markedness constraints which reflect crosslinguistic variability based on pragmatic strategies.

2.5.3 Markedness constraints The remaining discussion of alignment takes markedness constraints into account. The theoretical basis is an Optimality Theory treatment, where morphology interacts with phonology based on a mechanism of violable constraint rankings

52

The nature of clitics

(Grimshaw 1982a, 1997a, 1997b, 2001).40 The main tenet of Optimality Theory is that constraints are universal but the ranking of constraint hierarchies – hierarchy of expressions of features – is language specific and fixed in any given language. Different rankings of the same constraints predict the possible combinations. Grimshaw (2001) analyzes spurious se in Spanish by ranking a series of violable morphosyntactic restrictions and alignment constraints, as shown in Table 2.10, reproduced from Grimshaw (2001: 221, Tableau T8.16). Table 2.10: Spurious se in the cluster se lo(s)/la(s) Input: [–R 3 sg dat + –R 3 sg acc] a. (–R 3 sg dat) + (–R 3 sg acc)

CaseRt

PersRt

*!

*!

☞ b. (+R PNC) + (–R 3 sg acc) c. (R 1 sg C ) + (–R 3 sg acc)

*!

FaithRefl

Faith-Pers

FaithNum

FaithCase

*

*

*

*

*

**!

*

For the cluster third person dative le and third person accusative lo(s)/la(s), the dative le, which is a clitic that parses person, number and case, surfaces as spurious se, a clitic devoid of person or case features, followed by an accusative clitic. This clitic parsing person, number and case locates itself at the rightmost edge. Candidate (b) thus satisfies all faithfulness constraints and alignment restrictions. Candidate (a), representing the combination le + lo/la, fulfils all faithfulness constraints but violates both positional restrictions PersRt and CaseRt. In candidate (c), the input for the first clitic shows person one instead of person three, and therefore violates fatally the person faithfulness constraint as well as the alignment PersRt constraint while being faithful to reflexivity and case. The letters in italics (PNC and C) state that the clitic has no specification for that property. Table 2.10 clarifies that alignment constraints rank over all faithfulness constraints, which seem to follow an approximate order of FaithRt and FaithPers ≫ FaithNum. The ranking of FaithRt with respect to FaithPers, and of the positional constraints PersRt and CaseRt, are not clear at present. However, alignment of

40 Based on Prince and Smolensky (1993).

Clitic placement and alignment constraints

53

these positional constraints is understood and shows the pattern given in (44) (Grimshaw 2001: 222), where firstly a casemarked clitic needs to appear at the right edge, and secondly, the next clitic then marked for person needs to get pushed as far right as possible. The relative ranking between both constraints is difficult if not impossible to determine, since Spanish does not have a clitic showing the case feature but not the person feature. Since clitics specifying for case constitute a subset of a set specifying for person, and both align at the right edge, this does not pose a problem in the present theory. (44)

CaseRt PersRt

≫ ≫

CaseLft PersLft

However, combining two third person clitics equally specifying for person and case leads to violation of both constraints in (44) with both clitics competing for the same position. In a universal markedness hierarchy (Aissen 2003, among others), the dative outranks the accusative and yields thus the combination se lo by ruling out se le. This, however, changes under extensive leísmo as we shall see in chapter five on cluster variation in Latin American Spanish. In sum, impossible combinations in Spanish will arise from “marked values for case, person, and/or reflexivity” (Grimshaw 2001: 226). However due to syncretic forms of first and second person, which do not show case overtly, ambiguities arise, as in (45a), where a strong pronoun occupies the canonical direct object position.41 The examples42 in (45) are from Grimshaw (2001), who argues that the template in (35) cannot account for these combinations. (45) Grimshaw (2001: 226) a. Me recomendaron a él porque era el CL 1SG recommend-PAST-3PL DOM PRO 3MSG because is-PAST-3SG DET. MSG más influyente. most influential ‘They recommended him to me/me to him because he was the most influential.’

41 Note that Grimshaw (2001) and Bonet (1995) attribute a female reading to these They recommended me to him/her because she/he was the most influential, a view not supported by the American Spanish native speakers I consulted on this issue, based on the masculine gender of the predicate phrase era el más influyente. 42 Originally from Bonet (1995).

54

The nature of clitics

b. *Me le recomendaron porque era CL 1SG CL 3SG recommend-PAST-3PL because is-PAST-3SG el más influyente. the most influential ‘They recommended him to me/me to him because he was the most influential.’ c. Me lo recomendaron porque era el más influyente. CL 1SG CL 3MSG recommend-3PL because was-3SG the most influyente ‘They recommended him to me because he was the most influential.’ The combination in (45b) is prohibited per Grimshaw but (45c) is allowable. However, the cluster in (45b) is perfectly possible in Latin American Leísta Spanish and is as ambiguous as (45a), which leads me to suspect that pragmatic factors might interact with alignment constraints.43 Under extensive leísmo the indirect object clitic replaces the direct object clitic and gender loss makes it difficult to identify the referent, giving rise to ambiguous structures. Therefore, and despite the difficulties mentioned, I argue that Perlmutter’s template in (35) and the extension in (37) do account for the leísmo example in (45b). The next problem we encounter concerns spurious se when specifying AccRt instead of the general CaseRt, which implicitly refers to DativeRT as the dominant constraint (Grimshaw 2001: 237, ftn 5). Co-occurrence of spurious se (which is, following Perlmutter, PRO) and reflexive se is not possible, as in the example from Otero (1972) in (46a). Introducing the dative clitic in the anticausative reflexive construction in (46b) yields a non-argumental dative, not subject to the Person-Case Constraint. (46)

Otero (1972: 236) a. *Se se olvidó SE 3REFL forget-PAST-3SG ‘He forgot something.’ b.

de PREP

algo. something

Se le olvidó. 3REFL CL 3SG forget-PAST-3SG ‘It escaped him. (He forgot it.)’

Italian on the other hand, as shown by Otero (1972), circumvents this by using a suppletive form ci, which is homophonous with the first person plural clitic and 43 In double object constructions with noun phrase objects, the word order direct objectindirect object is unmarked and the reverse order indirect object-direct object is pragmatically marked.

Summary

55

the locative clitic, allows clusters as in (47b), with reflexive si and spurious ci 44 which is analyzed as a pronoun. (47)

a. *Si si umilia. 3PRO 3REFL humiliate-3SG ‘PRO humiliates PRO.’ b.

→

ci si umilia.

Ci si sente piccoli pensando 3PRO 3REFL feel-3SG small thinking.about ‘Thinking about the universe, one feels little.’45

all‘universo. the universe

The previous discussions have clarified the difference between the indirect object clitic le and the direct object clitics lo and la. Whereas the indirect object clitic can lead to ambiguous constructions, particularly under leísmo in Latin American Spanish, the direct object clitics facilitate identification of the object referent they agree with. I have shown in the modified verb phrase rules for Spanish in (37) that object agreement cross-referenced on the verb is restricted to a single object, and that spurious se binds one internal argument function (object) and the external argument function (subject) on argument structure as one argument. The Spanish clitic system is much less complicated than the Barceloní as discussed by Bonet (1991, 1995), for example, as it only produces one opaque form in clitic clusters and does not exhibit the binary distinction of phonological vs syntactic clitics that some dialects of Catalan show. Hence, in languages exhibiting this distinction, it is possible to analyze clitic clusters taking languagespecific markedness constraints into account. Clitics in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, and specifically the direct object clitic paradigm, are affected by grammaticalization processes resulting in morphological simplification.

2.6 Summary In this chapter I have discussed the morphological classification of Spanish clitics, placement, surface constraints and co-occurrence in clitic clusters. The typological classification of Spanish clitics based on the tripartite division by 44 This conversion is originally due to Wanner (1974), specifically see section 5.2. for the development of the dissimilation rule for Italian. Consequently, Wanner (1977: 120) argues for Spanish that due to the lack of such a dissimilation rule, clitic sequences se se are ruled out as they are phonologically blocked. 45 Thanks to Francesca Foppoli for the Italian data and explanations in (47).

56

The nature of clitics

Cardinaletti and Starke (1996) proved too inflexible to capture the mixed properties of third person direct object clitics. I have therefore used a new typology based on a projection and phonological dependence matrix (Toivonen 2003) to give a more precise categorization. This was achieved by separating first, second and third percon indirect and direct object clitics as agreement markers, on the one hand, from third person direct object clitics in determiner cliticization exhibiting some projecting capacity, on the other. This fine-grained distinction allows for the linking of grammaticized clitics and their interaction with semantic and pragmatic object marking strategies in variation Spanish to a distinction in grammatical and anaphoric agreement, similar to the proposal for Chicheŵa (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987), to be discussed in the next chapter. The distinction also helps to explain invariant lo and locative doubling, and link them to a specific information structure role, as we shall see. Among the many constraints for clitics and clusters exposed above, the Object Agreement Constraint is the broadest, as it prevents two internal arguments from agreeing concurrently with the verb that is being marked. Languages with no overt verb-object agreement relations, like Turkish and Japanese, don’t have Object Agreement Constraints at all. Others show a clear distinction between first / second versus third person, among them Spanish and other Romance languages. This is the second important result and feeds directly into the discussion about objects and clitics in the next chapter.

Chapter 3

Objects, case and clitic doubling This chapter focuses on objects, casemarking, and the relationship of agreement and clitic functions in argument marking. The discussion focuses in the first part on the coding of direct object functions by differential object marking and clitic doubling in Spanish. Clitics can crossreference agreement and case of noun phrases; word order arrangements, such as preposing and left dislocating, can change an object’s function. These different strategies can be used in combination to mark grammatical relations, and to signal pragmatic functions in certain Latin American Spanish dialects. The second part gives a brief account of clitic doubling in Lexical-Functional Grammar.

3.1 Objects and casemarking Case is a complex phenomenon in terms of meaning, morhphological form and their relationship with grammatical relations. The latter can be expressed in different ways, some languages use word order to overtly mark the position of specific clause or sentence elements, others use nominal and verbal morphology to encode grammatical relations allowing for varying freedom of word order. For example, whereas structural case is used to identify syntactic relations (e.g. subject, object, indirect object, etc.), semantic case encodes semantic relations in terms of agency, animacy, definiteness, specificity, affectedness among other properties. Other functions of case are to mark telicity or boundedness in the tense/aspect system in the verbal domain (Kiparsky 1998; Ritter and Rosen 2001), and to interact with discourse functions such as topic and focus (Aissen 2003; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). The latter applies to differential object marking in Spanish, especially to the variability in clitic doubling constructions across dialects. In sum, the multiple ways languages code their grammatical relations gives rise to different types of case marking systems dependent on their grammatical alignment and word order type. Casemarking in Romance languages is based on Latin which, as shown in example (48), exhibits gender and case in nominal inflectional morphology in terms of declension classes and relatively free order. (48)

Latin a. Puella puerum girl-FSG - NOM boy-MSG -ACC ‘The girl loves the boy.’

DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-003

amat. love-3SG

58

Objects, case and clitic doubling

b.

Puerum puella boy-MSG -ACC girl-FSG - NOM ‘The girl loves the boy.’

amat. love-3SG

Spanish is a nominative-accusative language with minimal case marking; the nominative/accusative case system is only marked on personal pronouns and on some relative pronouns. As shown in example (49), the nominative subjects show agreement morphology on the verb, nominative case is unmarked and noun phrases show gender and number agreement. Objective and genitive case are marked by the prepositions a (49a) and de (49b), respectively, with (49a) as a case of differential object marking. (49)

Spanish a. La

niña ama DET. FSG girl-FSG love-3SG ‘The girl loves the boy.’

b.

al DOM - DET. MSG

Los

caballos de horse.MPL PREP.GEN ‘Clara’s horses are white.’ DET. MPL

Clara Clara

niño. boy-MSG

son are-3PL

blancos. white.MPL

Spanish uses a mix of configurational and morphological means to identify grammatical relations, and employs two different strategies to mark the object function: (i) clitics as a deictic strategy to mark agreement, and (ii) morphological case to mark a relational strategy (Croft 1988: 173). As pointed out by Nichols (1986), case and agreement are two parallel strategies to mark essentially the same head-dependent relationship. For Spanish, coocurrence of head- and dependent marking is obligatory with dative arguments including the gustar (‘like’) experiencer construction in (50) which shows dependent-marking by morphological case a and head-marking by the dative clitic le. (50)

A

la

DAT

Juan le gusta Juan CL 3SG like-3SG ‘Juan likes the painting.’

DET. FSG

pintura. painting.FSG

Experiencer subjects, that is non-nominative subjects, occur elsewhere, for example in Icelandic1, where Andrews (1982) treated them as “quirky case”.

1 See also Zaenen, Maling and Trahinsson (1985)

Objects and casemarking

59

Mapping of grammatical roles is not straightforward in all cases. Company (2003) shows that, based on quantitative historical data, morphological casemarking of direct objects in transitive constructions is concentrated on patients, and in ditransitive constructions of indirect objects on recipients. In Spanish, datives show overt morphological marking but they cannot become the subject in passives; although the dative allows a range of thematic relations it can still be interpreted as an inherent case. For Spanish, an important distinction for the syncretic casemarker a is that the preposition a marking obliques and complex predicates has semantic content, as opposed to casemarking direct objects and indirect objects, where it has none. Blake (2001: 170-171) traces the Spanish syncretic casemarker a back to the Latin locative preposition ad. He argues that semantic cases, such as local cases, are well known for expanding to the direct object through dative and genitive marking. Loss of semantic meaning marks the direct object as a syntactic relation, creating a grammatical case. The preposition a still retains its locative meaning as shown in (51). (51)

Standard Spanish (Blake 2001: 171) Juan vuelve a su hotel. Juan return-3SG LOC POSS hotel ‘Juan returns to his hotel.’

With the basics in Spanish casemarking established, I now turn to how these casemarking strategies function in syntactic relations. Objects in Romance languages are traditionally divided into direct and indirect objects. In Spanish, both core object functions (indirect object and direct object) display very similar behaviour when passing tests for objecthood, such as passivization and adjacency conditions. Leísmo constructions (dative le for accusative lo/la) create dative-like conditions for accusative objects, causing syntactic and referential ambiguity. Both objects are marked with a syncretic formative a that evolved from the Latin locative marker ad, as shown in (51), and gained grammatical meaning through reanalysis as a casemarker. The sole difference between these objects is that the accusative is marked differentially as will be shown in section two of this chapter. In direct object marking, personal a in Standard Spanish varieties is already ambiguous regarding objective case, yet clitic doubling with agreeing clitics optimises identifiability of referents. There are two competing theories with regard to the functional output of the syncretic casemarker a in Spanish: it is regarded either as a new accusative marker (Givón (1997) and Bossong (1991, 2003)) or as an extension of the dative (Torrego 1999: 1802).

60

Objects, case and clitic doubling

Arguing for a new accusative marker – competing theory 1, argued for by Givón, is that a is a new accusative marker. Givón observes that crosslinguistically the gradation of direct objecthood is based on a “well documented semantic and pragmatic overlap between the categories definite patient (as in Hebrew), dative and human patient (as in Spanish), dative and pronominal (as in Provençal), and dative and topical (as in Newari, Nepali)” (Givón 1997: 25). I wil use this argument to show in section two of this chapter, and in chapters four, five and six, that in Spanish contact varieties, pragmatic marking (marking information structure role) takes precedence over semantic marking (animacy, definiteness, and specificity) in non-standardized Latin American dialects. A diachronically well attested example for Spanish is personal a-marking of human, animate and inanimate direct object arguments in specific/topical contexts, typical patient/theme arguments, as shown in examples (4)–(6) in chapter one. Therefore, the extension of differential object marking to topical objects can be regarded as a natural consequence, giving rise to a new accusative marker. As will be shown in the next chapters, the strongest evidence for the new accusative hypothesis is the transition stage of invariant lo in which we see it as a topicality and transitivity marker in contact dialects. Competing theory 2 on the other hand receives strong support by the well documented covariation of lo/le – the end state in a case collapse favouring the dative in Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish – presenting strong evidence for the dative hypothesis. The Real Academia Española argues for the accusative to be “una extensíon del dativo” (an extension of the dative), a view widely supported by Spanish philologists (Torrego 1999: 1802).2 This view is also defended by Company (2001, 2003) based on previous work on Mexican Spanish. She claims that the semantic role of animate recipients of an action marks “the final target of transitivity” (Company 2003: 218). Addressing optional doubling in River Plate, Laughren and Eisenchlas (2006) also argue for the marked direct object as a dative object. Alsina (1996b) proposes a binary dative case distinction [DAT±] for Catalan and more generally for Romance languages, where both objects are internal arguments (i.e. direct functions as distinct from subject and oblique functions). These direct functions are morphologically marked by presence and absence of a casemarker, which for Spanish is the formative a. He argues for the indirect object to be the dative marked member [DAT+] in this case opposition, and assumes dative constructions to be prepositional phrases. The unmarked direct object then becomes the nondative member or [DAT−]. Third person pronominal clitics show morphological marking for case only 2 For an extensive bibliography on the accusative as extension of the dative see Pensado (1995).

Objects and casemarking

61

in the dative clitic le(s) and for gender instead of case for the accusative clitics lo (s) and la(s). For the accusative, the binary dative case distinction [DAT±] would also allow for differential object marking. The Spanish objective marking scheme in Table 3.1 shows that direct and indirect objects have more properties in common than differences, both objects exhibit case and clitic agreement. The properties attainment of a goal, point of location (endpoint, receiving point) are more prominent in the indirect object. Direct objects that are most similar to the indirect objects in animacy, individuation, and topicality receive marking. Indirect objects map onto recipient and goal type thematic roles, marked direct objects map onto patient and theme thematic roles. In both cases, they share the same feature requirements unlike the unmarked direct object, which is negatively specified for the features animacy, definiteness and specificity. Table 3.1: Spanish objective marking, case, clitic agreement and thematic roles Direct object (DO) Indirect object

marked DO

unmarked DO

Oblique

Syntax Case

dative a

accusative a

Ø

aGOAL/prep

CL Agreement

yes

yes

no

no/csubject

recip/goal [±anim, +def] [+spec/+top]

pat/theme [±anim, +def] [+spec/+top]

pat/theme [–anim, –def, –spec]

unrestricted

Semantics Object type

In the case of the direct object, the pointing factor, pointing towards a goal, is an inherent aspect of the gender incorporating direct object clitics, as discussed in chapter two for the determiner function of clitics. The gender distinctive direct object clitics lo, la facilitate identification of human and animate individuals, whereas the indirect object clitic le only agrees in number with its referential argument. Another inherent aspect of the formative a is the locative meaning, marking obliques in standard Spanish and allowing for locative doubling in Andean Spanish. To summarize the topic on casemarking and grammatical relations. The major (functional) role of casemarking in Spanish is to distinguish between the different objects the predicate subcategorizes for. Objects make use of the double strategy, namely casemarking morphology through syncretic a for dependentmarking, and third person clitics for head-marking. A basic condition for the

62

Objects, case and clitic doubling

noun phrase to be recognised as an argument is that it needs to be formally linked to the predicate by either or both casemarking strategies. It can be argued that objective casemarking in Spanish should be treated as the interaction of morphological marking and agreement with semantic roles marking grammatical functions. The dative retains semantic case and applies morphological marking and agreement to show the grammatical function of indirect object. The direct object is marked differentially using the same syncretic casemarker a. In an Optimality-Theoretic analysis of differential object marking, Aissen (2003) traces the extension of differential object marking to a tension between the two principles economy and iconicity. The principle of economy consists of simply avoiding casemarking. Iconicity promotes singular/iconic relations between form (morphological case) and content (object types). The likelihood of casemarking increases with semantic markedness of the object. This is an important point for the cross-dialectal variability in clitic doubling and its innovations in Limeño Spanish contact varieities, particularly because it involves head- and dependent marking as in clitic doubling.

3.2 Clitic doubling Clitic doubling, as shown in examples (4)–(6) in chapter one, involves cooccurrence of a clitic – defined as a phonologically dependent, non-projecting single word – and a coreferential object argument. In Spanish, this extends to indirect and direct objects and can be linked to Kayne’s Generalization which requires, as stated in the principle under (8) in chapter one, a case assigner, such as a preposition, for the doubled noun phrase. While indirect object clitic doubling is mostly restricted to argumental datives, under certain conditions, direct object arguments of transitive clauses allow co-occurrence of a pronominal clitic with a coindexed lexical noun phrase, yielding clitic doubled constructions. Such constructions also occur in many other languages. Direct object clitic doubling is much more restricted than indirect object clitic doubling, showing considerable variability between dialects.3 See Torrego (1993) for an overview of the nature of clitic doubling and Everett’s (1996) crosslinguistic analysis of case and agreement. In pro-drop languages the similarity to verbal agreement, where the verbal morphology faithfully reflects the properties of the subject, is striking.4 For this 3 I refer the reader to the discussion in chapter one for the extra-linguistic background, and to chapter five for the range and extent of variability in Limeño Spanish contact varieties in relation to similar variability elsewhere. 4 See Bresnan (2001c) for an extended discussion.

Clitic doubling

63

kind of agreement Anderson (2005) revives the term registration5 or primary agreement. The distinction between coindexed agreement and registration (noncoindexed) is linked to ‘strong vs. weak’ agreement (Anderson 2005: 235). Clitics, coindexed with feature copies that agree with the coreferential determiner phrase argument, are defined as secondary agreement (Anderson 2005: 231). Next, I give a synopsis of the cross-dialectal variability of clitic doubling based on the kinds of differences specific dialects exhibit in relation to their marking strategies before moving on to discuss the main features involved in clitic doubling. 3.2.1 Dialectal variability and evolving clitic doubling sections Variability in all dialects is generally motivated by animacy and definiteness and can be subdivided into three different strategies based on diachronic and regional differences as well as contact with indigenous languages. Topicality is an additional factor that plays a very important role in accounts of liberal clitic doubling dialects such as Lima and River Plate Spanish as it raises the question whether Spanish defines agreement and case in accordance with information structure roles or grammatical function. In Limeño Spanish contact varieties, the change from agreeing to non-agreeing clitics and extension of liberal clitic doubling to inanimate noun phrases indicates a move from semantic to pragmatic marking strategies only. Present day Peninsular Spanish systems are based on inherent variability and semantic strategies with agreeing clitics restricted to pronominal objects. Moreover, they never showed a single and consistent system (Alarcos Llorach 1994). The rather non-homogeneous situation is based on a binary system of pronoun use, which is a combination of an etymological paradigm a shown in (52a) and partial leísmo concerning mainly male humans as in (52b), as well as regionally restricted loísmo and laísmo as described in chapter one, section three. (52)

Etymological Peninsular Spanish a. Lo veo a él. CL 3MSG see-1SG DOM PRO 3MSG ‘I see him.’ Leísmo ‘masculine, de cortesía’ b. Le veo a él. CL 3SG see-1SG DOM PRO 3MSG ‘I see him.’

5 Following from the distinction introduced by Perlmutter and Postal (Perlmutter, 1983) in Relational Grammar.

64

Objects, case and clitic doubling

All variability is motivated by the semantic factors animacy and definiteness.6 In dialectal variability in Peninsular Spanish in contact with Basque a different leísmo variant can be found in bilingual Spanish (Ormazabal and Romero 2013) which is comparable to the Latin American contact varieties as shown in (53b) below. The combination of the ideal highly standardized etymological system with leísmo, loísmo and laísmo variants became the basis of Latin American variability. Latin American variability is motivated by semantic and pragmatic strategies with topicality playing an important role in liberal clitic doubling varieties in (53a) still maintaining feature-agreeing clitics in these dialects though. The Latin American as well as the Basque contact varieties shows the same leísmo strategies as in (53b) in bilingual Spanish in contact with indigeneous languages that do not mark gender. (53)

Riverplate Spanish, Lima Spanish a. La veo a la CL 3FSG see-1SG DOM DET. FSG ‘I see the teacher.’ Contact leísmo, bilingual Spanish b. Le veo a la CL 3SG see-1SG DOM DET. FSG ‘I see the teacher.’

maestra. teacher-3FSG

maestra. teacher-3FSG

Unlike the marking strategies in Peninsular Spanish, the variability in Latin America is marked by a transition from purely semantic features to include the pragmatic features specificity and topicality, as noted by Yépez (1986) for Quiteño, and Suñer (1988) and Silva-Corvalán (1995) for River Plate. Topicality or object saliency has been linked to liberal clitic doubling in River Plate Spanish by Estigarribia (2005) in a Lexical-Functional Grammar – Optimality-theoretic and Estigarribia (2006) in a functional account. Belloro (2007), within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar, links liberal direct object clitic doubling in Buenos Aires Spanish to pragmatic strategies, specifically focusing on an unexpected accessibility level given to a particular referent. In a Lexical-Functional Grammar approach, Andrews (1990) introduced the Morphological Blocking Principle to formalise optionality of direct object clitic doubling in River Plate Spanish. Mayer (2003) applied this principle to liberal clitic doubling in Standard 6 Cuervo (1895); Klein-Andreu (1981, 1992); Leonetti (2007, 2008), Lapesa (1968), Quilis (1985), Fernández Ordóñez (1993, 1994, 1999, 2007), Fernández Soriano (1999), Bleam (1999).

Clitic doubling

65

Limeño Spanish. The principles of economy and consistency and the role of object clitics in liberal clitic doubling in River Plate and Peruvian Spanish have been treated in Bresnan (2001c), Dalrymple (2001) and Grimshaw (1982b), by analysing syntax and grammaticalization issues. To my best of knowledge, the only studies specifically on Lima Spanish optional clitic doubling with agreeing clitics are my own (Mayer 2003, 2006) and those of Sánchez (2006, 2010). Sánchez, giving a minimalist account, assumes with Suñer (1988) and Uriagereka (1995) that definiteness and specificity features allow clitics to enter agreement relations with arguments. Optionality in Sánchez’ account is treated as agreement with determiner phrases in nonargument positions. Mayer, based on Lexical-Functional Grammar, correlates optionality of the semantic properties of the argument, lexical semantics and information packaging with marking at least two different kinds of objects in argument position. Sánchez and Zdrojewski (2013) compare direct object clitic doubling with agreeing clitics in Buenos Aires and Lima, and, in Zdrojewski and Sánchez (2014), they extend the comparison to include Andean contact Spanish. In these studies, the diachronic shift from optional to obligatory cooccurrence is explained by a reanalysis hypothesis bearing on the morphological status of the clitic. Finally, the most variable stage is found in Andean Spanish (Caravedo 1996–1997; Luján 1987; Palacios 1998, 2013), and specifically in Limeño Spanish contact varieties exhibiting non-agreeing clitics prominently with invariant lo as in (54a) and free clitic doubling as in extending clitic doubling to definite inanimates in (54b). These innovations contrast strongly with the Lima Spanish norm and must be judged in terms of monolingual and bilingual varieties found on a continuum of language acquisition. (54)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties a. Lo conoce a las CL 3MSG know-3SG DOM DET. FPL ‘She knows the girls.’ b.

Lo licuo CL 3MSG blend-1SG ‘I blend the garlic.’

al DOM - DET. MSG

chicas. girl.FPL ajo. garlic.MSG

Non-agreeing clitics including contact clitics are clitics that are reduced to person agreement; in having lost gender and number marking they do not ‘agree’ any longer with their coreferential argument – hence the term non-agreeing clitics. This indicates a move from semantic strategies to pragmatic strategies in

66

Objects, case and clitic doubling

object marking, where the non-agreeing clitics merely register the object on the verb. Chapters four, five and six are devoted to the description and analysis of this variability. Descriptive work on Andean Spanish and contact clitics treats the intensive contact and related phenomena found in the capital Lima after several migration waves from rural Andean and Amazonian areas.7 These developments triggered research about the effect of bilingualism on verbal clitic variability (Escobar 1988, 1990; García 1990; Paredes 1996; Sánchez 2003), an extensive sociolinguistic study of the Spanish of Lima (Caravedo 1990), and a clitics-in-contact case study (Caravedo 1999). The longitudinal quantitative studies of contact-induced language change in Limeño clitics by Klee and Caravedo (2006) identified and described all extralinguistic variables, identified social networks as well as second language acquisition conditions; these authors also state a pressing need for research on verbal subcategorization requirements and constraining features of the object, such as animacy, definiteness and specificity. These issues have been partially addressed in Mayer (2008) and extended in Mayer (2010). A pilot study by Camacho and Sánchez (2002) reports a case paradigm simplification for Shipibo Spanish contact speakers, and, depending on the contact variety, yielding free variation. Building on this work and including the syntaxinformation structure interface, some work in the last few years links apparent free variation to a scalar clitic system in monolingual and bilingual contact speakers.8 In sum, there is substantial agreement that optional direct object clitic doubling with agreeing clitics is licensed by the interaction of the categories animacy, definiteness and specificity. These semantic and pragmatic object marking strategies with agreeing clitics are the focus of the following sections.

3.2.2 Agreement and crossreferencing In clitic doubling constructions Standard Spanish marks both core grammatical functions, the indirect object and the direct object, twofold. It uses dependentmarking to identify grammatical functions through a syncretic case/object marker, and head-marking agreement morphology in the form of a set of 7 Muysken (1984), Godenzzi (1986), Luján (1987), Klee (1990), Cerrón Palomino (1992, 2003), Lipski (1994), Escobar (1994), Haboud (1996), Camacho, Paredes and Sánchez (1995), Pérez (1997). 8 Dalrymple and Nikoleva (2011), Mayer (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015) and Mayer and Sánchez (2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c)

Clitic doubling

67

feature-specific clitics to optionally cross-reference the object on the verb. The latter is a deictic strategy; in that it requires additional context to resolve the reference. In the Peninsular Spanish norm, direct object clitic doubling is restricted to doubling of strong pronouns as shown in (55). / laj vio a éli / ellaj . (55) Pedro loi Peter CL 3MSG / CL 3FSG see-PAST-3SG DOM PRO 3MSG / PRO 3FSG ‘Peter saw him/her.’ Doubling of full lexical noun phrases as in (56a) does not obtain in Peninsular Spanish and the clitic and the overt nominal argument are in complementary distribution. (56)

a. *Los invitaron a Claudia CL 3MSPL invite-PAST-3PL DOM Claudia ‘Them, they invited Claudia and Carlos.’ b.

y and

a DOM

Carlos. Carlos

Los

invitaron. invite-PAST-3PL ‘They invited them.’ CL 3MPL

Liberal clitic doubling dialects allow direct object doubling of lexical noun phrases (57). Optionality of doubling expresses a pragmatic factor involved. (57)

(Los)

invitaron a Claudia invite-PAST-3PL DOM Claudia ‘Them, they invited Claudia and Carlos.’

CL 3MPL

y and

a DOM

Carlos. Carlos

Feature-agreeing clitics allow identification of their referential argument. Example (57) illustrates the correlation of clitics as agreement markers and the argument position they are linked to. In all dialects, left-dislocated or preposed noun phrase arguments require an immediate preverbally located pronominal copy. This applies to direct objects (58a) and indirect objects as well as leísmo objects in (58b) that resemble very closely indirect objects. Right-dislocated noun phrases in (58c) also show co-variation of the accusative and dative clitic and extra material, an adverb in this case, marking right dislocation as it is located between the verb and the marked object. Clitic doubling would also be possible in (58a) and (58b) with the adverb following the noun phrase argument (A Juan ayer lo vi.). The clitic and the verb form a phonological phrase and can therefore not be separated.

68 (58)

Objects, case and clitic doubling

a.

A

Juan lo vi Juan CL 3MSG see-PAST-1SG ‘[It was] Juan I saw yesterday.’ DOM

b.

A

Juan le vi Juan CL 3SG see-PAST-1SG ‘[It was] Juan I saw yesterday.’

ayer. yesterday

Lo

ayer yesterday

DOM

c.

ayer. yesterday

/ le vi / CL 3SG see-PAST-1SG ‘Juan, I saw him yesterday.’ CL 3MSG

a DOM

Juan. Juan

Note that the change of lo to le in (58b), a case of leísmo,9 is ambiguous as to grammatical function but shows the same morphosyntactic representation on a phrase structure tree, representation (constituent-structure), as shown in this chapter section 4.1. Examples (55) to (58) show that clitic doubling and/or object marking with agreeing clitics can be linked to Kayne’s Generalization which in Spanish involves a-marking (dative case and differential object marking) the direct object and a set of feature-specific clitics [animacy, specificity, gender, number, person] that match the features of their coreferential argument.10 Differential object marking is a cross-linguistically well attested system to optionally mark direct objects ranked for their prominence on two scales: animacy and definiteness, or on a two-dimensional scale based on the interaction of both (Bossong 1991, 2003; Aissen 2003).11 The presence and interaction of the referential categories animacy, definiteness, and specificity have been well described for Spanish.12 These features from different parts of the grammar are reflected in various morphosyntactic phenomena. The present discussion is restricted to clitic doubling and differential object marking (a-marking).13 These agreement morphology features are the topic of the next subsections.

9 Recall that in Standard Spanish leísmo is restricted to mainly male humans and exhibits exensive cross-dialectal variability. 10 Kayne’s Generalization is stated as (6) in chapter one. 11 See chapter four for a full discussion of the diachronic evolution and grammaticization of differential object marking. 12 For Standard Spanish see Fernández Ordóñez (1999), Leonetti (2004, 2008), von Heusinger (2002, 2011), and von Heusinger and Kaiser (2007); for River Plate Spanish see Suñer (1988); for Limeño contact see Camacho and Sánchez (2002); and for Ecuadorian Spanish see Yépez (1986). 13 For a more detailed exposition see Mayer (2003, 2006) and chapter four in this book.

Referential categories

69

3.3 Referential categories I begin by establishing the difference between definiteness and specificity, followed by a discussion of animacy and differential object marking.

3.3.1 Definiteness vs. specificity Spanish encodes definiteness overtly in lexical markers, namely a pair of number- and gender-distinctive definite and indefinite determiners. Specificity lacks such a lexical marker and uses the formative a in its role as differential object marker, affecting definite as well as indefinite noun phrases. The definition of definiteness is a contentious issue. Givón (1979) defines a definite as an identifiable or referentially accessible existence within the Domain of the relevant discourse. Conversely, von Heusinger (2002) claims that definiteness cannot solely be defined in terms of identifiablity; in his view factors such as uniqueness, saliency, familiarity, functionality and others, play an important role, and the importance placed on them depends on the theoretical framework being used. Definiteness always shows the functional connection of the new referent with a previously introduced item in the discourse. Thus, definiteness is a discourse feature; its function crosses sentence boundaries. The Familiarity Condition is defined after Heim (1988) in von Heusinger (2002: 268) as follows: (59)

A noun phrasei in a sentence ø with respect to a File F and the Domain of filenames DOM (F) is (i) [+definite] if i a DOM (F), and it is (ii) [–definite] if i c DOM (F)

This means that any indexed noun phrase that is part of the discourse is definite. The Domain (F) is defined in accordance with the following instructions for file-keeping: ‘For every indefinite, start a new card; for every definite, update a suitable old card.’ Hence the Domain F is ‘the set that contains every number which is the number of some card in F’ (Heim 1988: 302–304). In the late 1960s the term specificity14 was introduced to further describe a general phenomenon that attributes value to variables in a variety of ways. The literature on this point deals mainly with specific indefinite noun phrases and categorizes them in various ways. The different kinds of specificity can be analyzed from two main points of view: scope (Farkas 2002) and referentiality 14 Martinet (1960) and Lakoff (1968) were among the first to identify the concept of specificity.

70

Objects, case and clitic doubling

(Fodor and Sag 1982). A third view is Enç (1991), who makes a very important distinction between relational and partitive specificity based on Heim’s familiarity condition of definite vs. indefinite noun phrases. Indefinite and definite noun phrases can be distinguished semantically by the uniqueness condition. Some languages mark these differences morphologically or lexically while others do not. Suñer (1988) and von Heusinger (2002) among others claim that Spanish uses the animacy marker a as a morphosyntactic marker for specificity. Leonetti (2004, 2008 ) exposes in detail the specificity effects that arise in an environment of differential object marking and clitic doubling, focusing on differential object marking in terms of an animacy marker. Based on Heusinger’s notation of Heim’s familiarity condition (59) and a modified version of Enç’s (1991) Specificity/Partitivity Condition, von Heusinger proposes a ‘referential anchoring approach’, which posits that specificity should be analyzed in terms of the ‘referential structure’ of the text. The Specificity Condition (von Heusinger 2007: 286) in (60) restricts the linking of reference indices internally to the sentence, referentiality is thus sentence-bound. This contrasts with definiteness, which is discourse-bound. (60) An noun phrasei in a sentence φ with respect to a File (F) and the Domain of filenames Dom (φ) is [+specific] if there is a contextually salient function f such that i = f ( j) and j a Dom (φ) In other words, the specificity of a noun phrase is given if its filename (index) can be described as a contextually salient function of the filename of another noun phrase within the same sentence (Domain of file names) or in short as in (61). (61) i = f ( j) and j a Dom (φ) This definition of specificity corresponds roughly to ‘identifiable’ by Bossong (1991). For my claim that specificity and not definiteness is the licensing factor in direct object clitic doubling, it is fundamental to state that indefinites introduce a novelty into the Domain of discourse, whereas definite noun phrases must denote an entity familiar to the addressee. The chain of events is used to determine if novelty has been brought into the Domain of discourse. Finally, the slight but significant differences between the terms specificity, identifiability and presuppositionality need to be addressed. In studies of clitic doubling and specificity, the term presupposed is generally used in the sense of partitive specificity. As for example in the sense of Enç (1991), where objects in the domain of discourse are linked by the interpretation

Referential categories

71

of representing a subset – the imaginable subset of some superset. A very similar approach is discourse-linking (D-linking) presented by Pesetsky (1987). However, mere existential presupposition, as generally assumed in logic, is not quite sufficient to identify a presupposed entity. If a presupposed entity only exists in the mind of the speaker and is not present (anchored or having been activated) in the mind of the hearer, then identifiability cannot take place. As Lambrecht (1994: 78) remarks: [. . .] the relevant property of an identifiable referent is not that it is pre-supposed to exist, but that the speaker assumes that it has a certain representation in the mind of the addressee which can be evoked in a given discourse.

From this it follows that there must be a link between the subject referent and the object referent for the purpose of identifiability. This is a crucial point for the linking of clitic doubling with non-agreeing clitics in contact varieties to secondary topic marking as I put forward in this book from chapter four onwards. Another important point is the inherently gradable property of identifiability, as opposed to the clear-cut existence or non-existence of specificity and presuppositionality. An entity is either specific or not, presupposed or not, but identifiability is not so clear-cut. The gradability of identifiability can be related to a distinction between anaphoric agreement and grammatical agreement. In anaphoric agreement, the anaphoric pronouns assume existence of the referred object and maintain its continued relevance in the text. Identification of the referent obtains as long as its anaphor agrees with the coindexed referential argument (in terms of feature agreement).

3.3.2 Animacy As we have already seen in examples (55) to (58), animacy in Spanish is encoded in the overt morphosyntactic marker (formative) a, broadly known as prepositional accusative, giving rise to differential object marking. However, because of its multiple roles, the formative a resists a unified analysis as a mere animacy marker, as the single form has three functions, as shown in (62). A is homophonous with the locative preposition a, having semantic content and being replaceable by another preposition in oblique arguments. Further, a serves as object marker (OM), optionally marking direct objects as differential object marker (DOM) and as dative casemarker (DAT) for indirect objects.15 15 See Mayer (2003) for a first discussion of the tripartite division.

72

Objects, case and clitic doubling

(62)

These functions are exemplified in examples (63), with (63a) representing the locative preposition, (63b) the differential object marker (DOM), and (63c) the dative casemarker (DAT). (63) a. Pasó el río con el agua a / hasta la cintura. crossed-3SG the river with the water PREP / PREP the waist ‘(S)he crossed the river with the water reaching to her/his waist.’ b. Juan estima a Pedro. Juan appreciate-3SG DOM Pedro ‘Juan appreciates Pedro.’ c. Les ofrecieron entradas gratis a los visitantes. CL 3PL offer-PAST-3PL tickets free DAT the visitors ‘They offered the visitors free tickets.’ Example (63b) illustrates the complex uses of the object marker, which include personal a16 to mark human objects and differential object marking to mark personifying animal objects (pets) and inanimate and specific objects as discussed in chapter one. In some languages, for example in an Australian language (64), grammatical animacy does not necessarily coincide with our biological understanding of the world on a culture-sensitive animacy scale17. (64)

Wagawaga dialect Duudidjawu (Wurm 1976: 107) a. unam-bu buginy-na bum-be: beat-PRES Children-ERG dog-ACC ‘Children are beating the dog.’ b.

man goro:man a-d yu bum-i I-ERG kill-past this kangaroo ‘I killed this kangaroo yesterday.’

(*goro:man-na) d yuyume. (*kangaroo-ACC ) yesterday

16 Personal a is relatively unknown in other Romance languages except for Sicilian and some northern Italian dialects. 17 Obviously, the scale differs from culture to culture, see chapter four for Hindi (Mohanan 1994).

Referential categories

73

In this language, pronouns and nouns denoting humans, as well as proper nouns, receive accusative marking, and some animates, like dogs (64a), as well. Further, the words tree and fire might be included following Wurm. Kangaroos however are excluded, as we can see in (64b). Prominence on a ‘culture sensitive animacy hierarchy’, where human outranks animate over inanimate is explained by Mohanan (1994). This topic will be discussed fully in chapter four. In this section, I briefly lay the basis for an understanding of the relationship between animacy and differential object marking in relation to clitic doubling in standard Spanish and in liberal clitic doubling dialects. The facts exposed above confirm that animacy is a multidimensional category showing considerable diachronic and crosslinguistic variability. The grammaticalization of this difference is captured by Silverstein (1976) in a combined person and animacy hierarchy, reproduced in (65). (65) Person:

1 (speaker) > 2 (addressee) > 3 pronoun > personal name, kin term > human > animate > inanimate

Building on this work, Aissen (2003) suggested a revised two-dimensional scale (66) replacing person with definiteness, to model the interaction of animacy and differential object marking. (66)

Animacy: human > animate > inanimate Definiteness: pronoun > proper noun > definite noun phrase > indefinite specific noun phrase > indefinite nonspecific noun phrase

The two semantic properties animacy and definiteness, as shown in (67), are measured on a scale, the pragmatic property specificity/topicality on the other hand is activated to achieve a specific purpose within a given discourse situation. (67)

In 1. 2. 3.

animacy scale

definiteness scale

specificity/topicality binary distinction [±]

other words, differential object marking depends on the following factors: a culture sensitive animacy scale, a scale of referential categories with different values, and [±] specificity/topicality inferred by the interaction of factors 1 and 2

Before the discussion of the interaction between differential object marking and specificity in the next subsection, an explanation of the formative a as a true

74

Objects, case and clitic doubling

animacy marker vs. specificity marker is needed. The relevance of the formative a as an animacy marker is particularly obvious in quantified phrases as in (68a) and (68b) which can be clitic doubled; only the a-marking of (68a) is an instance of true animacy marking. Clitic doubling of these arguments can be analyzed in terms of partitive specificity (referentially identifiable).18 The quantifier todas in these examples is a quantification over a set, with each todas referring to an imaginable subset of a superset. (68)

Suñer (1988: 401) [+animate] a. Ya las lavé a todas. already CL 3FPL wash-PAST-1SG DOM all ‘I have already washed them all.’ (for example: the girls) Suñer (1988: 401) [–animate] b. Ya las lavé todas. already CL 3FPL wash-PAST-1SG all ‘I have already washed everything.’ (for example: dolls)

Kayne’s Generalization applies only to the animate example (68a) as an example for personal a marking; note that only liberal clitic doubling dialects, such as River Plate and Standard Limeño Spanish, allow clitic doubling of quantified arguments. Another example for personal a is given in (69). Leonetti (1999) considers the property animacy as the canonical trigger for differential object marking in Spanish. Arguing from a semantic point of view, he analyzes personal a in (69) as an instance of a true animacy marker and against an analysis of personal a as conveying specificity to the indefinite, animate determiner phrase. (69)

Leonetti (1999: 866) [personal a] Vimos *(a) unas mujeres en see-PAST-1PL *(A ) INDEF. PL women PREP ‘We saw some women in the market place.’

la DEF

plaza. market place

However, Leonetti does distinguish between extensional arguments (70a) that receive a specific reading through a-marking, also indicated by the indicative in the subordinate clause, and intensional arguments (70b), which generally reject a-marking. Specific in (70a) means ‘implied’ existence; the doctor is a presupposed entity, so the statement entails existence of such a person. 18 See section 3.2.3 for Enç’s relational and partitive specificity.

Referential categories

75

(70) Spanish (Bello 1984: 268) a. Fueron a buscar a un médico extranjero go-PAST-3PL PREP find-INF DOM INDEF doctor foreign que gozaba de una gran reputación. that enjoy-PAST-3SG PREP INDEF great reputation ‘They went to look for a foreign doctor who enjoyed a great reputation.’ b. Fueron a buscar un médico que go-PAST-3PL PREP find-INF INDEF doctor that conociera bien las enfermedades del país. of-the country know-SBJV-3SG well DET. FPL disease.FPL ‘They went to look for a doctor who would know about the diseases of the country.’ The use of the subjunctive in (70b) renders the human direct object unspecific, therefore no a-marking is used. The correlation between subjunctive mood, definiteness and specificity has been acknowledged by Luján (1987), Rivero (1975) and Torrego (1998) and does not seem to vary between dialects. Turning now to liberal clitic doubling dialects where the distinction between animacy marker and specificity marker in inanimate arguments is much less clear cut. For the clitic doubled inanimate argument in (71) below, Suñer (1989) argues that differential object marking applied to the inanimate specific (identifiable) object is marking specificity and not animacy. Suñer claims that amarking makes the inanimate direct object argument available for clitic doubling by conveying a specific/topical function. Note that examples of this kind are typical grammaticalized extensions in liberal clitic doubling dialects requiring an analysis based on specificity and more importantly on topicality. (71)

Liberal clitic doubling dialects [–anim][+spec] (Suñer 1989: 379) Lo quiero mucho a este arbolito. CL 3MSG like-1SG much DOM DEM . MSG tree-little ‘I like this little tree very much.’

The preceding examples show that the presence or absence of personifying a signals a degree of animacy and/or distinctness which can also be linked to clitic doubling constructions. The use of definite articles or demonstratives, as in example (71), presuppose that the common noun they modify is a singleton, or in the case of quantifiers, a subset of a known superset. Indefinite articles, on the other hand, do not trigger presuppositionality, even with a specific reading

76

Objects, case and clitic doubling

as in (69). Clitic doubling of animate and inanimate arguments can represent different object marking strategies, showing an interesting parallel between typologically different language families such as Romance and Bantu. In both, animacy and differential object marking are subject to animacy restrictions but allow optional doubling, specifically for inanimate arguments, licensed by a mix of semantic and pragmatic restrictions as shown in the next section.

3.3.3 Differential object marking, specificity and clitic doubling The previous discussion has established that animacy in the context of object marking in Spanish is to be explored in terms of differential object marking, which in turn is intrinsically associated with the semantic features definiteness and specificity and the pragmatic feature topicality. Specificity restrictions only apply to object marking by differential object marking and clitic doubling of direct objects. As shown in chapter one, in Standard Spanish, differential object marking obligatorily marks existent human direct objects, as shown in (72).19 (72)

Standard Spanish [+human][+anim][+exist] Vi *(a) Ana/Pablo. see-PAST-1SG DOM Ana/Pablo ‘I saw Ana/Pablo.’

Optional marking is extended to personified animals (73a) and optionally to places (73b); both examples are from the Real Academia Española (1985: 372). (73)

Standard Spanish [+anim][+exist]/[+spec] a. Don Quijote cabalgaba a Rocinante. Don Quijote ride-PAST-3SG DOM Rocinante ‘Don Quijote rode Rocinante.’ Standard Spanish [–anim][+exist]/[+spec] b. Deseo ver (a) Roma. wish-1SG see-INF DOM Rome ‘I wish to see Rome.’

19 This falls under ‘personal a’; see also examples (50) to (58).

Referential categories

77

Optionality here in fact means that at least two different kinds of objects are marked, correlating with the semantic properties of the object noun phrase, in this case animacy and definiteness possibly yielding specificity, and with lexical semantics and information packaging. The two non-human arguments must be specific [+spec], i.e. referentially recoverable from the context or identifiable.20 Object marking of this kind does not happen only in Spanish; there is an interesting and well documented connection between Romance object agreement and Bantu object agreement. Asymmetrical Bantu languages, for example Chicheŵa, a Bantu language of Malawi, mark either the object or the applied object but not both at the same time (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987; Bresnan and Moshi 1990). In this language, subject markers are obligatory and object markers are optional and may obey the economy principle. The object marker is always an incorporated pronoun; co-occurrence with the corresponding object argument is restricted to topical status of the latter. Swahili, a Bantu language from Tanzania, shows more liberal object marking than other Bantu languages (74), which also show similarities with Spanish regarding animacy restriction, optionality and economy. Clitic doubling in Swahili obtains with a human referent in (74a) and optionally with an inanimate object in (74b) and (74c). (74)

Swahili (Hoekstra and Sybesma 2004: 114–115) a. Ahmed a-li-m-piga (Badru). Ahmed he-PAST-him-hit Badru ‘Ahmed hit him/Badru.’ b.

Ahmed a-li-funguna mlango. door Ahmed he-PAST-open ‘Ahmed opened the door.’

c.

Ahmed a-li-u-funguna (mlango). Ahmed he-PAST-it-open door ‘Ahmed opened the door.’

As in Spanish, co-occurrence of the overt object noun phrase and the clitic is only considered grammatical if the marked inanimate example in (74c) is specific/ topical. 20 Specific referents must exist in the mind of the speaker and have a mental representation in the mind of the addressee which can be evoked in the discourse in which they occur. Recall the definition of identifiability given in chapter 3 section 3.1. Identifiable referents are referentially anchored in the discourse in the sense of von Heusinger (2002, 2007).

78

Objects, case and clitic doubling

Finally, the correlation of clitic doubling and differential object marking needs to be addressed as well. The co-occurrence is known as Kayne’s Generalization, formalised in Kayne (1975), based on dative case marking and co-occurring clitics in French. It stipulates that clitic doubling is only possible when the doubled noun phrase has its own case assigner, a preposition for example (Jaeggli 1982: 20). Kayne’s Generalization holds for indirect object clitic doubling in all Standard Spanish varieties (European and Latin American) and for a certain range of direct objects that resemble very closely indirect objects in terms of prominence on Aissen’s two-dimensional scale in (55). The treatment can be extended to Romanian pe (von Heusinger and Onea 2008) and some Semitic languages. These facts could count as arguments in favour of Kayne’s Generalization. Note that the generalization only holds for monotransitives; ditransitives show one case assigner only. I assume regulation of double marking according to the Restricted Argument Parameter (Alsina 2001).21 However, countless counter examples, among them some Slavic languages like Bulgarian (Jaegger and Gerassimova 2002; Rudin 1997) and Macedonian (Franks and Holloway King 2000), Greek (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000; Anagnostopoulou 2006), liberal clitic doubling dialects (Suñer and Yepéz 1988, 1989) and even more so non-standardized (contact) dialects as described in section 2.1 in this chapter, clearly show that languages differ with regard to (non)-configurationality (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000: 11) and the status of the doubling clitic. Languages like Greek seem to have referential clitics as opposed to Standard European, American Spanish as well as Romanian, where clitics can be interpreted as agreement markers. Most importantly to my analysis here is the existence of strong diachronic evidence of clitic doubling of topical and focal inanimate arguments in old Spanish (1200-1450) whithout differential object marking as shown in (75).22 (75)

Old Spanish (Cor. 190, Rivero 1986: 791) Con su marido, su padre o with POSS husband POSS father or

sus POSS

parientes relatives

no not

loj

sufriera tal pasarj CL 3MSG suffer-3SG - SUBJUNC such grief.MSG ‘She would not suffer such grief with her husband, father, or relatives.’

21 I will discuss this further in chapter six. 22 Clitics in old Spanish were weak phonological pronominals encliticized to the verb.

Referential categories

79

Rivero (1986) analyzes clitic doubling phrases in Old Spanish as syntactic topics. This is an important fact for the analysis of clitic doubling in non-standardized varieties, as it suggests continuity of pragmatic strategies from diachronic evidence from Peninsular Spanish to new evidence from my own corpus for Latin American Spanish. It also raises the question of whether utterances of this kind are actual clitic doubling examples or simple dislocations. The distributional facts for direct and indirect clitic doubling in Spanish are given in the dot points below. Object agreement is restricted to the presence of any one of the following sets of features. The limits for direct object clitic doubling, including for liberal doubling dialects, are: – animate and pronominal arguments – animate and definite/specific/topical arguments – animate and indefinite/specific/focal arguments The limits for indirect object clitic doubling are: – animate and recipient/beneficiary arguments – goal arguments – inalienable possession In sum, direct object clitic doubling and differential object marking is motivated by semantic strategies based on animacy and definiteness. Differential object marking introduces the pragmatic notion of specificity/topicality. Whether these pragmatic notions are encoded lexically or grammatically is a moot point which will be further discussed in the following chapters. The properties/features of an object noun phrase are important, but to a lesser extent than the relationship between the verb and its object. This fact constitutes more evidence for objective agreement. In liberal clitic doubling dialects, the preference for pragmatic strategies over semantic strategies points to a direct interaction between the clitic and the discourse configuration and/or the grammatical function configuration of the marked object. In these dialects, and especially in non-standardized contact varieties, analyses of specificity, and more importantly topicality restricted to semantic reasoning (Leonetti 2004, 2008) fail to capture the underlying syntactic and information-structural motivations for clitic doubling constructions. The last part of this chapter presents a brief and simplified sketch of the syntax of direct object clitic doubling in the Lexical-Functional Grammar framework.

80

Objects, case and clitic doubling

3.4 A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling As already introduced in chapter one, section eight, Lexical-Functional Grammar is a lexicalist, constraint-based theory with a parallel architecture. The modular nature of this framework allows for an adequate and precise representation of the grammatical structures and their variability treated in this book. The theoretically oriented description of clitic doubling in Spanish in this section is based mainly on Alsina (1996b); Andrews (1990); Bresnan (2001a, 2001b; Bresnan et al. 2016), Falk (2001) and Dalrymple (2001). Most languages in the world differ considerably in the way they mark grammatical relations, in how much and how little morphology they put into casemarking and agreement for example, nonetheless they share widely some grammatical functions, such as subject and object among others. The principle of nonconfigurationality allows for language-specific configuration of grammatical information at the level of lexical elements. The relational architecture assumes three main parallel corresponding structures at the level of syntax (Bresnan et al. 2016: 15; Falk 2001). An example will be given in (78) below. – argument (a-) structure: represents the verb and its subcategorization frame; it links the arguments to their respective thematic (semantic) roles on semantic structure – functional (f-) structure: represents the verb and its subcategorization frame, the features of the arguments and their mapping onto the respective grammatical functions in an attribute value matrix; f-structure interacts with information structure representing discourse functions – constituent (c-) structure: presents categorial information about the constituents of a sentence in the form of a phrase structure tree and interacts with phonological structure Any sentence expresses a variety of linguistic information encoded in grammatical functions on different levels. In section one I will discuss clitic morphology, surface structure and mapping to functional structure, followed by the distinction between core and non-core argument functions in relation to clitic doubling.

3.4.1 From constituent structure to functional structure Since syntactic structures are built from words, the lexicon is very important and constrains constituent structure in accordance with the Principle of Lexical Integrity in (76) (Bresnan 2001c: 92).

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

81

(76) Morphologically complete words are leaves of the c-structure tree and each leaf corresponds to one and only one c-structure node. Clitics in general are problematic for the Principle of Lexical Integrity due to a morphology-syntax mismatch, as discussed for Romance clitics in chapter two, section two. For example, because European Portuguese clitics are analyzed as proclitic affixes and not independent words, they cannot be assigned a position on constituent structure in Luís and Sadler (2003). The morphological classification of Spanish clitics as affixes or nonprojecting words is not clear-cut. They exhibit mixed properties, behaving on the one hand in a word-like way by showing a high degree of morphological independence from their verbal host, but they also show affix-like behaviour in being subject to the morphological blocking constraint (Andrews 1990). In chapter two, subsection 4.3, I categorized Spanish clitics as non projecting small words, based on a projection/dependence matrix (Toivonen (2003). Clitic climbing presents some evidence in favour of a treatment as words. Example (77) shows that the norm for agreement with affixes is that it be manifested in all locations where agreement is possible. (77)

Las DET. FPL

chicas girls.FPL

me CL 3SG

parecen seem-3PL

muy QUANT

inteligentes intelligent.PL

y lindas. and beautiful.FPL ‘The girls look very intelligent and beautiful to me.’ However, for Standard Spanish clitics in light verb constructions, only one location is possible. They can appear either left, adjoined to the finite verb (78a), or attached to the non-finite verb (78b). Double location as in (78c) is grammatically impossible.23 (78)

a.

Lo quiero CL 3MSG /CL 3NSG want-1SG ‘I want to see him/it.’

b.

Quiero verlo.

ver. see-INF

c. *Lo quiero verlo. 23 Andrews and Manning (1999) struggled with this phenomenon but it could be explained based on Economy of Expression if we suppose that a single manifestation of the clitic in a complex predicate is sufficient to satisfy Morphological Blocking with the existence of a syntactic node over each clitic, incurring a *STRUC penalty to prevent multiple expressions. Morphological Blocking must then apply to a domain somewhat larger than a conventional morphological word.

82

Objects, case and clitic doubling

I assume then that Spanish clitics are single lexical words, because they appear as such on terminal nodes on phrase structure trees and can be assigned a constituent structure position, as shown in Figure 3.1 showing the mapping of the monotransitive clitic doubled clause in (79) from constituent structure to functional structure. For the position of the clitics on constituent structure I follow Grimshaw (2001) and Dalrymple (2001). The dotted line from ‘I’ shows subject agreement in the verbal inflection; the lines from ‘CL’ and the co-occurring noun phrase unify in the object function. (79)

Ayer le / lo Yesterday CL 3SG / CL 3MSG /CL 3NSG ‘Yesterday (s)he saw him, Juan.’

vio see-PAST-3SG

a DOM

Juan. Juan

a-structure: see < agent, theme>

Figure 3.1: constituent structure → functional structure

The morphosyntactic representation on constituent structure shows the structural similarity of direct object clitic doubling and indirect object clitic doubling constructions, which both types of object are treated as prepositional phrases in constituent structure. The syncretic case/differential object marker is present with the dative and the accusative animate object. Note that the analysis presented here applies to Standard Spanish, leísmo for masculine human arguments (Madrid norm) and liberal clitic doubling dialects such as River Plate and Lima Spanish for example.

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

83

All visible structural elements on constituent-structure of (79) including non-projecting elements, such as clitics, are marked in the comprehensive Lexicon in (80). This rich inventory supplies functional structures with the relevant syntactic and semantic information. The lexical specifications for the clitic lo shows the agreement features person, number and gender, and for the clitic le person, number and the animacy feature human instead of case. In the varieties mentioned above, leísmo is treated as an extension of the dative morphology into direct object marking as mentiond in the introduction in section 1.3. As object agreement markers, co-occurring with the referential object, they have no PRED feature – semantic form. The PRED feature for the verb contains its subcategorization frame and shows the lexical specification for tense. The notation ↑ (up arrow) refers to the immediately dominating node. (80)

Lexicon ayer le

ADJ CL

lo

CL

vio

I

a Juan

PREP N

(↑PRED) = ‘yesterday’ (↑PERS) = 3 (↑NUM) = SG (↑ANIM) = HUM (↑PERS) = 3 (↑NUM) = SG (↑GEND) = MASC (↑PRED) = ‘see < (↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ) >’ (↑TENSE) = PAST (↑CASE) = DAT/ACC (↑PRED) = ‘Juan’ (↑PERS) = 3 (↑NUM) = SG (↑GEND) = MASC (↑ANIM) = +

Each PRED feature has a unique value, and values cannot unify. Clitics cooccurring with their referential noun phrase do not bear a semantic role (thetarole), and therefore they do not show a PRED value in their lexical entries. Hence the Uniqueness Condition is obeyed: ‘Every attribute has a unique value’ (Bresnan 2001c: 47). Ambiguity of the syntactic function is expressed in the dative/accusative case value. Co-occurrence is possible given that the features of the clitics and the co-occurring object do not clash.

84

Objects, case and clitic doubling

The correlation between semantic form and grammatical relation must be visible in functional structure thus ensuring the Principle of Completeness and Coherence stated in (81) (Bresnan 2001c: 63). (81) Completeness requires that every function designated by a PRED be present in the f-structure of the PRED. Coherence requires that every argument function in an f-structure be designated by a PRED. The functional information clitics express on functional structure may involve ‘redundant’ information and, consequently, may be optional. This means that they are subject to the Economy Principle (82) as stated in Bresnan (2001c: 91). (82) All syntactic phrase structure nodes are optional and are not used unless required by independent principles (completeness, coherence, semantic expressivity). In Dalrymple (2001: 85) this principle is treated as Economy of Expression (83) describing the relationship between Economy and Lexical Integrity: (83) . . . a principle that requires the choice of the simplest and smallest phrase structure tree that allows for the satisfaction of f-structural constraints as well as expressing the intended meaning. The structure representation in Figure 3.2. is a simplified phrase structure tree with the arrows showing the mapping of the argument to the respective grammatical function. It shows the principle from (84) in the clitic doubling version in (84a) with clitics in grammatical agreement, and in complementary distribution in (84b) with clitics in anaphoric agreement. (84)

a.

b.

Ayer le / lo vio Yesterday CL 3SG / CL 3MSG see-PAST-3SG ‘Yesterday (s)he saw him / Juan.’ Ayer le / lo yesterday CL 3SG / CL 3MSG /CL 3NSG ‘Yesterday (s)he saw him / it.’

(a DOM

Juan). Juan

vio. see-PAST-3SG

Note in (84b) the semantic ambiguity of the anaphoric accusative clitic lo, which can be interpreted as animate or inanimate.

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

85

Unlike clitics in grammatical agreement, anaphoric clitics are full objects and show the semantic value (PRED) pronoun (PRO) in the Lexicon (85) and in the functional structures in Figure 3.2. (85)

Lexicon ayer le

ADJ CL

lo

CL

vio

I

(↑PRED) = ‘yesterday’ (↑PRED) = PRO (↑PERS) = 3 (↑NUM) = SG (↑CASE) = DAT (↑PRED) = PRO (↑PERS) = 3 (↑NUM) = SG (↑GEND) = MASC (↑PRED) = ‘see < (↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ) >’ (↑TENSE) = PAST

Figure 3.2: constituent structure → functional structure

The structures show that clitics in their double function are at different stages of evolution. While theta-role bearing anaphoric agreement clitics still retain their semantic status as a pronominal, co-occurring grammatical agreement markers show signs of a reanalysis process, as previously mentioned by Bresnan (2001c), Dalrymple (2001) and others. They are on the way to becoming mere object or transitivity markers. This grammaticalization process is very important for the analysis of invariant lo.

86

Objects, case and clitic doubling

In the next section of this chapter I concentrate on the representation of clitics at c-structure and their mapping to f-structure and distinction between core and non-core argument functions.

3.4.2 Grammatical functions The organization and classification of grammatical functions in Lexical-Functional Grammar are visualised here in Table 3.2. The distinction between argument functions and discourse functions is very important. Pragmatics, discourse, and information structure in general, are all organised under discourse functions. Argument functions are divided into core and non-core, or terms and nonterms (Dalrymple 2001). Governable argument functions can further be subdivided into semantically unrestricted functions (subject and object) and semantically restricted functions (objectθ and obliqueθ). Theta (θ) or thematic/semantic roles are expressed on argument structure. Table 3.2: Grammatical functions (Dalrymple 2009: 5)24 TOPIC FOCUS

Non-argument

Discourse function

SUBJ Core Argument (governable) Non-core Non-argument

OBJ OBJθ

Non-discourse function

OBLθ COMP ADJ(unct)

I focus here particularly on direct vs. oblique arguments. The distinction between core and non-core argument functions based on Spanish direct and oblique functions is shown in (86). In Standard Spanish, only direct functions (Alsina 1996b: 150), namely argumental datives and specific/topical direct objects, can be casemarked, and clitic doubling is largely restricted to those. True indirect objects (semantically unrestricted objects) can also appear in double object constructions, as demonstrated in (86a). These indirect objects are introduced by the casemarker a which is distinct from the preposition a, as we have seen previously in examples (62) and (63c). In some indirect object constructions, 24 Originally from Börjars and Vincent (2004).

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

87

the casemarker can be replaced by a preposition producing an oblique phrase (86b), which is unavailable for clitic doubling.25 (86)

a.

Le

pagó el colegio CL 3SG pay-PAST-3SG DET school ‘(S)he paid the boy’s school fees.’

(al (DAT- DET. MSG

b.

(*Le) Pagó el colegio por CL 3SG pay-PAST-3SG DET school PREP ‘(S)he paid the school fees for the boy.’

el DET

niño). boy.MSG )

niño. boy

The dative casemarker a in (86a) does not have semantic content, whereas the preposition in (86b) does. There is no obvious morphological difference on constituent structure – both are prepositional phrases26 – but their respective syntactic functions on functional structure is different. Consider the ditransitive construction in (87) which involves an oblique reflexive in (87a) and a direct object in (87b). Clitic doubling only obtains for the reflexive oblique (87a). (87)

a.

b.

Me

(para

REFL 1SG

compro un chocolate buy-1SG INDEF chocolate ‘I buy myself a chocolate.’

PREP

Me

lo

REFL .1SG

CL 3MSG

mí). PRO 1SG

compro. buy-1SG

‘I buy it for myself.’ In the sentence in (88) involving two different third person arguments, an oblique beneficiary and a direct object in (88a) the oblique cannot be doubled by a clitic (88b), but both arguments can be expressed by anaphoric clitics in a clitic cluster as shown in (88c). (88)

a.

b.

c.

Pablo compra un chocolate Pablo buy-3SG INDEF chocolate ‘Pablo buys a chocolate for Clara.’

para PREP

Pablo (*le) compra un chocolate Pablo CL 3SG buy-3SG INDEF chocolate ‘Pablo buys a chocolate for Clara.’

Clara. Clara para PREP

Pablo se lo compra. Pablo SE CL 3MSG buy-3SG ‘Pablo buys it for her/himself.’

25 This condition also applies to Greek (Anagnostopoulou 1999). 26 See Suñer (1988) for an analysis of indirect objects as noun phrases.

Clara. Clara

88

Objects, case and clitic doubling

Spurious se is a portmanteau morpheme and as such allows for the example (88c) to be ambiguous. Se can have a reflexive meaning as in Pablo buys it for himself, or refer to Clara as the indirect object when introduced by the dative casemarker a. Clitics in monotransitive constructions come in two forms, regular and leísmo, the former using lo as direct object clitic, the latter using le instead, predominantly for male humans, as shown in (89).27 Structures of this type are ambiguous regarding grammatical function but share the same morphosyntactic representation on constituent structure. The representations on constituent structure and functional structure for (89) are as given in Figure 3.2. (89)

Ayer le / lo yesterday CL 3SG / CL 3MSG /CL 3NSG ‘Yesterday (s)he saw him/Juan.’

vio see-PAST-3SG

(a DOM

Juan). Juan

The facts applying at least to Standard Spanish dialects are as follows: clitic doubling is restricted to direct functions that are casemarked noun phrases, and to ditransitives, involving an oblique reflexive (87b); obliques involving two distinct persons, as in (86b) and (88b), are excluded.28 These examples warrant separation into grammatical agreement in clitic doubling constructions (86a), (87a) and (89) as opposed to anaphoric agreement in (87b) and (88c). Example (89) highlights an important fact about clitic doubling surface (constituent) structures: they are identical for both direct functions, and show the same syntactic-pragmatic strategy of marking a highly salient, topical object. The visible feature differences in the clitics point towards a specific meaning and function represented in functional structure only. Optionality of syntactic nodes relates to a certain form of Economy dependent on Principles of Completeness, Coherence, and Semantic Expressivity (Bresnan 2001c). This section has highlighted the representation of clitics at constituent structure and mapping to functional structure. In the last section of this chapter, I now move on to discuss the optional constraint for the direct object clitic as an agreement marker or pronoun, and argument functions.

27 The lexical object can only co-occur with the clitic in liberal clitic doubling dialects such as River Plate and Limeño Spanish where leísmo extends to pets, and in non-standardized dialects to inanimates, resulting in extensive leísmo in Ecuador. Recall the discussion of leísmo and related phenomena in chapter one. 28 Dislocated and non a-marked clitic doubling constructions are treated in chapter four (word order and information structure) and also chapter five.

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

89

3.4.3 Optional PRED PRO In the previous sections I have shown that Spanish clitics in clitic doubling constructions show a division into grammatical (weak) and anaphoric (strong) agreement. This phenomenon is based on a cross-linguistically widely attested tripartite division of properties of personal pronouns into pronouns, topicality markers and agreement makers (PRO TOP AGR) (Bresnan 2001a: 115)29 with their corresponding semantic, information-structural and morphosyntactic functions as follows. PRO here is defined as sharing the universal semantic properties of shifting reference and anaphoricity with all personal pronouns. TOP specializes in referring to topical elements as, for example, in direct object clitic doubling, an information-structural property of fundamental importance to the analysis of the variability found in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and to invariant lo.30 AGR is a morphosyntactic property which contains the features person, number and gender described in Figure 3.3. In Lexical-Functional Grammar, the uniqueness condition allows only one value for each attribute on functional structure (Bresnan 2001c: 47). This does not pose any problem for the dative clitic in indirect object doubling constructions as its sole function is as an agreement marker. The double function of the accusative clitic, however, as introduced in the previous section, optionally allows for either functional control (grammatical agreement) or anaphoric control (e.g. allowing for a pronominal subject on f-structure). So, the immediate question arises which one of the two is the object argument (i.e. bears the theta-role), the clitic or the overt object, or even both. Here an optional constraint is needed to allow for this alternative function as an agreement marker or as a pronoun. Andrews (1990) proposed the introduction of an optional PRED PRO feature specification for strong agreement in Spanish.31 This proposal is challenging for the following reasons.

29 The analysis for the properties TOP and AGR is based on a considerable corpus of work by Givón (1984: 354–355) for AGR, and Givón (1990: 916ff) for PRO. 30 It also raises the question whether the direct object clitic marks a grammatical function (GF) or a discourse function (DF), or even both. Grammaticalization of clitics will be treated in chapter four and the correlation between f-structure (GF) and information structure (DF) in chapters five and six. 31 Mayer (2006) based the treatment of optional direct object clitic doubling in Limeño Spanish and River Plate on an optional PRED PRO feature specification.

90 1. 2. 3.

Objects, case and clitic doubling

There seems to be little or no correlation between pronoun-drop and agreement.32 PRED PRO is supplied by anaphoric control rather than by the lexical entries. Morphological Blocking forces the ‘right’ clitic to appear. PRED PRO appears subject mostly to conditions based on grammatical functions of subject, object and indirect object rather than being an arbitrary fact about certain clitic forms.

Because of these issues, I treat Spanish as a pro-drop language where pro-drop extends to subject, object and indirect object. In Standard Spanish indirect object clitics (IOCL) and direct object clitics (DOCL) need the feature specifications shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Clitic morphosyntactic features

Direct object clitic doubling is constrained to pronominal direct object arguments as shown in the constraining equation (PRED=cPRO). The constrained equality relation =c defines a restriction to satisfiy the f-structure requirements. In this case, for the pronoun to appear on f-structure in anaphoric control in liberal clitic doubling, the pronoun must show the features specified in Figure 3.3. This means that liberal clitic doubling is restricted to feature-specifying clitics showing concord with the doubled argument as shown in (89). The difference between a defining and a constraining equation is that the defining equation adds a feature to f-structure, while the constraining equation says that it must be there somewhere, supplied by some other element. In the direct object example (89a), optional clitic doubling would obtain in River Plate and Lima Spanish. The pronominal object in (89b) is supplied by anaphoric control and Morphological Blocking forces the clitic to appear also taking care of the strong specificity requirement for all liberal direct object clitic doubling dialects as in (89a). The specificity requirement states that direct object clitic doubling in liberal clitic doubling dialects only obtains with featurespecifying/agreeing clitics and the presence of the differential marker a. 32 See Deal (2005) for an extensive discussion of the weak relation between pronoun-drop and agreement.

A Lexical-Functional Grammar view of clitic doubling

(89)

a.

b.

Pedro (lo) Peter (CL 3MSG ) ‘Pedro saw José.’

vio see-PAST-3SG

a DOM

91

José. José

Pedro lo vio. Peter CL 3MSG see-PAST-3SG ‘Peter saw him.’

Optionality is to be understood as marking at least two different kinds of objects correlating with the semantic properties of the object noun phrase (animacy and definiteness), with lexical semantics and information packaging. In cases with referentially agreeing clitics, as in (89), unification is possible and the Principle of Functional Uniqueness obeyed. In contact dialects more features disappear, but clitics are still covered by Morphological Blocking in selecting the most specific and compatible clitic for the pragmatically motivated clitic doubling construction in (90), where the neuter clitic lo has been selected as the best candidate to double the inanimate object despite the lack of feature unification. I will link these kinds of constructions to information structure in chapter four, part two. (90)

Lo frío a CL 3NSG fry-1SG DOM ‘I fry the onion.’

la DET. FSG

cebolla. onion.FSG

In the contact example with non-agreeing clitics, the PRED =cPRO equation for liberal clitic doubling dialects (River Plate and Lima Spanish), as well as the blocking effect or featural specification that would require the feminine la in Standard Spanish do not apply any longer. However, as shown in Andrews (1990: 532) for Munster Irish third person plural, there is a problem with optionality of PRED PRO which will need to be extended to include optionality of the lexical entry – a case of double optionality. Object clitics in other Romance languages such as Italian and French introduce PRED PRO obligatorily, as do Chicheŵa object markers as analyzed in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987). The blocking principle works on condition that the clitics are part of the verbal morphology and specify simple grammatical features like person, number, gender and case.33 Synthetic (simpler, more reduced) forms are preferred to analytical forms prvovided that they are available in the same paradigm. This can also

33 See Grimshaw (1982a) for French.

92

Objects, case and clitic doubling

represent a form of Economy and applies to invariant lo as the least marked and thus the default clitic.

3.5 Summary Clitic doubling in Spanish has been found to mark the two core grammatical functions indirect object and direct object – twofold. Firstly, dependent-marking identifies the grammatical function through a syncretic case/object marker a that introduces the pragmatic notion of specificity/topicality. The co-occurrence of a-marking and clitic doubling can be linked to Kayne’s Generalization which holds specifically in standard dialects. Secondly, head-marking agreement morphology optionally crossreferences the object on the verb with a feature-specific set of clitics. The evidence of examples (87b) and (88c) strongly suggests that the PersonCase constraint could be interpreted as constraining co-occurring agreement markers to direct functions (internal arguments34 or non-oblique functions) only, probably based more strongly on person (animacy, referentiality/identifiability) rather than on case. An analysis of this kind allows for specificity effects, topicality marking, and for syntactic marking of the primary object and secondary topic in monotransitives which will be discussed in the next chapter. In the contact varieties under study, synchronic variation of canonical and non-canonical object marking, morphological case marking of both objects, and covariation of invariant lo and le (as part of extended leísmo or in bilingual Spanish) produce conflictive analyzes regarding the syntactic distinction of objects.

34 Cf. chapter four, section six for an extensive discussion of the term within Lexical Mapping.

Chapter 4

From syntax to information structure This chapter illustrates the division of labour between head marking (by clitics) and dependent marking (by differential object marking) and its effect on information structure. It is divided into two parts. Part one deals with the diachronic development of differential object marking and two-dimensional differential object marking from a cross-linguistic perspective with reference to typology.1 I propose a three-stage model to show how the interaction of semantic and pragmatic strategies alongside the parallel evolution of differential object marking and concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting clitics leads to linguistic change in Spanish object marking. In part two, I link syntactic object marking to information structure based on a new differential object marking theory developed by Nikolaeva (2001) and Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011). I also propose an important distinction between clitics as topicality marker in liberal clitic doubling dialects and as secondary topic marker in mainly oral-based Limeño Spanish contact varieties.

Part 1: Differential object marking 4.1 The concept of differential object marking Differential object marking (DOM) is used in many languages to code grammatical relations through overt morphological marking of certain noun phrases. Generally, in differential object marking languages, objects are either marked or unmarked, allowing for optional marking of inanimate objects. Although both marked and unmarked objects may share the same grammatical function, some languages distinguish syntactically between marked objects as primary objects and unmarked objects as secondary objects depending on their topicality (Dryer 1986). Another important fact is that crosslinguistically the dative casemarker is also the preferred differential object marker for these languages.2 Previous approaches to Spanish differential object marking investigated the prepositional accusative3 in terms of object marking (Fernández Ordóñez 1993, 1 The principal typological studies used are Bossong (1991) and Aissen (2003). 2 The list of languages preferring dative includes Hindi, Guaraní and Aymara, and excludes Turkish and Romanian among others (Bossong 1985, 1991). 3 I refer the reader to the animacy discussion in chapter three for the multiple roles of the formative a. DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-004

94

From syntax to information structure

1999; Torrego 1999), specificity for standard dialects (Brugè and Brugger 1996; Laca 2002, 2006; von Heusinger 2002, 2007), and extending to topicality in liberal clitic doubling dialects (Leonetti 2004, 2008). In a pilot study based on written data from Standard Argentinian, Mexican and Peruvian Spanish, von Heusinger and Kaiser (2005) looked at the parameters animacy, definiteness and specificity, and also the notion of topicality, involved in the extension of differential object marking to indefinite specifics. All researchers concur that differential object marking depends on all these factors but that topicality played a separate role. On the one hand, the observed connection between topicality and definiteness was crucial in the creation and spread of differential object marking from Old Spanish to Modern Spanish, while on the other hand, its spread into the realm of animate and inanimate indefinite non-specific direct object noun phrases/determiner phrases in Latin American Spanish is due to the interaction of the pragmatic category specificity. My own corpus reflects this spread of variation and extension of differential object marking and object marking as well. However, in von Heusinger and Kaiser’s (2005) a further data spread to definite, specific, inanimate objects did not materialise. The reason for the differing results lies in the difference between the corpora: standard Spanish written texts in von Heusinger and Kaiser, and non-standard(ized)4 oral contact varieties in my monolingual/bilingual fieldwork data. Further searches in an historical corpus show the steady increase of differential object marking in Spanish (von Heusinger and Kaiser 2007; von Heusinger and Onea 2008) extending the analysis to include verb class differences. Their interpretation links differential object marking in Spanish to a complex picture of at least two interacting factors: (i) the nominal properties of the direct object argument, and (ii) the verbal semantics of the governing predicate. Company (1998, 2000, 2001, 2003) documents the reanalysis of the locative preposition a in Mexican Spanish, from a casemarker of “cannibalistic”5 datives, to the spread of differential object marking to inanimate, definite objects, indicative of a struggle between dative and accusative for primary object status. Following this analysis, differential object marking of human, animate objects is only a transition stage leading to extensive dative marking via its extension to inanimate objects. This analysis supports the [DAT±] hypothesis by Alsina (1996b) discussed in chapter three. 4 I use the term non-standarized here to point to the naturalistic language acquisition settings and lack of access to and quality of formal education. 5 As treated in Company (1998, 2001, 2003) where cannibalistic refers to the incursion of the dative into the accusative referring to leísmo strategies.

Two-dimensional differential object marking

95

For Spanish, we established in chapter three that both strategies – differential object marking and clitic doubling – while they interact in a complex way, can also occur independently of each other. While Kayne’s Generalization holds for standard Peninsular and Latin American Spanish dialects, lack of differential object marking in clitic doubling constructions in non-standard varieties points to the interaction of grammatical function and discourse function as a cause. Speaker choice of strategy seems to depend on the information structure of the object, where co-occurrence is constrained to topical objects and denied for focal objects.6 The discussion of differential object marking and extended object marking in this chapter builds on the exposition of the features animacy, definiteness and specificity in chapter three. The discussion in this chapter concentrates on the two-dimensional form and crosslinguistic expression of differential object marking, which give rise to an extended form. I also dicuss diachronic processes promoting topicality based on examples from Spanish and other languages. This is followed by a discussion of grammaticalization processes bearing on clitics. My aim is to place the evolution in Limeño Spanish contact varieties in a crosslinguistic context and to link the innovations to a wider crosslinguistic trend.

4.2 Two-dimensional differential object marking Differential object marking is a crosslinguistically well attested system to optionally mark direct objects ranked for their prominence on two scales: animacy and definiteness, or, on a two-dimensional scale based on the interaction of both (Bossong 1991, 2003; Aissen 2003).7 What triggers differential object marking is language-specific, and most importantly, subject to diachronic evolution. For example, Hebrew distinguishes between definite and indefinite and Hungarian between human and animate features. Papia Kristang, a Portuguese based Creole (Bossong 2003), is sensitive to definiteness and “humanness”8. Human, definite objects (91a) are obligatorily marked, human, indefinite objects (91b) are optional, and nonhuman, indefinite objects (91c) remain unmarked.

6 See the definition of specificity in chapter 3 section 2.4. 7 See chapter 3 section 2.4 for these scales and the basic machinery of Spanish differential object marking. 8 Bossong replaces animacy with the term “humanitude” as introduced by Lazard (2003).

96 (91)

From syntax to information structure

Papia Kristang (Bossong 2003: 26) a. Yo sa kanyóng gostá kung GEN elder.brother love ACC I ‘My elder brother loves that woman.’

aké DEM

b.

Eli ja kazá kung-Ø femi he PERF marry ACC -ACC woman ‘He has married a Malay woman.’

c.

Veronica sa pay matá Ø-buchi. ACC - bug Veronica GEN father kill ‘Veronica’s father has killed a bug.’

femi. woman

malayu. Malay

Turkish distinguishes between specific objects (92a) which are always casemarked, and unmarked nonspecific objects (92b). (92)

Turkish (Enc 1991: 4–5) a. Ali bir piyano-yu kiralamak istiyor. want-3SG Ali one piano-ACC rent-INF ‘Ali wants to rent a certain piano.’ b.

Ali bir piyano kiralamak istiyor. Ali one piano rent-INF want-3SG ‘Ali wants to rent a (nonspecific) piano.’

Enç (1991: 24) distinguishes between definiteness and specificity in the way these properties link arguments within the discourse. She classifies definiteness as a strong link to a previously established or identified referent, as for example in (91a). Specificity, on the other hand, is a weak link referring to “a subset of or standing on some recoverable relation to a familiar object.” Persian (Lazard 2003), Hindi/Urdu, Romanian, River Plate and Lima Spanish among many other languages change this scale to animacy and specificity, marking the topical direct object argument and allowing for optional marking of inanimate, specific objects. This is firstly demonstrated in (93) where the Persian postposition râ marks objects that are definite (93a) and specific (83b). Note that demonstratives and possessives count as definites and must be marked. Indefinite non-specifics are unmarked (93c) and (93d). (93)

Persian (Lazard 2003: 2) a. Ketâb-râ / ân ketâb-râ book-DOM / DEM book-DOM ‘I read the book / that book.’

xând-am. read-PAST-1SG

Two-dimensional differential object marking

b.

Ketâb-i-râ xândam ke. book-DET- DOM read-PAST-1SG that. . . ‘I read a (certain) book which [. . .].’

c.

Ketâb-i xândam. book-DET read- PAST-1SG ‘I read a book.’

d.

Ketâb xândam. book read-PAST-1SG ‘I read a book/books/I did book-reading.’

97

The differential object markers Hindi ko and Spanish a share a common locative origin as well as similar diachronic and synchronic behaviour. They are both syncretic forms marking dative and optionally specific direct objects with certain combinations of animacy and specificity properties. Two-dimensional differential object marking along animacy and specificity axes, or object alternation, is demonstrated in (94). In the nominative marked version (94a), Nadya simply wants to see any giraffe. In (94b), the ko-marked giraffe must be a particular animal Nadya has in mind. (94)

Urdu9 (Butt 2005: 143) a. Nadya=ne jirafa dekh-na Nadya-FSG =ERG giraffe-MSG . NOM see-INFMSG ‘Nadya wants to see a giraffe/giraffes.’ b.

Nadya=ne jiraf=ko Nadya-FSG = ERG giraffe-MSG = ACC ‘Nadya wants to see the giraffe.’

dekh-na see-INFMSG

he. be-PRES -3SG he. be-PRES -3SG

Romanian uses the direct object marker pe10 to show the same distinction (95). Note that Romanian, like Spanish, prefers a combination of differential object marking and clitic doubling to mark definite, specific and topical human direct objects (95a). Note the non-doubled clause in (95b) allows for either a specific or for a non-specific reading.

9 I retain here the original glosses. 10 Pe is like the Spanish formative a regarding isomorphism of the locative preposition pe ‘on’ showing semantic content and as object marker lacking prepositional/semantic content (von Heusinger and Onea 2008: 68).

98 (95)

From syntax to information structure

Romanian (von Heusinger and Onea 2008: 69) a. O caut pe o secretară. CL 3SG search DOM a secretary-FSG ‘I am searching for a (specific) secretary.’ b.

Caut o secretară. search a secretary-FSG ‘I am searching for a (specific) secretary. I am searching for some secretary.’

Romanian, River Plate and Lima Spanish mark specific objects, which can be proper names, definite and indefinite noun phrases, which thereby receive a topical reading which triggers clitic doubling. In the Lima Spanish example in (96) differential object marking and clitic doubling extends to proper names (96a) and to definite, specific determiner phrases in (96b). The extension to animate, indefinite quantifiers in (96c) cannot be analyzed as specific but certainly must be some kind of topic. (96) Standard Lima Spanish (Mayer, FW 2003) a. La nombraron a Mara. CL 3FSG nominate- PAST-3PL DOM Mara ‘They nominated Mara.’ b. A

esta silla la quiero poner en otro sitio. DEM chair CL 3FSG want-1SG put-INF PREP other place ‘I want to put this chair somewhere else.’ DOM

c. No lo vieron a nadie en esta playa. not CL 3MSG see-PAST-3PL DOM QUANT PREP DEM beach ‘They did not see anybody on this beach.’ The previous examples have shown the transition from stage one (Papia Kristang) to the extension of differential object marking to inanimate objects facilitated by the pragmatic notion specificity (Turkish), to marking animate, definite and specific objects as topical (Persian, Urdu, Romanian, River Plate, and Lima Spanish). Commonly, the prototypical single object of a transitive clause is an unmarked patient/theme object. Marking such an object singles out an object that is like the subject in its animacy, definiteness and specificity/referentiality features. Extending differential object casemarking and differential object agreement (clitic doubling) to atypical direct objects creates a markedness reversal

Two-dimensional differential object marking

99

reflecting the tensions between two important functional principles: (i) economy directed at avoiding excessive marking, and (ii) iconicity related to functional and formal object marking (Aissen 2003; Comrie 1997, 2003; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011; Givón 1976; Silverstein 1976). However, in examples (91) to (96), and also in Ibizan Catalan, the crucial difference is the involvement of both central actants (Bossong 2003), namely the external argument subject actively marking the internal core argument object in the sense of “Nadya has a particular giraffe in mind” (94b), for example. Identifiability and double actant marking are two very important factors for information structure because they mark topic-worthiness of an argument. At the syntactic level, double actant marking in monotransitive clauses marks the primary object, which is the secondary topic at the level of information structure, as will be discussed in part II. Building on previous work and based on the analysis from my data, I identify the following three different stages in the evolution of differential object marking (DOM) in line one, and direct object clitic doubling (CLD), shown in Table 4.1. The second line of the differential object marker (DOM) row shows the pragmatic/information-structural effect of the parallel evolution and interaction of dependent-marking (differential object marking) and head-marking (direct object clitic doubling). Table 4.1: Evolution of differential object marking and clitic doubling Stage DOM

CLD

I

II

a III b

ANIM /DEF

SPEC /TOP

TOP /OM

TOP

→

TOP 2/±DAT -PO /SO

AgrPRO

AgrPRO

lo > le > la → le( > lo)

Stage I and II reflect the development of standard Spanish in its oral and written form. Standard Spanish is representative of stage I. Liberal clitic doubling varieties, such as Standard Lima Spanish and Riverplate (Argentinian and Uruguayan) are located at stage II. Stage III is divided into two parts, showing the extension of the grammaticalization affecting differential object marking and clitic doubling. This stage represents non-standardized (attrited contact) dialects in III (a), such as Limeño Spanish contact varieties11, and in III (b) contact dialects, such as Ecuador and Paraguay, showing extensive leísmo. In these non-standardized contact varieties, we note in monolingual (attrited) speakers a scalar system of lo > le > la in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and extensive leísmo as in 11 Non-standardized River Plate Spanish apparently also shows the same variability, in that case however, it is not contact-induced, but conditioned by extra-linguistic factors.

100

From syntax to information structure

le (>lo) in bilingual speakers in contact with non-gender marking languages such as Quechua for example (Mayer and Sánchez 2016). Note that stage III (a) may be either a transient or a fossilized stage, depending on intensity of language contact and language ecological factors as discussed in chapter one. Throughout the three stages, differential object marking shows a steady move from full semantic nominal parameters in stage I, to a mix of semantic and pragmatic parameters in stage II, to finally becoming an objective marker in stage III. This indicates a move from nominal marking to verbal marking, or from dative-accusative marking mainly based on semantic parameters to primary and secondary object marking linked to information structure. This development is accompanied by a parallel evolution of feature-specifying clitics which are strictly controlled by the semantic parameters animacy and definiteness, identifying and marking topical objects in stage I. Based on these semantic restrictions, clitic doubling is constrained to pronominal objects. In stage II, clitic doubling becomes more liberal through the growing importance of the pragmatic parameter specificity, which plays a mediating role in the transition from purely semantic-based marking to pragmatic-based marking. Stage III is restricted first to two geographically different points in the diachronic evolution of Latin American Spanish. III (a) is a transition stage showing a scalar system of singular dative and accusative clitics, with a strong preference for the accusative in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, marking the secondary topic (TOP2) and primary object in a transitive clause. This implies concurrent grammatical and information structural marking. Finally, in III (b), with third person clitics grammaticalizing from agreement marker to object marker, differential object marking gives way to a single case system which allows free doubling under extensive leísmo conditions with lo surviving as propostional anaphor. The three categories involved in object marking – differential object marking, topicality and specificity – show a binary distinction into plus or minus. Only one of them, the differential object marker a, has a clear morphological presence. Topicality represents animacy for purposes of personal a and disambiguation in marking the patient object, as mentioned earlier. Animacy in Spanish is an inherent nominal characteristic for animates only; differential object marking can raise the animacy status of inanimates making them topical. Specificity arises from certain combinations of the two categories definiteness and clitic doubling. The notion of topicality belongs to information structure, its involvement in the marking process appears in the earliest stage and remains throughout, as shown in Table 4.1. In the next subsection, I briefly review the formation of differential object marking and topicality in Spanish and continue the description of the stages II

Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling

101

and III of the model proposed in Table 4.1 in the light of the interacting factors optionality, specificity and topicality.

4.3 Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling As previously discussed and shown in Table 4.1 and supported by an extensive body of literature on the emergence of differential object marking in Romance languages, three different but interacting factors have been identified (Laca 2006 and references therein). Firstly, as argued by Bossong (1991), differential object marking emerged from the need to differentiate between subjects and object arguments. Secondly, the separation between dative and accusative marking and extension of the dative into the accusative has been the topic of much debate based on evidence from the diachronically attested inherent variability of the third person pronominal paradigm in terms of leísmo, loísmo and laísmo (Fernández Ordóñez 1993, 1999), and variable argument structure of certain verbs (Laca 2006: 472–428, 470). These facts have led some researchers to argue for a single plus/minus dative case system (Alsina 1996); to the dative “invading” the space of the accusative (Company 2001, 2003); to neutralization of dative and accusative marking (Lapesa 2000: 98–99), or the emergence of a new accusative (Givón 1997; Bossong 2001, 2003). The third and final point is topic marking (Givón 1976) and its extension to secondary topic marking (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011), acknowledging that pragmatics and information structure, in addition to semantics, have influenced the emergence and formation of differential object marking. According to Pensado (1995: 191), differential object marking in Romance languages originated from the Latin preposition ad with the stressed personal pronoun mihi to express topicality, due to a loss of dative case morphology in pronouns. Differential object marking then spread by analogy to non-pronominal uses, increasing its general frequency. Referring back to Table 4.1, stage I, differential object marking and its interaction with clitic doubling made its first appearance with strong pronouns and, substantially, only with strong pronouns in El Cantar de Mio Cid (Laca 2006: 428; Lapesa 1964: 80; Melis 1995). The complex differential object marking system of the Spanish of El Cid allows for optional marking based on animacy and specificity constraints as summarized in Table 4.2 (Bresnan and Aissen 2002: 91). Notable is the optional extension to inanimate proper nouns, where it facilitates identification of the referent by specifying the relationship between the subject and the object.

102

From syntax to information structure

Table 4.2: Differential object marking system in El Cid DOM

OBJECT TYPE

obligatory

human pronouns, proper nouns

optional

human definites, indefinite specifics, inanimate proper nouns

unmarked

the rest

Building on the “individuation – presuppositionality” traits of the marked direct object, Torrego (1999: 1802) argues first that “el complemento directo preposicional aporta topicidad en el interior de la oración” (‘The direct object adds topicality within the clause’). But then, based on diachronic and synchronic evidence, Torrego proposes that a-marked direct objects seem to be topical, occupying the position of dislocated elements inside and outside the verb phrase, an argument already proposed by Pensado (1995). This analysis seems a natural consequence of the following two facts. The pertinent feature of pronouns is definiteness, with first and second person and even human and pronouns as a class appearing with high frequency dislocated in either focus or topic (theme) position. Topicality seems to be motivated by animacy and verbal semantics, taking the analysis further into the pragmatic field. According to Lapesa (1968) the first verbs that attracted a-marking were primary transitive verbs such as “kill, attack and hit”, affecting the object directly. Such prototypical transitive clauses consist of a (highly) agentive subject and a (highly) affected patient object. Consequently, in modern Spanish all verbs affecting the object directly must be a-marked. This extension of a-marking has been generally dubbed an extension of the dative into the accusative. For example Torrego (1999: 1803) cites: “A este respecto Spaulding (1962) observa que pareciera que unos verbos extienden el uso del caso dativo al acusativo más que otros” (‘In this respect, Spaulding (1962) observes that it appears that some verbs extend the use of the dative case to the accusative more than others.’) Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 160) and Mohanan (1994) describe apparent optionality of ko-marking in Hindi/Urdu for definite inanimate/nonhuman objects giving rise to marked and unmarked objects. All ko-marked objects must be specific (Butt 1993).12 The combination of animacy and double actant marking, specifying the relationship between the subject and the object, with the subject as the primary topic marking the object as secondary topic seems to be the essence of topicality. Givón (1979: 206) argues that the pragmatic value of an object is to mark the secondary topic in a clause. In languages with syncretic case 12 Butt also notes that dialect variability must be considered.

103

Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling

marking the distinction between core object arguments is sometimes obscured in monotransitives but can be established more easily in ditransitive constructions where the primary object is the marked one. In Spanish, this is usually the indirect object. Based on this evidence, I conclude that topicality is a gradient, ever evolving property that seems to follow the hierarchy subject > object > oblique, as suggested by Croft (1991).

4.3.1 Optionality Differential object marking in Standard Spanish marks genuine human (97a) and animate patient arguments in (97b), considered topical due to their animacy status. (97) a. El ladrón mató a la tía de Mario. the thief kill- PAST-3SG DOM DET. FSG aunt PREP Mario ‘The thief killed Mario’s aunt.’ b. El ladrón mató al perrito de Mario. the thief kill-PAST-3SG DOM - DET. MSG dog-DIMIN PREP Mario ‘The thief killed Mario’s little dog.’ In modern Standard Spanish optionality of differential object marking applies to animate, indefinite, specific objects (98a), and, largely, to inanimate definite, specific objects (98b). Animate and inanimate indefinite, non-specific core object arguments (98c) and obliques are excluded. (98)

a.

Ayer Yesterday

escuchaba hear-PAST-1SG

caminando walk-GERUND

delante de in front of

(a)

una

DOM

INDEF. FSG

la the

mujer woman.FSG

casa. house

‘Yesterday I was listening to a woman walking up and down in front of the house.’ b.

c.

(A)

esta

en

DOM

DEM . FSG

silla la pongo chair.FSG CL 3FSG put-1SG ‘I’m putting this chair somewhere else.’

PREP

Mi

un

POSS .1SG

hermano necesita *a brother need-3SG DOM ‘My brother needs a new book.’

INDEF. MSG

otro other nuevo new

sitio. place libro. book

104

From syntax to information structure

These examples demonstrate that differential object marking is restricted to marking object arguments in accordance with their semantic and pragmatic properties. Obligatory marking could be analyzed as structural case and produces only one reading, whereas optionality produces at least two different kinds of objects correlating with the semantic properties animacy and definiteness of the object noun phrase. Further, if we compare the modern state (stage II) to the medieval state (stage I) represented by data from El Cid in Table 4.2, we observe a growing tendency along the definiteness hierarchy towards specificity to optionally mark topical objects. This confirms that saliency of an object and its individuation are linked to optional marking. In stage III, optionality diminishes even more and could simply vanish in canonical monotransitives, with the conversion of differential object marking into a full objective/casemarker. But before moving on to discuss stage III, I briefly address non-specificity triggering zero marking.

4.3.2 Non-specificity As introduced in chapter three, differential object marking identifies the grammatical function of the marked syntactic arguments, and double actant marking introduces the pragmatic notions specificity and topicality whose relationship was shown in example (71), repeated here in (99), where a relationship is established between the inanimate specific object and the animate specific subject. Both are core syntactic arguments and identifiable from the immediate context. (99)

Liberal clitic doubling dialects [–anim][+spec] (Suñer 1989: 379) Lo quiero mucho a este arbolito. CL 3MSG like-1SG much DOM DEM . SG tree-little ‘I like this little tree very much.’

The contrast between object specificity and non-specificity is shown in (100). Differential object marking is felicitous with the indefinite non-specific in (100a) and in the negated version in (100b). Wh-questions for both are obligatorily a-marked: ¿A quién necesita? ‘Whom does he need?’ ¿Necesita a alguien? ‘Does (s)he need somebody?’ Alguien is a presupposed entity assumed to exist. In terms of set theory, alguien is a subset, an identifiable part of the superset. The same is true for nadie.

Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling

(100)

a.

El profesor necesita a the professor need-3SG DOM ‘The professor needs someone.’

b.

El profesor no necesita a nadie. the professor not need-3SG DOM nobody ‘The professor does not need anybody.’

105

alguien. someone

For (101) von Heusinger and Kaiser (2007) argue that the indefinite animate direct object rejects differential object marking because of its non-argument status. Leonetti (1999: 862) makes a distinction between extensional arguments that receive specificity through optional differential object marking, and intensional arguments13 that generally reject differential object marking. (101)

Standard Spanish (von Heusinger and Kaiser 2007: 88) El dentista necesita *a un ayudante. the dentist need.-3SG DOM INDEF. MSG assistant ‘The dentist needs an assistant.’

Bleam (1999) expresses the difference in terms of the semantic type , which can receive differential object marking, as opposed to the non-argumental type which remains unmarked. Deal (2007) analyzes property-type nonspecific objects with respect to their referentiality and scope in Nez Percé, Inuit and Hindi. She argues that “verbs are never inherently specified for propertytype objects; all property-type objects must be mediated by ANTIP” (antipassive morpheme). She concludes that the difference between intensional and extensional verbs depends on the type of object named and has nothing to do with the semantic type. She claims further that intensional verbs “name accessibility relations for locating objects within situations, whereas extensional verbs characterise particular events” Deal (2007: 2). Replacing the indefinite determiner in (101) with any concrete number, say two, or with a definite determiner would still yield an unmarked noun phrase, as it lacks referentiality. The indefinite non-specific object in (101) could therefore be analyzed in Deal’s terms as a non-quantificational property type object, a type which cannot enter in an agreement relation with the verb and its subject. The transition between stage II and stage III is marked by an increasing importance of grammatical object agreement of topical objects. In Latin American Spanish, the pragmatic notion specificity gives way to topicality by liberal clitic 13 See chapter three, example (70) and discussion.

106

From syntax to information structure

doubling with feature specifying clitics (AgrPRO). In other words, extending marking to indefinite specifics triggered the move from semantic to pragmatic marking. Differential object marking is now mainly regulated by information structure, showing a clear correlation with object marking (Butt and Holloway King 1996). Optionality will not be an issue any longer if information structure is considered, as suggested by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011). This takes us to extended differential object marking, which is still part of stage II in Standard Spanish. Combining liberal clitic doubling and extended differential object marking to inanimate objects, as in example (103) in the next section, represents a crucial step on the way to stage III in the evolution of differential object marking. 4.3.3 Extended differential object marking In Butt (1993: 96) the ko marker in Urdu is analyzed as a specificity marker in the sense of Enç (1991), as discussed in chapter three, and obligatory with any “unambiguously definite (and therefore specific) entity”. This includes animate (Ali/him (PRO)) and inanimate (table) objects as shown in (102a). (102) Urdu (Butt 1993: 96) a. Zainab=ne ali=ko/us=ko/us mez=ko 1dekh-aa. Zainab.F = ERG Ali.m=ACC /him.=ACC / DEM table=ACC see- ERF. MSG ‘Zainab saw Ali/him/that table.’ b. Zainab=ne *ali/*vo/?*vo mez dekh-aa. Zainab.F = ERG Ali.M /him/that table see-PERF. MSG ‘Zainab saw Ali/him/that table.’ The question mark before the ko marked inanimate object in (102b) refers to the demonstrative that triggering an obligatory case clitic, as Butt notes. In later work, Butt (2008) analyzes ko-marked direct objects as specific objects; the event is placed on a path showing a specific endpoint but no attainment. Extended differential object marking in Standard Spanish is facilitated by a similar strategy as in Urdu, however it is not (yet) obligatory for inanimate objects. Fodor and Sag (1982) distinguish between “speaker intent to refer” and reliance on other parts of the context for interpretation, such as identification of the referent and identifiability. Spanish preposed transitive animate clauses obligatorily show differential object marking and a resumptive clitic. In the standard Lima Spanish example (103), the demonstrative esta triggers optional differential object marking on the preposed inanimate, definite, specific object. It should be noted that there is a strong preference for differential object marking.

Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling

(103)

Standard Lima Spanish (A) esta silla la pongo DOM DEM . FSG chair CL 3FSG put-1SG ‘I’ll put this chair somewhere else.’

en PREP

otro other

107

sitio. place

The move from stage II to stage III is shown in examples (104). Standard Lima Spanish (104a) and Limeño Spanish contact varieties in (104b)14 show nominal casemarking by differential object marking interacting with verbal object marking in double actant marking. The transition is marked by clitic doubling strategies with agreeing clitics in stage II in liberal clitic doubling dialects (104a) to non-agreeing clitics in stage III in non-standard contact varieties (104b). (104)

Standard Lima Spanish (Mayer, FW) [–anim][+spec][+agr] frío a la cebolla? a. ¿Lai CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘Shall I fry the onion?’ Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) [–anim][–agr] / *lai frío a la cebollai . b. Loi CL 3MSG / *CL 3FSG fry-1SG OM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’

In stage III of Table 4.1, the differential object marker moves through a transition stage from agreement marker to object marker in an end state. The spread of differential object marking to inanimates also implies a change in the case system. Bossong (1991: 144) argues that “casemarkers disappear, new ones arise, but the fundamental opposition between the two main participants in a prototypical transitive action remains valid over and above the variability of the means which express this relationship.” For non-standardized contact dialects this implies a move from semantic case to potential structural case, with the concurrent loss of optional strategies. Objective marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties shows a twofold distinction into grammatical agreement and anaphoric agreement. Differential object marking in grammatical agreement, as shown in Table 4.3, still shows the threefold distinction into obligatory, optional and disallowed/ null marking dependent on animacy and topical status of the object.

14 Repeated here from chapter one, example (1b).

108

From syntax to information structure

Table 4.3: Object marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties Agreement

DOM

Object type

Grammatical

+ + ± – –

[±anim, +affected] [fem, +spec, +highly affected] [–anim, +existent, +spec] [–anim, –spec, +existent, quant] [±anim, +existent]

Anaphoric

CLD

lo > le > la

TOP

Topicality refers to objects that speakers want to refer to because they exist in their mind and to those objects that are considered topic-worthy – thus specific. Affected objects are usually patient objects in monotransitive clauses. Anaphoric agreement marks topical objects with feature reduced clitics in a scalar system, where invariant lo is preferred over le followed by the number neutral but gender-specific la in rare circumstances. The range of marking strategies is shown in the following examples. Extension of differential object marking to the feminine, animate object in (105a) introduces a highly topical definite inanimate in grammatical agreement. The feminine inanimate object is then referred to in (105b) by invariant lo, which could be analyzed here as a transitiviser because of an increase in transitivity through marking a highly prototypical patient argument. (105) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Lavo a la yuca, pelo la yuca, wash-1SG DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG peel-1SG DET. FSG cassava.FSG ‘I wash the cassava, I peel the cassava,’ b. lo

lavo, lo hago en trozos y lo sancocho. wash-1SG CL 3MSG cut-1SG PREP pieces and CL 3MSG stew-1SG ‘I wash it, cut it into pieces and stew it.’ CL 3MSG

Another strategy in (106) applies a gender specific clitic in grammatical agreement with a highly affected animate (human) object. (106)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) Si hubiera querido desde un principio beginning if will-SBJV-3SG want-PARTIC from a apoyarla support-INF.CL 3FSG

a

su

DOM

POSS

hija, daughter

pero but

no. no

‘If he would have wanted to support his daughter from the beginning, but no.’

Differential object marking, topicality and clitic doubling

109

Yet another strategy is the le/lo alternation and optional differential object marking in (107). The impersonal complex predicate construction in (107a) shows a marked inanimate, definite object doubled with le. The human, feminine, bare plural human object in (107b) is unmarked and clitic doubled with lo. In Standard Spanish, bare plurals are never marked and not clitic doubled. The apparent accusative construction in (107b) is an alternate of the “more acceptable” dative triggering casemarking in (107c). Both examples occurred in the same context, one immediately after the other. Example (107b) is excellent evidence for lo marking the secondary topic in the monotransitive clause, and (107a) shows the endpoint of the competition for primary object status, as found in the single case system in Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish. (107) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Sí, hay que pelarle a la yuca. yes must that peel-INF.CL 3SG DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG ‘Yes, one must peel the cassava.’ b. Bueno, recién que lo conocí amigas de Norma. well only that CL 3MSG meet-PAST-1SG friend-FPL of Norma ‘Well, I met Norma’s friends only recently.’ c. Bueno, recién que le conocí amigas a Norma. well only that CL 3SG meet-PAST-1SG friend-FPL of Norma ‘Well, I only recently learned that Norma had friends.’ Finally, the last two strategies in (108) show again null differential object marking and clitic doubling with invariant lo. The preposed “chicken” determiner phrase in (108) lacks differential object marking and is referred to by the dative anaphore le. The indefinite, inanimate, quantifier doubled phrase in (108b) follows the same pattern in canonical object position. I argue here that both constructions are motivated by language contact, and that (108b) shows the featureless clitic lo as topicality and transitivity marker. (108)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Yo creo que Ø la regional PRO 1SG think-1SG that DOM DET. FSG regional dicen say-3PL

que that

es is-3SG

la DET. FSG

le CL 3SG

gallina. chicken.FSG

‘I think that they call the regional one the chicken.’ b.

Lo

poquito

CL 3MSG

he licuado un have-1SG mix-PARTIC INDEF. MSG ‘I mixed a little bit of water in a blender.’

QUANT

de of

agua. water

110

From syntax to information structure

These examples show that the innovations in Limeño Spanish contact varieties cannot be explained solely based on extended differential object marking. However, before drawing immediate conclusions, two intervening factors must be considered: (i) reanalysis processes (grammaticalization) affecting the third person clitic paradigm differentially; and (ii) contact with Amerindian languages. Nevertheless, I will make some preliminary observations concerning grammatical agreement. The range of clitic variability in the strategies exposed above shows covariation of accusative lo and dative le which can be linked to the competition of both internal objects for primary object status. We also see a slight preference for the unmarked invariant form lo with remnants of the gender specific accusative clitic la. By means of double actant marking, the subject is marked as the primary topic and the marked object as the secondary topic. Concurrently, the same secondary topic marker acts as a transitiviser, e.g. in (104b). One could hypothesize, that the covariation of the two invariant forms lo and le may be leading to the end state reached by some dialects of Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish where we find extensive leísmo, as in the impersonal triggering leísmo (107a), and a single object marking system with lo reduced to propositional anaphoric topic marker. I now move on to the first of those intervening factors, the grammaticalization/reanalysis processes affecting the third person clitic paradigm.

4.4 Clitic evolution by reanalysis Grammaticalization theory forms part of utterance-based language change theories. It is a diachronic process whereby meaningful constructions lose their semantic content through reanalysis and become desemanticized forms. For clitics, Hopper and Traugott (1993) propose the following grammaticalization cycle: content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix. According to Hopper and Traugott (2003) demonstratives and personal pronouns became agreement morphemes by such a grammaticalization process. The two categories differ in referentiality; demonstratives don’t allow a bound pronoun reading but personal pronouns do. Further, demonstratives are the preferred choice for non-topical antecedents, and personal pronouns are mostly found as discourse topics. Recall from section 2.3 the genesis of the Spanish third person clitics in Latin demonstratives, and as such they are the only clitics to preserve the gender, case and reflexivity features.

Clitic evolution by reanalysis

111

In Standard Spanish, the dative clitic displays both agreement (number and person) and case in one morpheme, whereas the accusative shows gender distinction instead of case. Both are clitics in the sense of Zwicky (1977) but have come to differ in pronominality through diachronic change. As Bresnan (1997: 1) notes, “. . . the inventory of forms present in each language reflects a contingent and individual path of historical change and areal contact.” This is certainly the case for the clitic object marking systems in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and elsewhere in Latin American Spanish which are experiencing dramatic changes. The grammaticalization path in Limeño Spanish contact varieties conforms to the patterns established in previous research on Standard Spanish so that the discussion in this section builds on it.15 The path commences with number incongruence, followed by loss of gender, yielding a specialized topic-anaphoric pronominal; this change is unidirectional and irreversible. The evolution and range of variability of pronominal content is illustrated in the markedness hierarchy reproduced in (109) from Bresnan (2001a: 116). The hierarchy defines pronoun (PRO) as sharing the universal semantic properties of shifting reference and anaphoricity with all personal pronouns. Agreement markers (AGR) contain the features person, number and gender. Topic markers (TOP) specialize in referring to topical elements. (109)

The dative is a bound pronominal, grammatical agreement marker, whereas the accusative, stripped of its referential properties, is reduced to topic marker, and has become “a specialized topic-anaphoric pronominal which lacks any agreement classifications” [. . .] “Pronominals are reduced if, and only if, they are specialized for topic anaphoricity” (Bresnan (2001a: 119). This last informationstructural property is of fundamental importance to the analysis of the variability found in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and particularly to invariant lo. It also raises the general question whether the direct object clitic lo marks a grammatical function or a discourse function, or possibly both. In any case, the morphological change in the paradigm is likely to trigger syntactic change.

15 For research on Standard Spanish gramaticalization see especially Escobar (1978); Calvo (1996, 1997, 2008); Caravedo (1990, 1999); Cerrón Palomino (1995, 2003); Pérez (1997, 2000).

112

From syntax to information structure

Study of how language learners acquire competence in production of clitics is suggestive for understanding change in the clitic paradigm. Egerland (2005: 1105) working on Italian loro, argues that diachronic change from weak to clitic must be triggered externally by morpho-phonological reduction of the clitic over time. Because of that reduction, the language learner could be led to reanalyze the pronoun as a clitic, a view shared by Cardinaletti and Starke (1996). The acquisition of the third person clitic paradigm follows closely universal grammar acquisition principles, where clitics are acquired successively, depending on their syntactic function. Notable is that the clitic acquisition hierarchy is the same for first and second language acquisition. Unmarked categories are learned before marked categories. The unmarked forms lo and le are acquired before the age of three, feminine gender and number plural follow later. The same order has been confirmed by Klee (1989) for bilingual Quechua-Spanish speakers and by Calvo (1996–1997) for Andean Spanish speakers. These findings are also confirmed by the scalar production of the clitics in the Limeño Spanish contact data. Table 4.4 shows the evolution of change (Palacios 2005: 77). In contact languages the last category is the first to disappear. Researchers in Andean Spanish contact agree that the changes are to be seen in terms of general linguistic changes and not regional and individualised changes, taking place in two stages. Table 4.4: Evolution of change (Palacios 2005)

Indirect object Direct object

Stage 1

Stage 2

le lo

le le

Ecuador and Paraguay have completed the evolution in showing a sole case system for object marking; they have completed stage two. Peru, Mexico and Guatemala may have completed only the first stage – paradigm simplification – or may be somewhere on the path to completing it. I have shown a parallel development for the differential object marking system in Table 4.1. Stage I of the clitic evolution would then concur with the transitory stage of stage III (a), and stage II with the end stage of III (b). Table 4.5 summarizes the differences between Limeño Spanish contact varieties (LSCV) and Standard Spanish, and how grammaticalized clitics interact with semantic and pragmatic object marking strategies in those varieties. It links the previous exposition of grammaticalized direct object clitics in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and foreshadows their pragmatic marking as secondary topic, to be discussed in part II of this chapter.

Clitic evolution by reanalysis

113

Table 4.5: Anaphoric and grammatical clitic agreement in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and Standard Spanish. LSCV

Anaphoric agreement

Grammatical agreement

le lo la

Leísmo Loísmo Laísmo

Topic Secondary topic Secondary topic

Standard

Anaphoric agreement

Grammatical agreement

le(s) lo(s) la(s)

Indices Indices Indices

cIndirect

object object cPronominal object cPronominal

Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) identify anaphoric agreement as pronoun antecedent agreement with referentially anchored indices, defined on discourse structure. As shown in Table 4.5, indices in Standard Spanish show feature agreement with their referential object. In Limeño Spanish contact varieties and elsewhere,16 these indices have given way to a range of leísmo, loísmo and laísmo strategies. Grammatical agreement is part of structural syntax, clitics as agreement markers show the following twofold distinction. Standard clitics show coreference based on semantic constraints (animacy, definiteness and specificity). Grammaticized clitics have become head-markers with le identifying the topical object (primary object) and lo, la marking the secondary topic (and primary object) of a monotransitive clause. The next subsections discuss some historical drivers and motivations for the simplification of the clitic paradigm in Limeño Spanish contact data.

4.4.1 Drivers of change – gender and number Inherent (grammatical) gender is not easily subject to forms of language change, but semantic (natural) gender can be. Nominals displaying morphological marking, apparently mimicking their natural gender, like in hermano, hermana ‘brother, sister’, could lead to the assumption of natural gender. However, the existence of invariable (la ballena macho/hembra, ‘the male/female whale’) or bivalent nouns (el/la electricista, ‘the male/female electrician’) and the lack of neuter marking in the nominal category leads to the conclusion that gender in Spanish is a grammatical category consisting of a twofold distinction of 16 I refer here to other monolingual and bilingual Spanish dialects that show very similar variability.

114

From syntax to information structure

masculine and feminine, the latter being the marked gender. Spanish gender is inherent/grammatical and for inanimates not semantically motivated (el arból, la playa ‘the tree, the beach’). In relation to weakening and loss of gender, high levels of intraspeaker variability in a socially equal, stable and homogeneous village population has been linked to language obsolescence and impending language death, as advanced by Pensalfini (1999) for an Australian aboriginal language Jingulu, Aikhenvald (2002) in Tariana, an Arawakan language in the Brazilian Amazon, and Dal Negro (1998) for Pomattertitsch, a Walser17 dialect of northern Italy. In a Hebridean dialect in East Sutherland Gaelic, Dorian (2001: 143) found weakening of gender constrained to pronominal reference while other gender signalling devices don’t seem to show the same tendency. Limeño Spanish contact varieties show the exact same tendency. In demonstratives and determiners gender plays an important role in semantic functions regarding pragmatic marking. This includes clitics, where gender marking extends to either identifying referents or social distinction (Bhat 2004: 111). Languages marking gender in the third person pronoun are mainly two-person languages, where the third person pronouns “are regarded as part of the system of demonstratives rather than that of personal pronouns” Bhat (2004: 109).18 In Latin American Spanish, the social distinction for the plural has been lost by replacing the second person plural with the third person plural paradigm. However, in the same move, extension of the gender feature has added referentiality. This indicates a move from semantic to pragmatic marking. In these contexts, extension may even include first person. It can be stated that gender marking on third person is generally used to identify referents whereas gender marking on first and second person primarily emphasises social distinction. Generally, feminine gender is marked; masculine gender is inclusive, generic, and subsumes feminine gender in coordinated constructions.

4.4.2 Morphological simplification in Limeño Spanish contact varieties Regarding number and gender in clitics in Limeño Spanish contact varieties we find the following: 17 German based dialect. 18 Bhatt proposes that there are two languages where gender marking is extended to second person and these are: non-singular in Spanish, and dual and trial in Nunggubuyu. See Green (1988: 95) for Spanish and Heath (1984) for Nunggubuyu.

Clitic evolution by reanalysis

1. 2.

3.

115

A hybrid clitic system sharing either case or gender, restricted to oral language. Increasing leísmo, triggering morphological simplification of case features and indicating competition of object marking differential object marking vs. dative marking; part of the system since the early days of colonization. Generalised neutralization of the number feature, attested in written language for the indirect object clitic.

These points are demonstrated in the Limeño Spanish contact varieties example below. The context is introduced in an impersonal construction (110a) with an anaphoric indirect object clitic showing leísmo extended to a feminine object. Impersonal and low referentiality go well together to establish the topic. In (110b) we find gender agreeing la and unusual differential object marking. (110c) shows a standard pronominal clitic doubling construction. The two human, definite, specific arguments in (110b) are a typical case of the laísmo strategy as secondary topic with double actant marking, showing the strong relationship between the subject as the primary topic and the highly affected object as the secondary topic.19 (110) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Y le tuvieron que hacer cesárea. and CL 3SG have-PAST-3PL that do-INF Caesarean ‘And she had to have a Caesarean [section].’ b. Cuando ella la cortaban a la PRO 3FSG CL 3FSG cut-PAST-3PL DOM DET. FSG when barriga para sacarla al bebe. stomach PREP take-INF- CL 3FSG DOM - DET. MSG baby ‘When they cut her belly open to take the baby out.’ c. El doctor la ha felicitado a ella. The doctor CL 3FSG has-3SG congratulate-PARTIC DOM PRO 3FSG ‘The doctor congratulated her.’ Example (111) shows free variation of the indirect object clitic le and the direct object clitic lo, with le on the finite verb and lo on the following infinitive; both refer to the same human, feminine object trying to negotiate the price for the 19 This means marking information structural role in accordance with Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011). This is also a typical option as mentioned in Table 4.3.

116

From syntax to information structure

taxi. Relevant here is that the feminine clitic la is never used for a masculine object. (111)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) para ver si le aceptan pues traerlo to see-INF if CL 3SG accept-3PL then bring-INF- CL 3MSG por for

menos less

precio. money

‘. . . to see if they would accept (from her) to drive her for a lower fare.’ Escobar (1978: 111) is one of the earliest to document lack of number for third person direct object clitics under the term neutralización de número (neutralization of number) in Lima Spanish. For the Limeño Spanish contact varieties example in (112a) with a feminine, human object and for (112b) with a feminine, inanimate object, I will argue that lo in these cases functions as secondary topic marker, marking the primary object and secondary topic in a monotransitive clause. In this function the copy can only appear in its unmarked form lo. (112) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) conoce a las chicasi . a. No mía, pero sí loi no mine but yes CL 3SG know-3SG DOM DET. FPL chica.FPL ‘Not mine, but yes, (s)he knows the girls.’ b. O verloi bien las letrasi que dicen. or see-INF- CL 3NSG well DET. FPL letter.FPL that say-3PL ‘Or see them well, the characters as they are usually called.’ Gutiérrez Ordoñez (1999: 187)) associates lack of number agreement in plural indirect objects with problems in long distance relations. In his observations frequency of disagreement increases with distance. Non-agreeing number feature in ditransitive indirect object clitic doubling constructions, as in (113), is already attested in written language and can be found in newspapers as well. (113)

Standard Spanish entregamos el regalo a. Lesi CL 3PL give-PAST-1PL the gift ‘We gave the gift to the children.’

a

los

DOM

DET. MPL

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) entregamos el regalo a los b. Lei CL 3SG give-PAST-1PL the gift DAT DET. MPL ‘We gave the gift to the children.’

niñosi . child.MPL

niñosi . child.MPL

117

Summary of argument thus far

Lack of number agreement is a common occurrence in the Spanish of Limeño newspaper nowadays, as in (114) from my corpus data. (114)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) De repente creen que le estaban hence think-3PL that CL 3SG are-PAST-3PL

haciendo do-GERUND

un a

daño pues a las personas. harm ehm DAT DET. FPL people.FPL ‘Possibly they think that they were causing harm, er, to the people.’

4.5 Summary of argument thus far Historically, Spanish has been moving from a synthetic language toward an analytical language, on the way losing inflection almost exclusively in peripheral areas, such as the morphological passive and nominal declension, while preserving gender and number in the latter (Green 1988). Nonetheless, Spanish is a morphologically complex language, and runs counter to ‘unidirectionality’ of change, since it is adding even more inflection to the pronominal system by dropping the case syncretic second person plural object clitic and adopting instead the gender and number specifying second person plural. However, this development is restricted to Latin American Spanish.20 The continuous historical extension of differential object marking and concurrent grammaticalization processes affect the agreement status of direct object clitics, which, in losing their agreement features, become mere head-markers based on person. Throughout the preceding chapters I have linked syntactic marking of grammaticalized direct object clitics to the information-structural notions of topic and secondary topic marking. The proposal for a modified projection/dependence matrix in Table 2.9, allowed for a provisional analysis of invariant lo and to a minor extent la, as the exponents of secondary topic in monotransitive clauses based on a more fine-grained classification of projectivity.

Part 2: Information structure In the second part of this chapter I will show how grammatical marking can be linked to, or influenced by, the information structure role of marked objects. I will argue that in Spanish the pragmatic notion of secondary topic is different

20 See the exposition of the clitic paradigm in chapter two.

118

From syntax to information structure

from the notion topic, and can be linked to the syntactic role of primary object. In monotransitive clauses, the secondary topic is a direct object showing headmarking with non-agreeing clitics and dependent-marking displaying some variability. For languages with extended differential object marking such as Limeño Spanish contact varieties, Persian, Hindi and Romanian, Turkish, Russian, Tagalog and Mongolian (Comrie 1997), which are all very similar in terms of the distribution of marking, the presence of case marking yields a more marked entity, which can be explained in terms of information structure (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011; Croft 1988: 165). My assumptions about pragmatic functions are based on Butt and King (1996); Nikolaeva (1999, 2001); Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) and Lambrecht (1994). In the following, I introduce first the new differential object marking theory due to Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) and its theoretical underpinnings. I then briefly review previous work on secondary topic marking in Spanish, followed by a detailed analysis and comparison of the notions topic and secondary topic in relation to the Limeño Spanish contact data.

4.6 Differential object marking and information structure Semantic and functional analyzes such as classical markedness theory and theories dealing with accusative-dative alternations21 (Givón 1976; Hopper and Thompson 1980; Naess 2004) correlate marking with the semantic features animacy and definiteness, however they only account partially for the range of variability pertinent to Limeño Spanish contact varieties marked direct objects. The same applies to functional analyzes of differential object marking (Aissen 2003; Silverstein 1976) focussing on disambiguation of the core arguments in transitive clauses based on marking triggered by the semantic conditions definiteness and animacy. Subjects are generally assumed to outrank objects in prominence due to animacy, the reverse applies to objects (Croft 1988). Aissen adopts the relational scale subject > object in an Optimality-theoretic account strongly based on the definiteness scale.22 Harmonic alignment of both produces the two markedness scales in Table 4.6, which show the correlation between grammatical function and the semantic conditions that lead to marking. The subject hierarchy in (a) shows “markedness reversal” with the object hierarchy in (b), the same semantic features appear on opposite edges. 21 Semantic roles of marked objects and related theories are treated in chapter six in conjunction with contact. 22 As discussed in chapter three.

Differential object marking and information structure

119

Table 4.6: Markedness hierarchies (Aissen 2003: 445) a.

su / pro

≻ su / pn

≻ su / def

≻ su / spec

≻ su / nspec

b.

obj / nspec

≻ obj / spec

≻ obj / def

≻ obj / pn

≻ obj / pro

The above-mentioned semantic and functional approaches fail to fully account for languages – such as Limeño Spanish contact varieties – that display a close relation between syntactic roles and discourse roles. The different and evolving patterns of differential object marking in Spanish tend to mark the topical object by syntactic means and the semantic features like animacy and definiteness play a role in the “grammaticalization of topichood” as argued by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 18) in their syntactic account of differential object marking. In that account, they analyze variable patterns of differential object marking governed by information structure based on a distinction between topic-worthiness and topicality with a strong emphasis on the context. Focussing on the grammatical function of object, they explore similarities between core arguments, properties shared by both subjects and objects, and map those to information structural properties. This broad focus allows these authors to account for optional marking of objects with identical semantic features and topic-worthiness status. Topicality is shared between the subject as primary topic and specific objects as secondary topics. This proposal is partly based on a comparison of syntactic properties of subjects and objects in Northern Ostyak, showing a close link between the primary object and the secondary topic (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011; Nikolaeva 1999). The difference between marked and unmarked objects can be related to different information structures expressed in syntactic terms, representing two different grammatical functions. This is similar to a previous proposal within Lexical-Functional Grammar in which Butt and King (1996) link the weak/ nonspecific object in Hindi/Urdu and Turkish to the grammatical function primary object and associate it with the information structure role focus. The strong/ specific object then takes on the restricted secondary object role or thematic object (OBJθ ) which is non-focussed. This analysis follows Bresnan and Kaplan (1982) and Bresnan and Kanerva (1989). Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) suggest the opposite distribution for Ostyak and Chatino. Based on an extensive crosslinguistic survey they propose that the more marked object shows more core grammatical functions as shown in the mapping of the grammatical functions to their respective information structure roles in Table 4.7.

120

From syntax to information structure

Table 4.7: Default alignment (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 166) information structure: functional structure:

topic | subject

secondary topic | object

focus | objθ/oblique

Based on the proposed default alignment between functional structure and information structure they suggest the following generalization over morphological marking of objects. 1. Marking of objects is not functional markedness. 2. Marked objects are simply primary objects which are topical and can consequently adopt multiple thematic roles. 3. Unmarked objects on the other hand are classified as focused secondary objects, they are semantically restricted. This proposal works well for nominative-accusative languages because they seem to display differential object marking with greater frequency than ergativeabsolutive languages.

4.7 The notion of secondary topic The term secondary topic has been already introduced in chapter one and it has come up throughout the chapters since then. Givón (1983) discusses the possibility in many languages having an opposition of direct and indirect functions. Based on the subject as the primary topic, he proposes the term secondary topic for the direct object. Marked (promoted) direct objects occupy second position in the grammatical case hierarchy shown in (115a) which in turn is based on the semantically based case-role hierarchy in (115b) (Givón 1983: 22). (115)

a.

Subject > Object > Others

b.

Agent > Dative / Benefactive > Accusative > Others

Dalrymple and Nikolaeva analyze the differences between marked and unmarked objects as different information structures expressed in syntactic terms, representing two different grammatical functions. In line with their theory, marking is preferred “in contexts where the object is salient and the utterance updates the addressee’s knowledge about the relation that holds between the subject and the object referents” (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 162). In these terms, marked direct objects in some languages can be analyzed as the primary object

The notion of secondary topic

121

and the secondary topic, where grammatical marking is linked to informationstructural role. The theory assumes the following information-theoretical definitions mainly based on Lambrecht (1994). It is important to note that the notion topic in Lambrecht’s sense is restricted to sentence or clause topics and further restricted to topical participants; it does not extend to discourse topics. Lambrecht (1994: 118) defines topic as follows: “the topic of a sentence is the thing which the proposition expressed by the sentence is ABOUT”. In taking the communicative context into account, the ‘aboutness’ relation combines the topic referent and the object referent and the resulting propositions in a given discourse context. This implies that the topic can be either the subject or another grammatical relation in the proposition, a fact that is crucial for the distinction between topic and secondary topic in my Limeño Spanish contact varieties data. In Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 49) topichood is not tied uniquely to the referential properties of a noun phrase but defined by the “aboutness” relation. They further make an important distinction between natural topicality (Croft 1991) and topic-worthiness (Comrie 2003). The former reflects the pragmatic relation between the referent and the proposition, while the latter represents the potential to become a topic by the degree of pragmatic saliency such marked objects show for the interlocutors. The cut-off is non-referential indefinites which cannot become topics. Therefore, it is crucial for topics to identify the referents. Lambrecht (1994: 5) defines information structure as follows: [. . .] that component of sentence grammar in which propositions as conceptual representations of states of affairs are paired with lexico-grammatical structures in accordance with the mental states of interlocutors who use and interpret these structures as units of information in given discourse contexts.

A proposition is further divided into pragmatic presupposition and pragmatic assertion. Presupposition refers to the speaker’s assumptions of the addressee’s knowledge of the discourse referents at the time of the utterance. Pragmatic assertion is in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 46) “new information, the proposition which the addressee is expected to learn as a result of hearing the sentence.” Focus as put forward by Lambrecht (1994: 213) is “the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition”. Focus is mostly associated with new information and is further divided into narrow focus, wide focus and sentence focus. I will not go into more detail here, as the main aim of this chapter is to give an analysis of topic and secondary topic in Limeño Spanish contact varieties.

122

From syntax to information structure

For this study, I adopt Nikolaeva (2011: 26) where the secondary topic is treated as “an entity such that the utterance is construed to be ABOUT the relationship between it and the primary topic”. This new theory accounts for agentive subjects, double actant marking (Bossong 2003); and it allows for a topic marker to interact with transitivity (Hopper and Thompson 1980). It is also compatible with the concept of affectedness (Naess 2004) and telicity (Kiparsky 1998; Ritter and Rosen 2001) as discussed in chapter six. The common basis constitutes the association of the semantic features with the individuation of the referent and the object. Spanish and Ostyak show at least two parallel conditions regarding object marking: (i) specificity restrictions and (ii) agentive and topical subjects. Object agreement is optional and non-agreeing objects are interpreted as focus. Secondary topics are agreeing objects that must be specific.

4.7.1 Previous accounts for Spanish The literature on semantic aspects of discourse roles is vast. In the following I concentrate first on the most important works relevant to the specific setting of my non-standard data. Then I discuss the only work in Spanish I am aware of related to secondary topic marking in the sense of Nikolaeva (1999, 2000) and as mentioned before. More generally, extensive studies on acquisition of clitics in monolinguals and bilinguals have shown that clitic placement regarding finite and non-finite verbs is learned rapidly, in accordance with the Full Access Hypothesis to Universal Grammar (Clahsen and Muysken 1989; Schwartz and Sprouse 1996; White 2003). The left periphery however is more likely to pose a problem, especially to later bilinguals as word order restructuring might involve parameter resetting depending on the word order of the learner’s L1 (Camacho 1999). Information structure seems to require more than intermediate proficiency of the language, as shown in Montrul (2006: 226) and references within. In a previous study of interlanguage word order of Quechua first language/Spanish second language speakers, Camacho (1999) shows that even advanced Spanish speakers with near native proficiency had difficulties in distinguishing between specific and non-specific preposed topics; with regard to standard or complete grammar, near natives may remain with incomplete acquisition or fossilization. These studies concentrate on external topics (dislocated at the left or right periphery), and there is practically no mentioning of internal topics (core object functions), which is the emphasis of naturally occurring speech data. Clitic placement with finite verbs is learned rapidly by both first and second language learners. The

The notion of secondary topic

123

placement of items on the left periphery seems relevant as background for studies discussed next. Leonetti’s study (2004) for Standard Spanish is the only one that discusses topic marking in relation to secondary topic.23 He defines topic in the sense of link, that is, in the “aboutness” sense, anchoring new assertions. Based on the example in (116), Leonetti suggests that the differential object marker a may be analyzed as a topic marker. (116)

Standard Spanish (Leonetti 2004: 85) Necesitaban (a) un especialista. need-PAST-3PL DOM INDEF. MSG specialist.MSG ‘They needed a specialist.’

Consider his argument based on his assumptions: i. “Animacy overrides all other factors in the differential object marking system in Spanish” (Leonetti 2004: 85).24 ii. Leonetti distinguishes between casemarked direct objects allowing strong interpretations when casemarked as opposed to a weak interpretation when unmarked as shown in optional differential object marking for a human indefinite noun phrase in (116). iii. Leonetti believes with Pensado (1995), Zubizarreta (1998) and many others, that the origin of Spanish a as a casemarker stems from topicalised left dislocations originally with personal pronouns, which naturally impose a strong interpretation triggering casemarking. Syntactic dislocation would then link differential object marking to a topicalization mechanism. External topics show weaker interpretive constraints than internal topics.25 However, the topicality status of internal topics may also depend on presence or absence of a clitic for referential resolution. In sum, Leonetti rejects the idea of linking agreeing internal topics to the information structure role of secondary topic for two reasons: firstly, for Spanish he rejects motivation of differential object marking exclusively by information structure, and secondly, the lack of animacy playing a role in Ostyak object agreement. 23 Leonetti follows Nikolaeva (1999, 2001) and Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011), but rejects secondary topic marking. 24 As discussed in chapter three section two, Leonetti argues for animacy as a trigger for differential object marking and against specificity. 25 See for example Aissen (1992) for her analysis of external and internal topics in Mayan.

124

From syntax to information structure

For my argument contra Leonetti’s view, the difference between standard written and spoken Spanish and non-standardized contact varieties is relevant. As I show in this book, variability data seemingly break all rules, at the same time they present a unique opportunity to learn about the relationship between grammatical functions and their potential information structure roles. So far, I have established that there is a very strong link between clitics and topicality, and a very strong correlation of differential object marking with animacy – a claim I now proceed to substantiate based on example (116). In (116) the unmarked object introduces an indefinite referent as new information. The marked object in turn anchors this new information; differential object marking updates the unknown referent to an existing entity, but the referent has not been identified. Only the presence of the differential marker a implies the existence of a specialist known to the speaker. In terms of the identifiability scale, the specialist exists. Existent is not specific and only specific entities, which are referentially identifiable, are topical. This also counters the claim in (ii); I consider the marked object to be focused and not topical because it is new information. (See further example (117) in the next section.) Leonetti’s claim (iii) acknowledges the potential importance of referential clitics in establishing topicality based on left dislocations. A left dislocation creates preposed arguments which must be taken up by a referential clitic, however differential object marking in standard Spanish is mostly restricted to animate objects. On the other hand, cases of differential object marking which mark a referential direct object, or which occur with primary transitive verbs involving a highly agentive subject and patient object, would be topical. However, as Lapesa (1964: 80) pointed out, differential object marking made its first appearance with strong pronouns and marking was constrained to these for some time (cf. this chapter, section three). Optionality with existent indefinites as in (116) points to a candidate for becoming a topical object in the subsequent discourse. This discussion serves as an introduction to the interaction between casemarking and pragmatic marking.

4.8 Correlation of case marking and information structure The similarities and differences between the two internal arguments and the subject as the external argument in terms of agreement are important to establishing the basis for the following exposition of pragmatic marking, and the distinction topic/secondary topic in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. As agree-

Correlation of case marking and information structure

125

ment in terms of dependent and head-marking is an intraclausal phenomenon, I will not be concerned with the distinction into intraclausal and discourse topicality. Topicality and agreement are closely linked, the stronger the agreement, the more topical the argument. For example, subject-verb and clitics-OBJθ show both strong agreement and are as such highly topical. Alsina (1993: 453–454) argues that in any language the distinction between objects is secondary only to the distinction between subject and object. Marked and unmarked objects have different grammatical functions, object agreement correlates with the syntactic role of the object. For Limeño Spanish contact varieties this is the primary object. Table 4.8 shows primary agreement and secondary agreement of subject and the primary object in Standard Spanish. Table 4.8: Similarities subject and object – Standard Spanish Agreement

Secondary agreement

Primary agreement

Subject Direct object Indirect object

(overt subject) clitic doublingcTOP clitic doubling

verbal incorporation casemarkingcSPEC casemarking

Secondary subject agreement in Spanish is optional for pronominal noun phrases; optionality depends on topical conditions. For direct objects secondary agreement is triggered exclusively by topical arguments, and the cut-off for indirect objects is inanimate goal objects. The struggle of both internal object arguments for primary objecthood carries over to secondary topic marking showing the same pattern. The direct object wins in transitive clauses and the indirect object in ditransitive clauses. The strong similarities between both arguments are important for the historical development in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and in dialects with extensive leísmo. Before I turn to show how information structure role influences grammatical marking. I set out descriptions of topic, focus and secondary topic which I apply in discussing Limeño Spanish contact varieties.26 Focus is assumed to be new information, with an overtly expressed referent. Focused objects are nontopical objects and cross-linguistically unmarked. Topic can be marked either head only, dependent only, or both. An important point is that a topic is not new but updated information about an already

26 These descriptions of fundamental terms are based on Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011); Lambrecht (1994); Croft (1991); Givón (1983) and Comrie (2003).

126

From syntax to information structure

established referent, i.e., referentially anchored in the discourse, implying topics must be referential. Primary topic is the natural topic, the agentive subject. Secondary topics in Limeño Spanish contact varieties are – referents that are more marked, – the central point of attention of the primary topic, – never new information, – the targets of several actions performed by the primary topic: they are activities, events or goals pointed to and/or accompanied by body language (gestures for example); the attention shifts between primary and secondary topic with an intent to assure concentration on the object (the secondary topic) that is talked about, worked with, etc. – part of oral based communication and usually do not occur in written language, – direct objects that show plus/minus differential object marking and invariant lo, la, – direct objects that show a very close relationship to the primary topic. In sum, a secondary topic is “an entity such that the utterance is construed to be ABOUT the relationship between it and the primary topic” (Nikolaeva 2001: 26). Topic-worthiness is dependent on the primary topic’s selection tied into double actant marking (Bossong 2003). I now move on to discuss information structure roles in Standard Spanish and in non-standard Limeño Spanish contact varieties.

4.8.1 Topic vs. focus Spanish is a SVO pro-drop language. Its discourse configuration reserves the clause-initial position for topics, and the postverbal position is assigned as the canonical focus position. As shown in (117), the postverbal position is open to both focus and topic. A question to determine the information-structure role for each example is given in (117a) and (117). The difference between focus and topic is shown in (117b) (focus) and (117d) (topic). In a previous analysis Sánchez (2005), based on Kiss (1998), identified marking of the sole object of the transitive clause in the Standard Spanish example in (117b) as informational focus [+definite], and the clitic doubling example (117d), in River Plate, as identificational focus.

Correlation of case marking and information structure

(117)

a.

Who did you see?

Standard Spanish, River Plate, Lima Spanish b. Vi a Ana. see-PAST-1SG DOM Ana ‘I saw Ana.’ c.

127

[+exist] → [+focus]

Did you see Ana?

Standard Spanish d. La vi. CL 3FSG see-PAST-1SG ‘I saw her.’ River Plate, Lima Spanish vi e. Lai CL 3FSG see-PAST-1SG ‘I saw her, Ana.’

[+spec] → [top] a Anai . DOM Ana

Regarding question (117a) I agree with the analysis of the Standard Spanish example in (117b) as focus because the named definite referent exists and it is new information. (117b) is the generally expected answer to the question in (117a) in both standard and liberal clitic doubling Spanish. Question (117c), however, draws out the difference. In the standard Spanish answer, the direct object is referred to by a feature-specifying anaphoric clitic. The liberal clitic doubling answer in (117e) shows secondary agreement with a feature-specifying clitic which establishes a relationship between the subject and the object referent, updating information about a specific existent referent, therefore I analyze it as topic and not focus. Since Lima Spanish clitic doubling also involves agreeing clitics, it is like the River Plate example in (117e). Recall from chapter three that the interesting notion specificity is the intrasentential referential anchoring of a determiner phrase to another discourse object; it overrides animacy in these cases and triggers clitic doubling structures. In the context of these data specificity acts as the pragmatic strategy for the speaker to deliberately topicalize an object either in canonical postverbal focus position or through word order restructuring. This assumption is mainly based on Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) and partially on a hypothesis that only the class of verbs that takes an agent as semantic subject role can a-mark the direct object (Torrego 1999: 1785).27 Topicality is a property subjects and

27 For a detailed discussion about accusative case in Spanish see Torrego (1998).

128

From syntax to information structure

objects have in common. The subject is the primary topic, and as Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 167) note, “[. . .] objects are just as likely to be topics as to be in focus”. As we can appreciate from the grammatical function hierarchy shown in (118), the object located in the middle of the hierarchy can be either topic or focus, depending on whether they are marked or unmarked. In general, focus tends to associate with lower ranking arguments, and topics with arguments high on the hierarchy scale. As clitic doubled examples such as (117e) are highly topical arguments I associate them with topic rather than focus, in accordance with the hierarchy. Highly topical here means deliberately marked by the subject as the primary topic as being topic-worthy (double actant marking) and by showing both head-marking and dependent-marking. In such a construction, the referent is known and the information updates the knowledge about the subject and the object referent. (118)

Subject > Object > Oblique Topic > Focus

I present two more examples that corroborate the claim made in the previous paragraph; the first, from a typologically related language, and the other from an unrelated language. Ibizan Catalan28 codes information structure roles by word order restructuring and differential object marking of specifically topical objects. Consider the following examples in (119), where differential object marking consistently appears on all dislocated topical objects but not on focused objects, which, according to Escandell-Vidal (2007) are never marked. (119)

Ibizan Catalan (Escandell-Vidal 2007: 31) a. Vaig ficar (*an) es ganivets Have-1SG put-INF (*OM ) the knives ‘I put the knives into the drawer.’ b.

es ganivets, els vaig ficar OM the knives them have-1SG put ‘The knives, I put them in the drawer.’

c.

Els vaig ficar an es calaix, them have-1SG put in the drawer ‘I put them into the drawer, the knives.’

An

an in an in an OM

es the es the es the

calaix. drawer calaix. drawer ganivets. knives

28 Escandell-Vidal notes that the dialects of Balearic Catalan are very different from mainstream Catalan most probably due to a small monolingual population, high levels of illiteracy, probably due to remoteness, and lack of contact with Spanish until the nineteenforties. She mentions geographical isolation as an important factor in having maintained archaic features and, at the same time showing ‘peculiar’ innovations.

Correlation of case marking and information structure

129

Further evidence comes from the Hindi/Urdu postposition ko which is strongly dispreferred in focus (wide and narrow), and preferably used “in contexts where the object is salient and the utterance updates the addressee’s knowledge about the relation that holds between the subject and the object referents” (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 162). Mohanan (1994) mentions that primary objects in Hindi are marked by ACC -ko, as shown in (120a), or unmarked in (120b). (120)

Hindi (Mohanan 1994: 87–88) a. Ravii-ne kacce kele-ko kaataa. unripe-NN banana-A cut-PERF Ravi-E ‘Ravi cut the/*an unripe banana.’ b.

Ravii-ne kacce kelaa kaataa. Ravi-E unripe-N banana cut-PERF ‘Ravi cut the/an unripe banana.’

Recall the strong similarities of ko and a in regard to locative genesis, diachronic evolution, dative/accusative case syncretism and topic marking. The evidence from Ibizan Catalan, a closely related dialect of the same language family, as well as evidence from Hindi/Urdu, an unrelated and typologically different language, strengthen the hypothesis that in the Spanish dialects under discussion we see a similar effect of topicalization. 4.8.2 Topic and secondary topic Differential object marking and restricted clitic doubling of direct objects in standard Spanish can only be analyzed in truth-conditional semantic terms, while specificity constraints can be explained in terms of animacy and identifiability of referents. Cooccurrence of head- and dependent-marking in liberal clitic doubling dialects and in Limeño Spanish contact varieties is triggered by topicality and depends on information structure role. As shown in (117e), I associate the information-structure role of topic with liberal clitic doubling dialects (River Plate, Lima Spanish) and secondary topic with Limeño Spanish contact varieties and propose to make a distinction between them due to different stages of grammaticalization. Secondary agreement or head-marking in both stages is essentially the same clitic doubling strategy. However, the semantic loss of the gender and number features of the direct object clitic in Limeño Spanish contact varieties reduces the previously feature-specifying agreement marker to a head-marker marking person only. The notion secondary topic is comparable to the analysis of the Chicheŵa object

130

From syntax to information structure

described by Bresnan and Mchombo (1987: 746) as the topic with the status as being “under discussion, whether previously mentioned or assumed in discourse”. They specifically refer to grammaticized discourse functions and emphasize that they must satisfy the Extended Coherence Condition, which means that these clitics as object markers need to “be linked to the semantic predicate argument structure of the sentence in which they occur, either by functionally or anaphorically binding an argument”. In what follows I show the grammaticalization process based on a prototypical transitive clause in (121) with a non-overt human Agent subject and an inanimate Patient object. (121)

Standard Spanish Frío la cebolla. fry-1SG DET. FSG cebolla.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’

I refer the reader also to Table 4.1 at the beginning of this chapter to place the grammaticalization processes in the corresponding stage of the differential object marking evolution. The constituent structure and corresponding functional structure for (121) is shown in Figure 4.1. There is no primary topic, the subject is incorporated into the verb and the inanimate direct object is unmarked. This is a thetic sentence (Lambrecht 1994), the unmarked direct object is in focus, introducing new information. The phrase structure is annotated for grammatical relations.

Figure 4.1: constituent structure → functional structure

Correlation of case marking and information structure

131

Topic The liberal clitic doubling example in (122) shows the topical object which correlates with stage II in Table 4.1. Recall that liberal clitic doubling in River Plate and Standard Limeño Spanish is triggered by specific and topical object arguments as such. Specificity arises from the semantic features of the noun/ determiner phrase reinforced by secondary agreement with feature-agreeing clitics identifying the marked referent. The statement in (122) could not serve as an answer to the question “What did you fry?” But it could serve as answer to “What are you frying?” (122)

River Plate, Limeño Standard Spanish [–anim][+spec] → [top] frío a la cebollai. Lai CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG cebolla.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’

Identifiability of referents is the basic requirement for topical objects. Agreeing direct object clitics are agreement markers, just as the indirect object clitic is, and both constructions are morphologically identical on constituent structure as well as on functional structure.29 The agreeing clitic unifies with the direct object noun phrase, and displays topicality inside the finite clause building on the “individuation-presuppositionality” traits of the marked direct object Torrego (1999). The fact that clitics can refer to a highly topical oblique in (123b) reveals the close relationship that holds between clitics and topicality and is more evidence against differential object marking and for an analysis of cooccurring referential clitics as topicality markers instead. (123)

Standard Colombian Spanish a. ¿Qué has hecho con esa what have-2SG do-PARTIC with DEM . FSG ‘What have you done with this thing?’ b.

cosa? thing.FSG

¿Qué la hiciste? what CL 3FSG do-PAST-2SG ‘Where did you put it?’

Secondary topic Secondary topic marking in nonstandard contact varieties in (124) and (125) represents the transitional (or potentially fossilized) stage III (a) shown in Table 29 See the corresponding structures in Figure (4.2) below.

132

From syntax to information structure

4.1 in this chapter. These constructions are fully representative of secondary topic marking, with the featureless grammaticalized lo in (124) as a secondary topic marker for the human/inanimate, definite, feminine direct object, and the differential object marker a grammaticalized to object marker marking the primary object in a monotransitive clause. (124)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) vi a las chicasj . a. Loi CL 3SG see-PAST-1SG OM DET. FPL girl.FPL ‘I saw the girls.’ b.

Lo frío a CL 3SG fry-1SG OM ‘I fry the onion.’

la DET. FSG

cebollaj . onio.FSG

In (124a) all discourse participants know who the object referents are and only receive updated information about the secondary topic by the primary topic. Double object agreement in (124b) as in head and dependent marking extended to an inanimate argument exemplifies the close relationship of the primary topic in deliberately marking the secondary topic which is the primary object. This confirms the close link between more marked objects showing more core grammatical functions, as demonstrated in the default alignment between information structure and functional structure in Table 4.7. The same secondary topic strategy can also apply to human (125a) and inanimate (125b) objects with invariant la. However, this strategy is restricted to highly affected objects, repeating or updating existing information about them. This could still be a borderline case of laísmo, as in these cases, the gender bearing clitic is selected due to its existence in the feature pool of the primary topic and due to it being more salient than invariant lo for several reasons. Note the lack of (differential) object marking in (125b). (125)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) lai cortaban a. Cuando ellai, PRO 3FSG CL 3FSG cut-PAST-3PL when

a (D )OM

la DET. FSG

barriga para sacarlai al stomach to take-out-INF- CL 3FSG DOM - DET. MSG ‘When they cut her belly open to take out the baby.’ b.

Entonces la lavo bien CL 3FSG wash-1SG well then ‘Then I wash the little stalk well.’

Ø Ø

la DET. FSG

bebe. baby

varita. stalk.FSG

Correlation of case marking and information structure

133

Grammaticality judgments based on prescriptive standard grammars judge examples (124) and (125) from non-standardized dialects as sharply ungrammatical, however they seem to be pragmatically acceptable. Independent justification for these pragmatic structures comes from research in Andean Spanish (Cerrón Palomino 1992, 1994, 1995, 2003) and Quechua (Weber 1989, 1993) in which secondary topic marking can be linked to contact with Quechua, where the topic marker -qa is used as a pointing device to shift speakers and events as shown by Weber (1989). Personal communications with the Linguists from the Catholic University in Lima and from my control groups of educated Limeño speakers interpret the strange marking as an apparently necessary way to ensure the information exchange works. They all understand, as an important reason for this, the oral basis and the accompanying gestures. They also mentioned that they felt that the speaker seemed to have a special relationship with the person, thing, event or activity (s)he talked about. I am not aware of written evidence of non-standardized clitic doubling, but road and nature park signs in the Peruvian Andes offer written evidence of liberal clitic doubling with agreeing clitics. The non-standard examples in (124) can be related to topicalization strategies whereby a preverbal non-agreeing non-referential clitic introduces the subsequent new information in the post-verbal object determiner phrase as the secondary topic. Such pragmatic marking strategies are typical of head-marking Amerindian languages in contact with Limeño Spanish contact varieties.30 The topic marker in the Limeño Spanish contact varieties data points to a highly salient object undergoing an immediate action performed by the highly topical and agentive speaker-subject (primary topic) and to be witnessed by the addressee. The a-marked inanimate object in (124b) exemplifies nicely the typological restructuring through the combination of the topic marker “naming the topic referent in the discourse” and the new accusative a, or extended dative [DAT+] in Alsina’s terms, expressing “a semantic relationship between a topic referent and a predicate” (Lambrecht 1994: 335). This is another example of the use of differential object marking to mark not only a specific object but also the agentive subject at the same time (Bossong 2003; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). Using the system of Dowty (1991) and Alsina (1996b: 41), the events in (124) are construed as a planned event with a volitional causer (subject) ProtoAgent and a prototypical Proto-Patient undergoing some change of state.31 30 Further Quechua uses evidentiality markers to witness an activity. 31 Dowty (1991) assumes an event-dependent definition for thematic roles and not discoursedependent. In his system, non-discrete role types are based on prototypes, such as Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient, each carrying a list of verbal entailments. Alternation is predicted if the number of entailments for both become similar.

134

From syntax to information structure

The constituent structure and corresponding functional structure for (124b) is shown in Figure 4.2. There would be no structural difference for the animate example in (124a). It is to be noted though that the lexical entry for lo is not maked for gender here and does not contribute to the object structure. It is however compatible with it.

Figure 4.2: constituent structure → functional structure

Throughout this chapter, I have shown that the grammaticalization processes affecting the direct object clitic paradigm have led to a change from co-reference to grammatical agreement. Non-standard dialects, including Limeño Spanish contact varieties, do not show a single coherent object marking strategy but, rather, an eclectic mix of several possibilities. Recall Table 4.3 in which the last two lines refer to fronted and right dislocated direct objects, which Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 109) analyze as syntactic topicalization, seen as “an additional clue to its topical status” as in the case of Persian râ-marked floating topics. In the following, I present an example from Limeño Spanish contact varieties. The non a-marked inanimate definite and specific noun phrase in (126a) is a case of topicalized left dislocation. The same constellation appears right dislocated in (126b). In both cases the speaker ensures that the addressee follows closely what she is doing, involving her in the process. The invariant clitic lo functions here as secondary topic marker. This links secondary object marking more strongly to clitics and focus to dependent-marked objects without headmarking clitics.

Correlation of case marking and information structure

(126)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. La clara lo separo, DET. FSG egg white.FSG CL 3SG separate-1SG claras egg white.FPL

lo

pongo pass-1SG

CL 3SG

a DOM

sí yes

135

las DET. FPL

usted. you-FORMAL

‘The eggwhites, I’ll separate them, yes, I’ll separate them and pass them on to you.’ b.

Lo CL 3SG

saco take.out-1SG

pongo put-1SG

el DET. MSG

el DET. MSG

pollo chicken.MSG

y and

lo CL 3SG

arroz. rice.MSG

‘I take out the chicken and put the rice (on the stove).’ The relationship between grammatical marking and information structural interpretation allows for a plausible explanation of the variability and grammaticalization processes found in the Limeño Spanish contact dialect data, specifically with invariant lo. The specific laísmo strategy in direct object clitic doubling constructions, as in examples (125) and (127), still exhibits remnants of semantic marking in accordance with the semantic features feminine, specific and highly affected (cf. Table 4.3). The difference from affectedness in the sense of Naess (2004) here is the inclusion of the speaker’s intent to refer to a salient object. The sentence is about the relationship between the primary topic (mi hija) in the first part of the sentence, which also is the secondary topic [la mando a mi hija sola] in the second part, and the pronominal primary topic yo in the second part. It is important to note that the pronominal topic is also the implicit subject in the first part. Relativisation can be part of secondary topic marking, as Dalrymple and Nikolaevea (2011: 194) note “The topicality of a referent depends on how the speaker construes the situation within the given communicative context; features of topic-worthiness determine only the likelihood for the object to be construed as topical.” (127)

Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) Pero lo importante es que se CL 3NSG important is-3SG that REFL .3SG but quede stay-SBJV-3SG [la CL 3FSG

(mi my

mando send-1SG

hija), daughter a DOM

mi my

yo PRO 1SG

no not

hija daughter-FSG

sola]. alone.FSG

‘But the important issue is that my daughter stays with me, I do not send my daughter off alone.’

136

From syntax to information structure

The correlation of grammatical marking and object function in Spanish in Table 4.9 is very similar to the distribution Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) present for Ostyak and Chatino. Whereas the grammatically marked object allows for a variety of thematic roles, the unmarked thematic object (OBJθ) is mainly restricted to Themes and Patients. Table 4.9: Marked and unmarked objects in Spanish

Casemarking/secondary agreement Information structure role Primary object properties Thematic roles

OBJ

OBJθ

yes topic yes all except GOAL [–anim]

no nontopic no theme/patient

In Limeño Spanish contact varieties, and even more so in dialects with extensive leísmo, the thematic restrictions overlap in inanimate Theme/Goal and animate Patient/Recipient, as will be discussed in chapter six. This leads to an extension of the dative, as advocated by Alsina (1996b). This suggests that mapping of non-subject arguments may also be governed by thematic roles, which makes it very difficult to tease out the relationship between information-structure roles and grammatical marking. Before turning to a formal generalisation of topic and secondary topic, I would like to present some more evidence for the slight distinction between the two, based on pronoun/topic-drop.

4.9 Anaphora and topic/object drop Apart from secondary agreement, pro-drop is the second property both topics, subject and object, have in common. There seems to be consensus that anaphoric direct objects can be dropped under two conditions: (1) the referent must be recoverable from the immediate discourse context, and (2) it has to be topical to be encoded pronominally. Recently evoked highly salient information can be identified even with missing arguments; less important information generally requires a short phrase to ensure identifiability. The difference between topic marking in anaphoric agreement and secondary topic marking in grammatical agreement is particularly evident in relation to object drop, however this is to be taken only as partial evidence for secondary topic marking. Languages vary in relation to the conditions licensing object drop, yet discourse topics seem to be generally the prime candidates.

Anaphora and topic/object drop

137

Spanish is a pro-drop language and pro-drop applies not only to subjects but also to objects in the form of null arguments. Consider examples (128b) and (128c), where object drop obtains for the topical object. (128)

All dialects (Standard Spanish) a. ¿Ya se lo preguntaste? already SE CL 3MSG ask-PAST-2SG ‘Have you asked her/him/them about it?’ Colloquial Quiteño, Ecuador b. ¿Ya lo preguntaste? already CL 3SG ask- PAST-2SG ‘Have you already asked about it?’ c.

Limeño Spanish contact varieties, Andean Spanish ¿Ya Ø preguntaste (por ello)? already Ø ask-PAST-2SG PREP DEM . NSG ‘Have you already asked about it?’

In variation Spanish object drop only obtains with definite objects that are anaphorically recoverable, such as spurious se in the clitic cluster in (128a). The direct object clitic lo in (128a) and (128b) is anaphoric agreement. Lo as a propositional anaphor is one of the few remnant occurrences of the direct object clitic in colloquial Quiteño (Suñer and Yepéz 1988). Both are topical, but I suggest that the first to drop, spurious se which refers to the indirect object, can be correlated to the information structural role of topic, and the second to drop, the direct object clitic lo, to secondary topic. This is because the information conveyed by the direct object is much more important to the subject than the information about the indirect object referent. Again, we have two linguistic trigger factors32, contact with Quechua dialects (or in the case of Paraguay with Guaraní (Choi 2000)), added to an inherently variant and unstable clitic paradigm since early Latin, where null objects were topical. The same pattern can be observed in Brazilian contact Portuguese (Schwenter 2006; Vasconcellos Lopes and Cyrino 2005) and in Basque (Landa 1995). Another important factor is the occurrence of the phenomenon across all social classes and in bilingual as well as monolingual speakers. Contact varieties vary only in showing higher numbers of object drop, especially in the intermediate stages. In light of these facts and the development in Limeño 32 Extralinguistic factors such as bilingualism and educational opportunities play an important role as well. However, here I concentrate on the linguistic factors only.

138

From syntax to information structure

Spanish contact varieties, Vincent’s (2001) claim that the loss of agreeing clitics in Quiteño and the subsequent merging of the direct object clitic and the indirect object clitic leading to extensive leísmo may have given rise to null direct objects does seem quite plausible.

4.9.1 Morphological blocking If we assume that grammatical marking of objects not only depends on thematic role but also, and certainly more so in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and other contact varieties, on their information structure role, optionality of clitic doubling with agreeing clitics as in liberal clitic doubling dialects and with non-agreeing clitics, as in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, is no longer an issue. As already discussed at length in chapter three, section four, in LexicalFunctional Grammar, the non-agreeing secondary topic marker resists a unifying analysis with the integrated function in the clause due to the loss of semantic coreference violating the principle of functional uniqueness. More principles, such as completeness and coherence, would be violated unless we assume the two existential requirements in (129) and (130). Firstly, we assume the functional uncertainty equation in (129) which allows identification of the secondary topic marker and the object. Also, to ensure that the principles of completeness and coherence are upheld, we introduce an extended coherence condition that allows for “looser constraints of discourse coherence” (Bresnan 2001c: 72) for external or dislocated topic and focus functions. (129)

lo/la

CL (TOP2↑)

Secondly, in (130) we can link Kayne’s Generalization to secondary topic and primary object marking in contact Spanish. It stipulates that clitic doubling is only possible when the doubled noun/determiner phrase argument has its own case assigner (a preposition for example). (130)

a:

P, (TOP↑)

The verb phrase-structure rules (VP) in (131) account for Limeño Spanish contact varieties and Standard Spanish clitic doubling direct object constructions. Selection between topic and secondary topic here is covered by Morphological Blocking (Andrews 1990) in choosing the most compatible and specific candidate.

Summary

(131)

VP

→

V̅

→

V̅ ↑=↓

139

DP (↑OBJ) = ↓

CL (↑TOP | TOP2) = ↓ (↑OBJ) = ↓

V ↑=↓

Non-agreeing clitics have been analyzed as marking the secondary topic in Limeño Spanish contact varieties showing core grammatical functions correlating with the unrestricted object. Unmarked objects are correlated with the semantically restricted object or oblique, which are confined to the focus position. This distribution fits the cross-linguistically tested default alignment described by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011: 166), shown in Table 4.7.

4.10 Summary In this chapter I have proposed a three-stage model to show how the complex interactions of semantic and pragmatic strategies alongside the parallel evolution of differential object marking and concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting clitics lead to linguistic change in Spanish object marking. I also linked extended differential object marking and liberal clitic doubling by non-agreeing clitics in Limeño Spanish contact varieties to information-structural marking, adopting a theory of differential object marking that includes additional factors, like information structure and diachronic evolution. In doing so, it is possible to prove that the variability and innovations in Limeño Spanish contact varieties are after all not a general breakdown of order, or one affecting unstressed little words, but a phenomenon affecting specific kinds of clitic-related grammatical structures under certain identifiable circumstances. In a typology of differential object marking languages, Spanish in general, and Limeño Spanish contact varieties expressly, pattern with type three languages, and within that group under subtype (a) (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 215). In these languages, differential object marking is regulated by a mix of referential semantic requirements and information structure role, allowing for “apparent” optionality. In linking grammatical marking to secondary topic marking I have identified a new motivation of variable clitic systems in object marking in contact Spanish, which to my knowledge has not been identified before. The lack of attention to this solution has probably arisen for two reasons. Firstly, strict pronominal constraints disallow direct object clitic doubling in Standard Spanish and hence the issue did not even arise. Secondly, in dialects that allow liberal direct object

140

From syntax to information structure

clitic doubling, the agreeing clitic is still a true clitic when analyzed as topical and some semantic restrictions apply. The stage of liberal direct object clitic doubling shows concurrent semantic and pragmatic marking. Almost purely pragmatic marking strategies are applied in Limeño Spanish contact varieties (and other contact dialects) that show secondary topic as the exponent of grammaticized clitics, which for these dialects are invariant lo and a specific kind of laísmo. These dialects show practically no semantic restrictions and direct object clitic doubling obtains with non-agreeing clitics as head-markers which start to appear in non-standardized dialects at the crossroads of incomplete second language acquisition and bilingualism (Montrul 2006). Noteworthy is that clitics as head-markers in clitic doubling display a much more radical historical change than anaphoric clitics. The grammaticalization path suggested by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva involves a gradual change of differential object marking from originally marking of information-structure role to incorporate partially (or even completely in some languages) the referential features of the object. As specific elements are naturally topical, grammatical marking extended to other non-topical elements will mark them as specific and therefore topical. This is a plausible scenario for the spread of differential object marking from stage I to stage II, where liberal clitic doubling dialects include marking of specific indefinites. The extension of head-marking by clitic doubling to inanimate, specific, definite direct object arguments in liberal clitic doubling dialects can be considered as a marking process that singles out non-topical objects worthy of incorporating into the communicative context as topic. In Spanish, these motivations and morphosyntactic structures already exist in indirect object arguments. The extension of the direct object can be related to Harris and Campbell (1995) where “observed extensions generalize to a natural class based on categories already relevant to the sphere in which the rule applied before it was extended.”

Chapter 5

Variation and continuity in time and space In this chapter I aim to place the variability and innovations found in Limeño Spanish contact varieties into the wider context of Spanish dialects and to compare these to other relevant cross-linguistic data. The focus is on invariant lo, leísmo/laísmo doubling, floating agreement and object drop in Limeño Spanish contact varieties compared to data from Peninsular Spanish and a range of Latin American dialects and bilingual varieties such as Basque Spanish. I also include a comparison between clitic production in bilingual Paraguayan Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. Based on these examples I show that the extensive intraand interspeaker variation is not restricted to a specific geographic region in Latin America, but can also be found to some extent in Peninsular Spanish, motivated by similar factors as in Limeño Spanish contact dialects. Specifically, the Spanish leísmo strategy finds its counterpart in Peninsular Spanish, in leísmo by adstratum, that is, in contact with languages that do not have gender distinction such as Basque in this particular case. These facts provide strong motivation for the reanalysis hypothesis and link the variability to more general typological concerns. I argue that individual variation reflects dialect variation, and that both represent samples of possible grammars within the same typological space (Bresnan, Deo and Sharma 2007: 302). Dependent on environmental factors, inherent variability may be constrained by categorical (prescriptive) grammar or lead through variable grammars to language change. An example for completed change would be the single dative case system due to extensive leísmo in Ecuador and Paraguay (Palacios 2000; Vincent 2001).

5.1 Agreement in time and space Agreement is multidimensional and, like any interface phenomenon, prone to changes. For Spanish object-verb agreement, I adopt the terms anaphoric and grammatical agreement from Bresnan and Mchombo’s (1987) analysis of verbal agreement in Chicheŵa because this theory of grammatical functions captures the integration of the changing properties of argument functions in terms of the core argument functions subject and object and the discourse functions topic and focus. Anaphoric agreement is part of discourse structure; it is pronoun antecedent agreement with referentially anchored indices. Grammatical agreement is object marking, verbal agreement in terms of clitic doubling which involves either an indirect or a direct object clitic, clitics as head-markers and a casemarker a as dependent marking. For standard varieties of Spanish this can DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-005

142

Variation and continuity in time and space

be defined in terms of feature agreement in grammatical relations, object or sentence anaphora, and clitic doubling. Non-standard dialects, however, show erosion and simplification of the clitic paradigm and agreement mismatches can be correlated with information structure. Marked objects in Limeño Spanish contact varieties are pragmatically marked, i.e., based on topic worthiness (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011) and double actant marking (Bossong 2003). Grammatical agreement is object marking by the differential object marker a and can be linked to secondary topic marking with the invariant clitic lo, and, also to some extent with the gender-specific la under Spanish laísmo. Anaphoric agreement displays a scalar system of covariation of le/lo followed by occasional la with complete loss of the latter in most varieties spoken by bilingual speakers.

5.1.1 Peninsular Spanish leísmo, loísmo, laísmo As shown in chapter one, Peninsular Spanish exhibits far greater variability than Latin American Spanish, which shows effects of early dialect levelling. Nevertheless, the variability we find in the clitic system in Limeño Spanish contact varieties must be judged against the already existing variability in Peninsular Spanish. Fernández Ordóñez (2007, 2009, 2012) undertook a large-scale sociolinguistic study of recorded rural speech, known as COSER (Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural)1. The study identified zones of transition where both systems, the etymological and leísmo, compete with the isoglosses meeting in Madrid. The following summarizes the picture of the Peninsular Spanish variability which emerged: 1. The phenomenon of leísmo, depending on specific regions, must be separated from leísmo, laísmo and loísmo as a referential system. 2. Another independent phenomenon, leísmo by adstratum, that is, in contact with languages that do not have gender distinction, must also be treated separately. 3. The written and spoken pronominal use of each region should be analyzed from a double perspective: the actual use compared with the educated “standard” use. Important findings were that the difficulty of the diffusion and maintenance of the etymological system as the imposed grammatical norm, not only stems from

1 Oral corpus of rural Spanish – available online at www.uam/es.coser.

Agreement in time and space

143

acquisition of a lexical or phonological form, but seems to lie in a profound restructuring of the pronominal reference through grammaticalization processes. The analysis of the Peninsular Spanish variability and most importantly rural variation data from the COSER corpus present crucial supporting evidence for the arguments for historical change we are seeing in the innovation data from Limeño Spanish contact varieties.

5.1.2 Limeño Spanish contact varieties Limeño Spanish contact varieties show a hybrid clitic system with anaphoric clitics used in a scalar system, and the reduced pronominal form lo grammaticized to a secondary topic marker in grammatical agreement and topic marker in anaphoric agreement. To put the innovations in context, it is essential to emphasise that they are not restricted to Limeño Spanish contact varieties but have been extensively documented for many Spanish dialect areas.2 As noted above, very similar if not the same variability occurs in Peninsular Spanish, specifically in rural speech in areas where Spanish is in contact with Basque (Fernández Ordóñez 2007, 2009, 2012). For Latin American Spanish, it has been described for Paraguayan Spanish, and extending to north-eastern Argentina (de Granda 1988; Palacios 2000), for Mexican contact varieties (Company 2003) and elsewhere in Latin American Spanish, as presented in this book. Cerrón Palomino (1992) traced the phenomenon back to seventeenth century texts written by bilingual Amerindians. The variability in grammatical argument marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties – produced by a scalar system of head-marking grammaticalized clitics and dependent-marking by extended differential object marking, as in the examples (132) and (133) – has been identified through fieldwork.3 The apparent random variation is based on diachronic processes and variability embedded in the extra linguistic factors, as described in chapter one. The discourse example in (132), labelled with the innovations for each utterance, shows the combination of variable structures occurring in a short discourse within one context; no sentences have been added or omitted. The main topic is la yuca, a singular, feminine, inanimate object in anaphoric and grammatical agreement.

2 See chapter one for references and sociolinguistc settings. 3 The topics of the data (a lot of cooking involved) reflect some of the conversational strategies and actions used to elicit the relevant transitivity and double actant marking.

144

Variation and continuity in time and space

(132) Gender-specific la in anaphora a. ¿Usted la pela? you.FORMAL CL 3FSG peel-3SG ‘Do you peel it?’ Object drop and extension of DOM to inanimates b. A la yuca sí Ø pelo. DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG yes Ø peel-1SG ‘The cassava, yes I peel (it).’ Extension of DOM to inanimates, no DOM in the second part c. Lavo a la yuca, pelo la yuca wash-1SG DOM DET. FSG cassava peel-1SG DET. FSG cassava ‘I wash the cassava, I peel the cassava,’ Invariant lo in anaphoric agreement d. lo lavo, lo hago en trozos y lo sancocho. CL 3 wash-1SG CL 3 cut-1SG PREP pieces and CL 3 stew-1SG ‘I wash it, cut it into pieces and stew it.’ Latin American type leísmo and extensión of DOM e. Sí, hay que pelarle a la yuca. yes must that peel-INF.CL 3SG DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG ‘Yes, one must peel the cassava.’ Invariant lo clitic doubling of inanimate feminine object with DOM f. ¿Lo sancocho a la yuca? CL 3 stew-1SG DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG ‘Do I stew the cassava?’ The short discourse in (132) shows co-occurrence of feature-agreeing and nonagreeing clitics creating a complex picture. I will now proceed to discuss the special characteristics exemplified in (132) starting with invariant lo in anaphoric and grammatical agreement, followed by leísmo/laísmo doubling, floating agreement and finally object drop within the wider Spanish dialectal and bilingual cross-linguistic picture. 5.1.3 Invariant lo In Limeño Spanish contact varieties, convergence of two direct object clitic doubling strategies, both involving the singular, masculine direct object clitic lo, adds more complexity to the already quite confusing picture. In the causative

Agreement in time and space

145

example in (133a) we find coexistence of liberal direct object clitic doubling with referential clitics, as in standard Lima Spanish and River Plate, for example where we would also find la referring to a feminine object. Invariant lo doubling on the other hand, is not constrained by animacy and can occur with differential object marking or without it, as in (133b). (133) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) obligó así a su hijoi . . . a. Y loi and CL 3MSG make-PAST-3SG so DOM POSS son.MSG ‘And thus (s)he forced her/his son to. . .’ b. Lo he licuado un poquito de agua. CL 3 have-1SG mixed-PARTIC INDEF. MSG little of agua ‘I blended a little water.’ Coexistence and convergence of these grammaticalized object marking strategies in Limeño Spanish contact varieties lead to a complex picture, which standard speakers perceive as ungrammatical, because the visibility of any pattern or strategy is at first obstructed. However, the co-occurring strategies can be teased apart by linking grammaticalization processes to information structure roles. In sentences, as in (133a), clitics are still agreement markers replicating the semantic features person, gender and number of the referential, topical, human, determiner phrase object. Therefore, the gloss still contains the M(asculine) gender and number features. In (133b), and, also in (134) below, the masculine third person clitic has lost its former agreement function and shows, like first and second person clitics, only person. Consequently, the gloss shows no gender, but morphological category and person. Invariant lo in doubling with or without differential object marking carries the information structural role of secondary topic marker and can be analyzed as an extension of the neuter. The difference between the feature-specifying clitic as an agreement marker as in (133a) and invariant lo in (133b) and (134) below is the extension of clitic doubling to definite inanimate objects. In Limeño Spanish contact varieties direct object clitic doubling obtains with invariant lo both with and without extended differential object marking for inanimate objects with and without differential object marking (134). Invariant lo occurs without the differential object marker a (134a), accidentally appearing to agree with the features of the referential inanimate object (134b), and as proper secondary topic marker with a-marking in (134c). The prototypical transitive clauses show the strong relationship between the agentive subject and inanimate patient object, marking their information structure role as primary topic and

146

Variation and continuity in time and space

secondary topic, respectively, applying double actant marking (Bossong 2003). This also shows invariant lo as a transitiviser. (134) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Y lo mezclé toda la cebolla. and CL 3 mix-PAST-1SG all.FSG DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘And I mixed all the onion.’ b. Y lo puse el ají rojo. and CL 3 add-PAST-1SG DET. MSG chili.MSG red.MSG ‘And I added the red chili.’ c. Lo sancocho a la yuca. CL 3 boil-1SG DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG ‘I boil the cassava.’ Invariant lo or la does not convey number. The loss of feature agreement triggered a lack of individuation of the referential object which in turn paved the way for such forms to become object markers. The indirect object marker le exhibits a parallel situation due to increasing loss of number already manifest in written language. Reanalysis processes affect clitic forms differentially. Clitics in grammatical agreement are more affected and show more advanced stages of change than clitics in anaphoric agreement. This distinction is illustrated in examples (135) to (137) below, in the short discourse within a single context. In Limeño Spanish contact varieties the gender agreeing direct object clitic la in (135a) has been replaced by a grammaticalized clitic with the information structure role as secondary topic. The strong pronoun in (135b) is not affected by any change – it always displays overt gender and number. (135) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Lo / *la vi a las chicasi. CL 3 / *CL 3FPL see-PAST-1SG DOM DET. FPL girls.FPL ‘I saw the girls.’ b. Allí estaban ellasi. there are-PAST-3PL PRO 3FPL ‘There they were.’ The non-agreeing anaphoric direct object clitic los in (136) covaries with the agreeing clitic las in a typical case of synchronic variation of the gender feature, but number is still present.

Agreement in time and space

147

(136) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) / lasi ignoraban. Los chicos losj DET. MSG boy.MPL CL 3MPL / CL 3FPL ignore-PAST-3PL ‘The boys ignored them.’ The expectation from example (135a), that in utterances with lo as a secondary topic marker number must also be lost, is borne out in (137). In accordance with Bresnan (2001a: 134)4 invariant lo, when analyzed as secondary topic, has only a single, “marked” value where topic is a privative feature. Greenberg (1966: 61) also noted that featurally unmarked forms ‘can act as a surrogate for the entire category’. (137) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) Y en la mañana no lo vi a ellas. and in the morning not CL 3 see-PAST-1SG DOM PRO 3FPL ‘And in the morning, I did not see them.’ These short discourse examples show that despite feature reduction, anaphoric recoverability seems to obtain for communicative purposes, which is the crucial point particularly in spoken language. In Lexical-Functional Grammar terms, failure of co-indexing produces ungrammatical results by failing the test for completeness and coherence. One last point must be made before moving on to the wider dialectal and cross-linguistic picture, concerning gender preservation. Dislocated structures seem to preferentially attract feature agreement, as demonstrated in (138). In this impersonal passive utterance, the left dislocated pronominal indirect object is not a-marked but taken up by a resumptive direct object clitic in the main clause. The sole inanimate goal object a la barriga of the transitive verb is a-marked, promoting it to secondary topic. Note the gender agreement in the anaphoric clitic.5 The external topic function (the primary topic here) is anaphorically linked to an integrated function in the clause; the extended coherence condition is met. In this specific case, the pronominal dislocated topic ella shares not only the functional-structure with the internal function, the direct object clitic la, but also the referential index of the discourse function; hence functional uniqueness is observed (Bresnan 2001b: 63). 4 As described in section 4.2 for the grammaticalization path of clitics. 5 There is synchronic variation of agreeing and non-agreeing clitics in anaphora but notable agreement in highly affected themes in continuing topics.

148

Variation and continuity in time and space

(138) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) lai cortaban a la barriga Cuando Ø ellai , DOM PRO 3FPL CL 3FSG cut-PAST-3PL DOM DET. FSG stomach when para sacarlai al bebe. for take.out-3SG .CL 3FSG DOM . DETMSG baby ‘When they cut her belly open to take out the baby.’ In (138) the feature agreeing anaphoric pronoun la continues the relevance of the primary topic within the text. Zubizarreta (1998) gives a minimalist account which analyzes constructions such as those in (138) as hanging topics which are not linked to any element in the main clause and are base-generated at the left periphery. Hanging topics are different from preposed constructions as they shift the attention to a new topic taken up by a resumptive pronoun (clitic) in the matrix clause. All Limeño Spanish contact varieties examples examined so far are representative of invariant lo which can be defined as an extension of the neuter.6 Moving now to examples from other dialects, the first (139) is from rural speech in specific areas within Peninsular Spanish. It shows the unmarked form lo as anaphor to a preposed feminine inanimate direct object. Fernández Ordóñez’s analysis calls unmarked lo “el neutro de materia” (the thing/the mass neuter) with appearance of the unmarked form restricted to adjectives and pronominals; demonstratives and determiners retain the agreement features.7 (139) Turiso, Alava (Fernández Ordóñez 2007: 22) Esa semilla había que machacarlo y limpiarlo. DEM . FSG seed have-3SG to pound-INF.CL 3 and clean-INF.CL 3 ‘That seed had to be pounded and cleaned.’ There is no difference between the variability found in COSER and Limeño Spanish contact varieties, (139) could be part of either of them.

6 Also called lo redundante, ambiguo (Godenzzi 1986), or falsa pronominalización or el otro lo (the other lo) (Cerrón Palomino (1992, 2003); Granda (2001)), lo aspectual (Merma Molina 2004: 197), or archmorpheme lo (Klee and Caravedo 2005), and for Peninsular Spanish el neutro de materia (the thing/the mass neuter) (Fernández Ordóñez 2007). 7 As mentioned by Fernández Ordóñez (2007: 1), this term goes back to a study of El habla de Cabranes (The language of Cabranes) from 1944, in which the author, María Josefa Canellada found feature discordance in adjectives accompanying non-count nouns like bread, wine, and wool. These should show feature agreeing determiners and demonstratives but non-agreeing adjectives and pronominals.

Agreement in time and space

149

We return now to Peru and to Andean Spanish which has its roots in colonial Spanish and contact with Amerindian languages. Based on a text from the sixteenth century, written by a bilingual Indian sculptor known as Francisco Tito Yupanqui, Cerrón Palomino (2003: 155) distinguishes between three morphosyntactic characteristics in early Peruvian Andean Spanish. The threefold distinction is (i) lack of gender agreement in (140a) (this also extends to number), (ii) invariant lo for dative and accusative in (140b), and (iii) false pronominalization (locative doubling) in (140c). (140) Andean Spanish (Cerrón Palomino 2003: 168–170) a. El Santa Vergen. DET. MSG holy virgin.FSG ‘The Holy Virgin.’ b. No lo faltava sino ponerlo con oro. not CL 3 miss-PAST-3SG but put-INF.CL 3 with gold.MSG ‘He only needed to cover it with gold.’ c. Lo llegaron a este pueblo. CL 3N arrive-PAST-3PL LOC DEM . MSG village.MSG ‘They arrived at this village.’ Cerrón Palomino (2003: 157) restricts the use of the term false pronominalization (140c) to constructions with intransitive verbs, such as the copular verbs ser/estar, comparatives like parecer, verbs of movement venir, salir, ir, entrar, llegar, etc., and reír. A more recent example from Andean Spanish (141) shows a feminine, inanimate direct object clitic doubled by invariant lo. (141) Andean Spanish, Peru (Luján 1987: 115) Se lo llevó una caja. SE CL 3 take-PAST-3SG INDEF. FSG box.FSG ‘S/he took a box.’ Invariant lo constructions, disregarding feature agreement, are not restricted to Peninsular Spanish and Peruvian varieties but can be found in other varieties across Latin American Spanish, as shown in the next examples (142) to (144).8

8 Examples (132a), (133) and (134) are from Lipski (1994); the primary references are cited for reasons of completeness.

150

Variation and continuity in time and space

In (142) the featureless form lo doubles a feminine, human a-marked object in (142a) and a feminine inanimate in (142b). Note the difference in object marking: the inanimate does not show extended differential object marking but an overt pronominal subject, which shows the strong relationship between the subject as the primary topic and the object as the secondary topic (double actant marking as in Bossong 2003). (142) Argentina (Rojas 1980: 83) a. Lo quiere mucho a su hijita. CL 3 love-3SG much DOM POSS daughter.DIMIN . FSG ‘S/he loves her/his daughter very much.’ Bolivia (Stratford 1989: 119) b. Tú lo tienes la dirección. you CL 3 have-2SG DET. FSG address.FSG ‘You have the address.’ Example (143) is representative of inanimate direct object clitic doubling with invariant lo and without differential object marking. (143) Mexico (Francis Soriano 1960: 94) Lo arreglé la casita. CL 3 clean-PAST-1SG DET. FSG house.DIMIN . FSG ‘I cleaned the little house.’ The geographical extension of invariant lo doubling in the examples from Argentina, Bolivia and Mexico corroborates my claim that this is part of a wider phenomenon indicative of a language change in progress. Finally, the examples in (144) are false pronominalizations (Cerrón Palomino 2003). Here, invariant lo could be analyzed as an expletive. In Alsina (1996b: 72) expletives are defined as “grammatical functions licensed by semantically empty categories”. The expletive lo needs to “agree” with a co-occurring clausal complement, as required by its lexical entries. As both conditions seem to be fulfilled, lo in these examples could be considered an expletive.9

9 This can be compared to Spanish weak definite articles as noted in Ticio (2005: 275) citing Torrego (1987) and referring to its atypical uses.

Agreement in time and space

151

(144) Nicaragua (Ykaza Tigerino 1980: 6) a. Lo hay una mata de lirios. CL 3 is-IMPERS INDEF. FSG plant.FSG of lilies ‘There is a lily (plant).’ Mexico (Suárez 1979: 180) b. No te lo invito a sentarte not CL 2SG CL 3 invite-1SG PREP sit-INF.CL 2SG porque es tarde. because is-3SG late ‘I don’t invite you to sit down because it is already late.’ Clitic clusters with a redundant lo as in (145) have a perfective aspectual value and can be calques from the regressive Quechua suffix -pu, or from the benefactive Aymara suffix -rapi (Calvo Pérez 2008: 198). (145) Honduras (Lipski 1994: 272) Se lo fue de viaje. SE CL 3 leave-PAST-3SG PREP travel ‘(S)he went on a trip.’ Invariant lo referring to a sentential complement in (146a) has been reported for northern and central Latin American regions such as Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Mexico (Zagona 2002: 69; Camacho 1999). It looks like an abbreviated form of the full standard version in (146b) with anaphoric lo que. (146) Nicaragua (Lipski 1994: 292) a. Lo temo que se muera. CL 3 fear-1SG that REFL .3SG die-SUBJUNC .3SG ‘I’m afraid that (s)he will die.’ Standard Spanish b. Lo que temo es que se muera. CL 3NSG that fear-1SG is-3SG that REFL .3SG die-SBJV-3SG ‘What I fear is that (s)he may die.’ Lo in cataphoric reference as in this example, and in anaphoric reference to sentential complements or full propositions, retains the definiteness feature but has lost all other referential features.10 Feature loss here is generally considered 10 See the discussion in section 2.4.2 on determiner cliticization and the difference in projectivity of direct object clitics as determiners.

152

Variation and continuity in time and space

a case of paradigm simplification or desemanticization. Stripped of the constraints number and gender, the resulting unmarked form becomes versatile and mobile. In Spanish, the neuter form lo is the best candidate as it subsumes masculine, neuter and feminine gender, as in coordination for example, thus becoming the unmarked form that can “act as a surrogate for the entire category” Greenberg (1966: 61) and Bresnan (2001a). The unmarked form lo is used as sole direct object clitic across gender boundaries and frequently also in pseudo-reflexive (anticausative) constructions and as ethical dative, as has also been found by Lorenzino (2003: 57). The list of examples cited is not exhaustive but shows that invariant lo is not restricted to a specific geographic region or dependent on extra-linguistic factors alone. Also, as Cerrón Palomino (2003: 150) points out, that apart from random variation which does exist as well, these variations are by no means random but seem to be systematically motivated. Under closer scrutiny the apparently random variation takes shape in the form of distinct grammatical relations and functions, as will be shown in the following sections. Whereas in Peninsular Spanish agreement of third person object clitics is upheld with minor exceptions, in rural Spanish in Basque regions, due to a comparable contact situation,11 the emergence of non-agreeing third person clitics is found as it is in the corresponding American Spanish contact situations despite normative educational efforts in the former.

5.2 Leísmo/laísmo doubling The three distinct but interrelated phenomena leísmo, laísmo and loísmo, are interpreted in Fernández Ordóñez (1999: 1321) as a simplification of the pronominal paradigm by eliminating case in preference of gender. The third person object pronoun paradigm evolved from demonstratives, and as such they are the only object pronouns to retain both features – case and gender. All other person pronouns keep their case distinctions. However, this is not the only possible explanation. Another possible reason could be that Spanish distinguishes between personal and nonperson arguments. Recall the close relationship between demonstratives and third person pronouns (section 2.3), where I identified the direct object clitics lo and la in determiner cliticization (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: 341) as having some projecting capacity, as opposed to all others 11 The contact languages Basque in Spain and the Amerindian languages Quechua and Aymara in Peru are typologically similar. See Landa (1995) and Saltarelli (1988) for Basque and for rural Spanish the COSER corpus.

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

153

together having none at all based on a modified projection/phonological dependence matrix in Table 2.9. Most importantly, the masculine lo still carries the neuter gender in such constructions. With the projecting capacity, the question arises whether this close relationship is seen on argument structure or on discourse/information structure. The description of the grammaticalization path of demonstratives in the hierarchy in (147) (Diessel 1999: 120) points to a syntactic event primarily in grammatical agreement. (147) demonstrative pronoun > third person pronoun > clitic pronoun > verb agreement Inclining more toward an explanation in discourse functions, Zulaica (2007: 261) suggests that “demonstrative anaphora still retain a deictic component that is presuppositional in nature”. The pointing effect of such an anaphor in an utterance would then trigger a series of responses from the addressee, leading him to look for a familiar, abstract and identifiable discourse referent in the immediate context. In leísmo constructions the relationship between the usage of le for masculine and feminine direct objects is striking. In a study of Madrid Spanish, Quilis (1985) found that le as a direct object was used in roughly twenty-five percent of cases for masculine, as opposed to less than two percent for feminine objects. In Northern Spain’s leísta dialect areas le only replaces animate arguments; in some areas, this is even restricted to male human objects. Consider the classic leísta-doubling examples in monotransitive constructions in (148), which is originally from Nevins (2007: 280). (148) Peninsular Spanish leísmo a. Le / *lo mataron a Pedro. CL 3SG / *CL 3MSG kill-PAST-3PL DOM Peter ‘They killed Peter.’ b. Le

/ *lo vio al profesor. / *CL 3MSG see-PAST-3SG DOM - DET. MSG professor.MSG ‘I saw the professor yesterday.’ CL 3SG

Examples (148) are not ambiguous, however constructions with the verb decir (to say, tell) are. Consider the meaning differences in (149) and the change in the valency of the verb. The clitic doubling construction in (149a), with the doubled argument present or recoverable from the immediately preceding discourse, is

154

Variation and continuity in time and space

not ambiguous. On the other hand, without the doubled argument, as in (149b), it is ambiguous with a tendency to propositional (neuter) interpretation. (149) Standard Spanish a. Le digo (a mi amigo). CL 3SG tell-1SG DAT POSS friend.MSG ‘I tell him (my friend).’ b. Lo digo. CL 3MSG say-1SG ‘I say it.’ Moreover, it is well known that in Italian and Western Romance the dative has long been used to mark the causee of a transitive clause as in (150). (150) Standard Spanish a. Le hizo comer el cuy. CL 3SG make-PAST-3SG eat-INF DET. MSG guinea pig.MSG ‘(S)He made him (rarely her) eat the guinea pig.’ b. Lo hizo comer el cuy. CL 3MSG make-PAST-3SG eat-INF DET. MSG guinea pig.MSG ‘(S)He made him eat the guinea pig.’ From this follows that leísmo strategies differ in relation to animacy and case. Leísmo can already be found in medieval texts, though it did not play a major role in Andalusian Spanish. It supposedly did not make it into the Latin American Spanish repertoire, yet it can be found in Standard Lima Spanish. Leísmo in the Lima Spanish in (151a) is ambiguous as to the grammatical function. River Plate in (151b) only shows unambiguously marked direct objects. Note that the exchange of le for lo triggers a preference for case over gender marking. (151) Leísmo, Lima Spanish a. Les invitaron a Beto y a Carlos nomás. CL 3PL invite-PAST-3PL DOM Beto and DOM Carlos only ‘They only invited Beto and Carlos.’ Liberal clitic doubling River Plate b. Los invitaron a Beto y a Carlos nomás. CL 3MPL invite-PAST-3PL DOM Beto and DOM Carlos only ‘They only invited Beto and Carlos.’

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

155

For direct object clitic doubling the argument must be [+specific]; this holds in Standard Spanish, in River Plate and Lima Spanish [topic] but not in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, where pragmatic strategies override semantic strategies. Apart from the difference between Peninsular Spanish contact and Latin American contact leísmo strategies, the only other instance of variability of the dative paradigm is number incongruence. This is probably the only part of the overall variability that has been documented in written form in newspapers and in literature. Example (152), taken from a Limeño newspaper article, shows this number agreement mismatch. (152) La República 18.02.2006 Le dijo a los comerciantes y ocasionales CL 3SG say-PAST-3SG DOM DET. MPL sellers and occasional compradores que su gobierno respaldará . . . buyers that POSS government back-up-FUT-3SG . . . ‘(S)He told the sellers and occasional buyers that the government will back-up . . .’ Example (153a) from a bilingual contact speaker closer to Quechua than to Spanish shows an indirect object clitic with non-agreeing number and gender. It is a typical contact variant of leísta doubling, where leísmo doubling extends to inanimates. In the Standard Spanish example (153b) we find, as expected, a direct object clitic agreeing in number and gender as well as a more sophisticated lexical choice for the second part of the sentence. (153) Andean Spanish (Mayer-FW) a. Algunas cosas le entiendo y algunas no. some.FPL thing.FPL CL 3SG understand-1SG and others not ‘Some things I understand them and others not.’ Standard Spanish b. Algunas cosas las entiendo y otras no. some.FPL thing.FPL CL 3FPL understand-1SG and others not ‘Some things I understand them and others not.’ In the fieldwork data in (153a) there is no pause after the preposed argument, therefore I do not consider it to be a left dislocated argument. This is different from example (154), where the pause indicates a dislocated argument.

156

Variation and continuity in time and space

In Santiago del Estero, a Spanish-Quechua contact region in Argentina, doubling does not obtain, as exemplified in (154).12 The comma after the preposed argument indicates that it is a left dislocated argument. (154) Santiago del Estero, Argentina (Lorenzino 2003: 55) Algunas cositas entiendo, otras cositas no. QUANT. FPL thing.FPL understand-1SG other.FPL things.FPL not ‘Some little things I understand, others not.’ Whereas in Peninsular leísmo, also treated in the literature as leísmo personal (personal leísmo), the case distinction is restricted to animate arguments, in American Spanish leísmo the case distinction has collapsed in favour of the dative as in Paraguayan Spanish and Ecuadorian Spanish (Suñer and Yépez 1988). The most important difference lies in the syntax of direct object doubling, which remains unchanged in Peninsular Standard and leísta Spanish, but obtains even with extending differential object marking to inanimates in contact Spanish as will be shown in the next subsection.

5.2.1 The dative-accusative alternation in contact Spanish The focus here is on the double strategy which Limeño Spanish contact varieties apply to mark the primary object in monotransitives: (i) extended differential object marking and leísmo doubling, and (ii) extended differential object marking and loísmo and, to a lesser extent laísmo, doubling. There are two competing theories regarding non-standardized extended differential object marking (discussed in section 3.1). In brief, while Spanish philologists and the Real Academia (Torrego 1999: 1802) view the accusative as an extension of the dative, Givón (1997) and Bossong (1991, 2003) analyze the phenomenon as the birth of a new accusative marker based on extensive crosslinguistic evidence. Limeño Spanish contact varieties show evidence for both theories with covariation of Latin American leísmo and loísmo doubling, and to a lesser extent laísmo doubling as demonstrated below. In Standard Spanish (155a) inanimate direct objects cannot be doubled or a-marked. Liberal clitic doubling dialects extend direct object clitic doubling to inanimates with agreeing clitics and are subject to Kayne’s Generalization, e.g. with differential object marking. Lima Spanish data in (155b) confirm this (Mayer 2003, 2006; Sánchez 2005; Sánchez and Zdrojewski 2014). 12 It is a welcome coincidence that an identical sentence came up in Lorenzino’s fieldwork data.

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

157

(155) Standard Spanish a. Frío la cebolla. fry-1SG DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ River Plate Spanish, Lima Spanish b. Lai frio a la cebollai . CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ Consider the example (156) from River Plate Spanish, the original liberal direct object clitic doubling dialect. (156) River Plate Spanish (Fernández Soriano 1999: 1251) ¿Tú la friegas a la cocina? PRO 2SG CL 3FSG scrub-2SG DOM DET. FSG stove.FSG ‘Do you scrub the stove?’ In that particular dialect and also in Lima Spanish and Limeño Spanish contact varieties the inanimate direct object could also be replaced by a strong pronoun as in (157).13 (157) Lima Spanish, River Plate and Limeño Spanish contact varieties ¿Tú la friegas a ella? PRO 2SG CL 3FSG scrub-2SG DOM PRO 3FSG ‘Do you scrub it (the stove)?’ At least for (and perhaps restricted to) liberal direct object clitic doubling dialects, strong pronouns do not show animacy restrictions, but they may be constrained to prepositional objects as mentioned in Andrews (1990: 541). This would then be a point in favour of the formative a as the exponent of the prepositional accusative. In Limeño Spanish contact varieties topical objects are marked by either invariant lo coexisting with a leísmo strategy peculiar to contact Spanish. Direct object clitic doubling in (158) only occurs with invariant lo in its function as a secondary topic marker.14 Kayne’s Generalization is mostly observed. 13 This is actual fieldwork data and one of several utterances of that kind. 14 Note that the referential feminine la did not occur in these contexts in my non-standardized Limeño Spanish contact varieties data.

158

Variation and continuity in time and space

(158) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) frío a la cebollai. Lo / *lai CL 3 / *CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ The second strategy is the contact leísmo in (159) where the direct object clitic is replaced with an invariant le and can thus be doubled and a-marked. This construction occurs preferentially in bilingual varieties in contact with Quechua or other non-gender-marking languages. (159) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a la yucai . Pero ya no lei frío but again not CL 3 fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG yuca.FSG ‘But I do not fry the cassava again.’ In clitic-doubled constructions showing co-variation of lo/le as above in (158) and (159), the gender-bearing referential clitic la never appears. In standard varieties of Peninsular Spanish and Latin American Spanish, leísmo clitic doubled constructions with transitive verbs and inanimate patient arguments as in (159) above are considered ungrammatical. Whereas in Standard Spanish only the non-doubled clause in (160a) would be possible, liberal clitic doubling dialects such as Lima Spanish and River Plate Spanish in (160b) extend direct object clitic doubling with agreeing clitics to inanimate definite objects. (160) Standard Spanish a. Pero ya no frío la yuca. but again not fry-1SG DET. FSG cassava. FSG ‘But I do not fry the cassava again.’ Lima Spanish, River Plate frío a la yucai o solo lai caliento? b. ¿Lai CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG cassava or only CL 3FSG heat-up-1SG ‘Do I fry the cassava or shall I only heat it up?’ Bilingual Spanish dialects, e.g. Paraguayan as well as Ecuadorian Spanish, exhibit extensive leísmo with human and inanimate objects, as shown in the Ecuadorian example (161). Leísmo in grammatical agreement in (161a) is unambiguous, but anaphoric reading of the indirect object clitic in (161b) is

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

159

potentially ambiguous and requires the discourse context for resolution.15 Moreover, ambiguity allows for multiple ways to infer the underlying structure of the entire sentence. Note that loss of number in bilingual uninstructed varieties gives rise to invariant le representing only category and person. (161) Ecuador (Suñer and Yépez 1988: 512) a. Ya le veo a la camioneta. already CL 3 see-1SG DOM DET. FSG minibus.FSG ‘I can already see the minibus.’ b. Ya le veo. already CL 3 see-1SG ‘I can already see it (him/her).’ The two different leísmo strategies are shown in (162). Leísmo as in the Madrid norm is mainly restricted to masculine human direct objects in Peninsular Standard Spanish in (162a), and extended to feminine human direct objects specifically in American Spanish leísta dialects as in (162b). Note the lack of a-marking in the latter. (162) Peninsular Spanish (Camacho 1999: 1569) a. Le / lo conozco a Juan. CL 3SG / CL 3MSG know-1SG DOM Juan ‘I know Juan.’ Ecuador (Suñer and Yépez 1988: 512) b. . . . le conocía mamá. . . . CL 3SG meet-PAST-3SG mamá . . . ‘s/he knew my mother.’ In fact, the extension in Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish includes animate and inanimate masculine and feminine objects as in (163), producing the same apparent indirect object clitic doubling construction as Limeño Spanish contact varieties by extending a-marking to inanimate objects but maintaining number to some extent.

15 Note, that contact in both countries has always been directly between Spanish and Quechua/ Aymara/Guaraní, and not mediated by Andean Spanish, as has been and still is the case in Peru.

160

Variation and continuity in time and space

(163) Ecuador (Suñer and Yépez 1988: 512) a. Les calentará a los pollitos. CL 3PL heat-FUT-3SG DOM DET. MPL chicken. MPL ‘(S)he will warm up the chicken.’ b. Le

contrataré al taxi. hire-FUT-1SG DOM - DET. MSG taxi.MSG ‘I’ll hire that taxi.’ CL 3SG

Ecuadorian Spanish, more precisely Spanish in the Central Ecuadorian Highlands (Haboud 1997), has almost entirely replaced the direct object clitic with the indirect object clitic. Yépez (1986) mentions that the direct object clitic as in (164) remains as a propositional anaphor in highly educated speakers. (164) Central Ecuadorian Highlands (Yépez 1986) No quiso hacerlo. not want-PAST-3SG do-INF.3NSG ‘He did not want to do it.’ However, Niño Murcia (1995) reports that in the Northern Ecuadorian Highlands as in (165) invariant lo is preferred. This is an interesting parallel to Andean Spanish and the Limeño Spanish contact varieties variation between le/lo as object marker. (165) Northern Ecuador (Niño Murcia 1995: 90) Darámelo leyendo. give-FUT.CL 1SG .CL 3 read-GERUND ‘Read it to/for me.’ Leísmo strategies in Paraguayan Spanish are very similar; they show leísmo applied to male humans in (166a), extending it to female human singular objects in (166b). Note the lack of number agreement with the plural male human object. The plural female human object, however, receives full gender agreement through laísmo, as demonstrated in (166c). Palacios (2000: 128) restricts this particular strategy to university students. (166) Paraguay (Palacios 2000: 127–128) señori que lei a. Yo lei conozco un PRO 3SG CL 3 know-1SG INDEF. MSG man that CL 3SG llamamoh Don Coño. Don Coño call-1PL ‘I know a man whom we call Don Coño.’

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

161

b. Lei veo a la niñai / al niñoi CL 3 see-1SG DOM DET. FSG girl.FSG / DOM - DET. MSG boy.MSG / a los niños. / DOM DET. MPL boy.MPL ‘I see the girl/the boy/the boys.’ c. Lasi / *Lei veo a las niñasi . CL 3FPL / *CL 3 see-1SG DOM DET. FPL girls. FPL ‘I see the girls’. Like Peruvian Andean Spanish, leísmo and loísmo marking strategies co-occur in Paraguay as well. Palacios (2000: 127) reports that extensive leísmo is preferred in urban areas and loísmo among rural inhabitants, as shown in the two left dislocated structures with an animate object in (167a) and an inanimate in (167b). (167) Paraguay, rural Spanish (Palacios 2000: 130–131) a. Cualquier persona que llevan a emplear QUANT person that take-3PL PREP employ-INF lo

emplean allí. CL 3 employ-3PL there ‘Any person they take for work, gets employed there.’ b. La

hierba por ejemplo lo hace mi DET. FSG herb.FSG for example CL 3 do-3SG POSS padre en mi casa. father PREP POSS house

‘The herbs for example my father prepares them at home.’ Palacios argues that loísmo in Paraguay does not seem to be motivated by specific semantic or syntactic criteria.16 This is confirmed in (168b) displaying coexistence of both strategies. (168) Paraguay, rural Spanish (Palacios 2000: 132) a. Su madre le esperaba [a la niña] POSS .3SG mother CL 3 wait-PAST-3SG [DOM DET. FSG girl] a

la

PREP

DET. FSG

salida de la escuela. exit PREP DET. FSG school

‘Her mother waited for her (the girl) at the exit of the school.’ 16 This had already been mentioned in a much earlier study by Usher de Herreros (1976).

162

Variation and continuity in time and space

b. La DET. FSG

niña no lo vio [a la madre] girl not CL 3 see-PAST-3SG [DOM DET. FSG mother]

y corrió desesperada hacia su casa. towards POSS house and run-PAST-3SG deperately ‘The girl did not see her (her mother) and ran desperately towards her home.’ The only region in Argentina exhibiting extensive leísmo is Misiones, where Spanish is in contact mainly with Portuguese through Brazilian migrants, who have moved in considerable numbers to that region. There is also contact with Guaraní in a few indigenous communities, and Arabic in some cities from recent migrants. We find leísmo in grammatical and anaphoric agreement with human objects in (158a) and in anaphoric agreement in (169b) with inanimate specific objects. Note that the lack of number in (169b) reflects a lesser educated speaker than (169a). (169) Misiones, Argentina (Amable 1975: 512) a. Le llamé a mi amigo y más tarde CL 3SG call-PAST-1SG DOM POSS friend.MSG and more later le CL 3SG

vi en el bar. see-PAST-1SG in DET. MSG bar.MSG

‘I called my friend and a little later saw him at the bar.’ b. Esas DEM . FPL

víboras ponzoñosa ¿cómo le cazan viper.FPL venomous.FSG how CL 3SG hunt-3PL

y le traen ustedes? and CL 3SG carry-3PL PRO 3PL ‘How do you hunt and carry home these venomous vipers?’ Another parallel situation can be observed in a dialect of Basque Spanish, where the indirect object clitic le surfaced as the sole clitic (Fernández Ordóñez 1994). Basque Spanish allows leísmo doubling for quantifiers yielding a referential reading for examples like (170). (170) Basque Spanish (Franco and Landa 2006: 38–39) a. ¿A quién le viste? DOM whom CL 3SG see-PAST-2SG ‘Whom did you see?’

Leísmo/laísmo doubling

163

b. No le he visto a nadie en el partido. not CL 3SG have-1SG see-PARTIC DOM nobody in the game ‘I didn’t see anybody at the game.’ c. Juan les quiere a todos. Juan CL 3SG love-3SG DOM all ‘Juan loves them all.’ Unlike Basque Spanish, which is a contact variety, the non-contact variety Standard Lima Spanish in (171) allows direct object quantifier doubling under loísmo only. Quantifier clitic doubling of this type obtains in liberal clitic doubling dialects. (171) Lima Spanish (Mayer 2006: 72) No lo vieron a nadie en esta playa. not CL 3MSG see-PAST-3PL DOM QUANT in this beach ‘They saw nobody on this beach.’ In Limeño Spanish contact varieties there is a distinctive difference in verbal meaning between the marked version in (172a), and the unmarked version in (171b), with a potentially ambiguous reading in the anaphoric agreement in (172c), at least in some colloquial dialects. In the a-marked version, le refers to the direct object (the car), whereas in the unmarked version, le refers to somebody the speaker is addressing and telling him that he, the speaker, will look after the/his car. Note that under economy conditions and taken out of context, example (172c) remains ambiguous without the discourse context as (161b) above. (172) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Le veo al carro. CL 3SG see-1SG DOM - DET. MSG car.MSG ‘I’ll look after your car (for you).’ b. Le

veo el carro. see-1SG DET. MSG car.MSG ‘I see the car.’ / ‘I’ll look after your car.’ CL 3SG

c. Le

veo. CL 3SG see-1SG ‘I see it/her/him.’

Leísmo strategies in Peninsular and Latin American Spanish have to be divided into non-contact leísmo and bilingual contact leísmo. Under extensive contact

164

Variation and continuity in time and space

leísmo, ambiguities arise specifically under economy, and anaphoric identifiability relies heavily on the immediate discourse context. As a natural consequence, for American Spanish leísta dialect speakers the distinction between direct and indirect objects, or for that matter between dative and accusative clitics and the syntactic role they play, has given way to a different object marking strategy. Strategies that make use of invariant lo or invariant le mark instead the primary object they have singled out as the most topic-worthy object and as such the aboutness topic in the utterance. Supported by several grammaticalization processes affecting the entire case marking system, this change in object marking strategy may lead in some varieties to a typological change from accusative/ dative marking to primary/secondary object marking.

5.3 Floating agreement in clitic clusters The existence of a split object marking system in some areas of Latin American Spanish, mainly in Andean Spanish, is supported by evidence from the same ambiguities we have seen in the previous sections, again based on the competing paradigms leísmo, loísmo and laísmo. In such varieties, two third-person clitic clusters, se lo, se la, show optional floating agreement, whereby the semantic features number and gender related to spurious se float onto the accusative clitic in the second slot. Spurious se which is devoid of semantic features represents person only in the first slot Gender and number floating from spurious se onto the accusative clitics lo/la is characteristic of specific Leísta Spanish dialects and widespread in the Andean Spanish regional dialects. The occurrence of floating agreement is not restricted to some Latin American Spanish varieties as it exists elsewhere in Romance Languages. Italian shares this phenomenon in terms of parasitic plural or floating plural. Compare the personal passive in (173a) with the impersonal passive in (173b). Note that in Italian, Spanish and Catalan, the third person reflexive and the impersonal se are both syncretic forms with no agreement features. (173) Italian (Bonet 1995: 630) a. Sono stato abandonato a me stesso. am-1SG is-3SG abandon-PARTIC TO REFL-1SG myself ‘I am abandoned to myself.’ b. Si

è stati abbandonati a se stessi. is-3SG PARTIC . PL abandoned TO REFL them ‘One has been abandoned to oneself.’

IMPERS

Floating agreement in clitic clusters

165

The example in (173) is originally from Cinque (1988: 537, ex. 25b), who argues that in Italian, the impersonal clitic si might have “a third person plural default value”. Bonet (1995) and Pescarini (2005) claim that the morphology of the impersonal in Italian is inherently specified for plural. In Spanish floating agreement, the Peninsular Spanish grammatically ‘correct’ answer in (174b) to the question in (174a) shows the singular masculine lo in feature agreement with its referential noun phrase el libro. The Latin American Spanish answer in (174c) in turn shows the plural from the indirect object (los Marchant) “floated” from the first clitic onto the second clitic. This results in double-marking of the indirect object while the direct object remains unmarked. (174) Peninsular Spanish (Camacho 1999: 1571) el libroj a los Marchanti? a. ¿Lesi devolviste CL 3PL give.back-PAST-2SG DET. MSG book DAT DET. MPL Marchant ‘Did you give the book back to the Marchants?’ b. Sí, sei loj devolvií la semana pasada. last yes SE CL 3MSG give.back-PAST-1SG the week ‘Yes I gave it back to them last week.’ Latin American Spanish devolví la semana pasada. c. Sí, sei losi last yes SE CL 3MPL give.back-PAST-1SG the week ‘Yes I gave it back to them last week.’ This kind of linking of indirect object clitic agreement features to the direct object clitic is not restricted to number but applies to gender as well. For example, in (175), if the gender of the indirect object is feminine, the direct object clitic expresses the gender floating agreement feature in its morphological form. (175) Company (2003: 223) (based on data from Lope Blanch (1971)) me quieren comprar el caballoj , Si ellasi if PRO 3FPL CL 1SG want-3PL buy-INF DET. MSG horse.MSG yo PRO 1SG

sei lasi vendo. CL 3FPL sell-1SG

SE

‘If they want to buy the horse from me, I will sell it to them.’ These examples show that cluster variation in terms of floating features is motivated by a combination of morphological, syntactic, pragmatic, synchronic and diachronic factors.

166

Variation and continuity in time and space

Floating agreement was already mentioned by Kany (1967) and by Dryer (1986) in relation to primary topic marking. Previous work treated the phenomenon as non-standard dialectal variation (Heap 1998; Ordóñez 2002; Company 2001, 2003) or as dialectal variations in opposition to Iberian Spanish (Fernández Soriano 1999; Camacho 1999). Optimality theoretic accounts, based on the interaction of phonology and morphology, treated floating features as violable language-specific markedness constraints (Grimshaw 1982, 2001, 2004). In a frequency-based analysis, Haspelmath (2004) ranked the thematic roles theme and recipient in accordance with their topic-worthiness. The morphological analysis based on Distributed Morphology for Catalan and Italian (Bonet 1991, 1995; Harris 1994, 1995; Pescarini 2005; among others), and for Spanish (Pérez 2000), proposed feature delinking from spurious se and relinking onto the direct object clitic. The surface outcome then is a result of the morpho-phonological ‘spell-out’ rules. However, it is not clear what the restrictions of the morphology component are. Distributed Morphology does not offer any explanation of why the features are delinked, relinked and/or inserted. Hence, to predict possible clitic combinations into clusters is quite difficult.

5.3.1 Person-Case Constraint and case syncretism The strong relationship between case syncretism and the Person-Case Constraint has been linked to a move from coreferential agreement, marking unambiguously the indirect and the direct object in all Standard Spanish dialects, to marking the primary object17 in Latin American Spanish (Adger and Harbour 2007).18 In a detailed Lexical-Functional Grammar account of floating agreement comprising number and gender in Latin American Leísta dialects, I link floating agreement to historical case erosion in Spanish, which in turn triggered a loss of case-restrictions on the third person clitic paradigm (Mayer 2013). I argue that these grammaticalization processes combined with an observable typological tendency to mark the primary rather than the secondary object (Dryer 1986), and linking grammatical object marking to information structure (Nikolaeva 1999; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011), allow for a causal explanation of floating number and gender agreement.

17 In transitive constructions, the marked direct object is the primary object and in distransitives, the primary object is the indirect object. 18 I will say more about this topic in the second part of chapter six.

Floating agreement in clitic clusters

167

In (176a), the plural from the primary object (indirect object), represented by spurious se, floats onto the direct object as it cannot appear on spurious se. Consider the difference in establishing anaphoric reference between the Latin American Spanish cluster with two third person clitics in (176a) and the equivalent Standard Spanish cluster with a second and a third person in (176b). Replacement of the second person plural with the third person clitics in Latin American Spanish is of crucial importance here, as the increase in syncretism triggers referential and syntactic ambiguity. Spurious se can either refer to you (formal) singular (usted) or you (plural). The grammatical relation primary object in (176a) reflects the discourse status and topic-worthiness of the object, and the grammatical relation direct object reflects the thematic role status of the direct object (cf. Dryer 1986: 841). (176) Latin American Spanish, P3 and P3 a. Se los agradezco. SE CL 3MPL thank-1SG ‘I thank you (sg/pl) for it.’

[primary object]

Peninsular Spanish, P2 and P3 [indirect obj + direct obj] b. Os lo agradezco. CL 2PL CL 3MSG thank-1SG ‘I thank you (pl) for it.’ Another analysis has been proposed by Pescarini (2005: 253), who argues that based on previous gender impoverishment that produced the dative le, number impoverishment is the trigger for the insertion of the “reflexive exponent se, that is a third person pronoun without explicit reference (gender and number)”. As the plural feature does not get deleted, it appears (“moves to”) the accusative clitic position.19 This seems unlikely, as the reflexive and impersonal clitic se does not show number or gender features in the morphology. Recall from chapter two, section 5.2 that under the extended Object Agreement Constraint20 the person feature does not intervene in the agreement constraint, which is triggered by dative case and not by clitic morphology as in the Person-Case Constraint (cf. chapter two, section 5.2). I will present an example from American Leísta Spanish dialects in (177) and historic evidence in (178) to back up the claim for a syntactic analysis.

19 Conf. Table 2.3 for the syncretism in Latin American Spanish. 20 Repeated here from chapter two: “If the verbal complex encodes object agreement, no other argument can be licensed through verbal agreement (Ormazabal and Romero 2007: 336).

168

Variation and continuity in time and space

Full-fledged primary object marking is shown in example (177) with the overt subject pronoun and the combination of a first-person ethical dative and a third-person leísmo in (177b) and an impersonal and a third-person leísmo in (177c). The combination of a noncore argument and a core accusative object argument obtains with leísmo (me les) and without (me las), but without case identification. Loss of number in the impersonal clitic cluster in (177c) restricts referential identification to an immediate discourse context. (177) American Spanish Leísta dialects a. ¿Conoces a Michelle y Alex? ‘Do you know Michelle and Alex?’ b. Sí, yo me les encuentro todos los días. yes PRO 1SG ETH . DAT 1SG CL 3PL meet-1SG QUANT DET. MPL days ‘Yes, I meet them every day.’ c. Se

encuentra todos los días. meet-3SG QUANT DET. MPL days ‘One meets them every day.’

IMPERS

le

CL 3SG

Historic evidence for increased syncretism due to case erosion, dating back as far as the thirteenth century, is shown in the examples in (178) where the dative clitic le refers to an inanimate object in (178a) and the plural les in (178b) in a cluster consisting of dative and leísmo. (178) Castillan Spanish (Bonet 1991) a. El paraguas le perdí. DET. MSG umbrella CL 3SG lose-PAST-1SG ‘I lost the umbrella.’ b. Los

libros me les dejé en casa. book CL 1SG CL 3PL leave-PAST-1SG PREP home ‘The books I forgot them at home.’

DET. MPL

Feature-specifying clitics in Standard Spanish allow precise identification of each object referent, thus distinguishing between indirect and direct objects. Therefore, floating plurals do not obtain in dialects that preserve the second person plural clitic os as shown above in (176b) where the prepositional dative in (177b) is replaced by a dative clitic which is syncretic for dative and accusative. The requirement of morphological markedness that person agreement on the verb must be unambiguous is satisfied despite case erosion dating back a long way.

Floating agreement in clitic clusters

169

In language change situations, we expect to find the full range of competing grammars in dialectal variability, from referential agreeing feature-marking – accidentally or deliberately – to covariation of loísmo/leísmo.

5.3.2 Clitic clusters variability Cooccurrence restrictions of clitic clusters in American Spanish dialects are highly variant and not extensively documented.21 In the literature and in my data there is no evidence for the extraordinary dialectal variability as described in Ordóñez (2002) for Aragonese, Catalan, Occitan, and Spanish. The variability concerns the possibility of reverse order of clusters with a reflexive and a dative in proclisis (se me/me se). Heap (1998: 231) mentions that this is a widespread nonstandard feature occurring for Murcian Spanish, Judeo Spanish, certain varieties of Catalan and a specific region in the Dominican Republic. However, this does not imply total absence of such variability in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, as the absence might be caused by the fact that clitic cluster data from naturally occurring speech are rare, since spoken Spanish shows a preference for monotransitives. (179) Murcian, Judeo Spanish (Heap 1998: 321) a. Si no riego, me se seca todo. if not irrigate-1SG ETHDAT.1SG SE 22 dry-3SG QUANT ‘If I don’t irrigate, everything dries up on me.’ b. La he atado para que no te CL 3FSG AUX-1SG tie-PARTIC PREP that not ETHDAT-2SG se caiga. SE fall-SBJV-3SG ‘I tied it so that it wouldn’t fall.’ For Andean Spanish Cerrón Palomino (2003) cites several examples with invariant lo as sole object clitic occurring in second position. In (180a) invariant lo refers to a place and in (180b) in the first instance to a direct object, and in the second part to an indirect object.

21 An exception is the overview of leísmo, laísmo and loísmo in Peninsular and American Spanish by Fernández Ordóñez (1999). 22 Unlike Heap, I would analyze both instances of se in (169a) and (169b) as a reflexive.

170 (180)

Variation and continuity in time and space

Early Andean Spanish Cerrón Palomino (2003: 1769–170) a. Me lo fui a ondi istava REFL 1SG CL 3MSG go-PAST-1SG PREP PREP is-PAST-3SG el

mi

DET. MSG

POSS 1SG

con with

hermano. brother.MSG

‘I went to stay with my brother.’ b.

Me

lo

REFL 1SG

CL 3MSG

et the

dexo allow-PAST-3SG

que that

lo CL 3MSG

aude help-SBJV-3SG

retablo. altarpiece

‘(S)He allowed me to help him with the altarpiece.’ A more recent invariant lo example (181) shows lo clitic doubling a plural feminine direct object, which Escobar (2000: 58) analyzes as redundant lo. (181) Andean Spanish (Pozzi-Escot 1972) Mi mamá me lo compró dos truzas. my mother CL 1SG CL 3MSG buy-PAST-3SG two underpants ‘My mother bought me two underpants.’ A recent example (182) from my fieldwork shows lo instead of the expected le. (182) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) ¡Cómo se lo ocurre que podría jugar SE CL 3MSG occur-3SG that can-COND -3SG play-INF how con algo así! with something such ‘How can (s)he think of playing with such a thing!’ There is consensus on a potential broad range of variability due to varying degrees of leísmo. In Ecuadorian dialects, exhibiting extensive leísmo such as Quiteño for example, co-occurrence restrictions of a direct object and indirect object clitic with the same verb rule out clusters of the type se lo (Suñer and Yépez 1988). Even though Limeño Spanish contact varieties do not exhibit extensive leísmo they show basically the same leísmo strategy as double direct object constructions, where clusters of the type se lo(s)/la(s) can be replaced by se le(s). This applies to human objects as in (183b), whose previous context is given in (183a), describing the special singing intonation of Amazonian Spanish speakers.

Floating agreement in clitic clusters

171

(183) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Nosotros pronunciamos claramente las letras solo que PRO 1MPL pronounce-1PL clearly the words only that lo CL 3MSG

hacemos cantando. do-1PL sing-GERUND

‘We clearly pronounce the letters but we do it singing.’ b. Ya pues, es un chiste cuando se les yes ok is-3SG a joke when IMPERS CL 3PL escucha hablar. hear-3SG talk-INF ‘Yeah, it is really funny hearing them talk.’ Spurious se as an impersonal as in (183b) suggests that a difference should be made between the person feature of an impersonal pronoun, and third person along the lines of Nevins (2007).23 Consider (184) which involves an inanimate argument in each of the two clauses: a patient/theme yuca and a theme algodón. In (184a) the preposed accusative patient/theme is taken up as impersonal se and the accusative theme is cliticized as dative le which is underspecified for gender in a case of leísmo. (184) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) sei lei / *lai a. A la yucai DOM DET. FSG cassava.FSG IMPERS CL 3SG / *CL 3FSG exprime bastante para sacarlei el algodónj . to take out.CL 3SG the cotton squeeze-3SG a lot ‘The cassava must be squeezed thoroughly to obtain all the (cotton-like) starch.’ The control examples (185) from Lima Standard speakers show a fundamental difference between an impersonal construction in (185a) with an unmarked inanimate patient (yuca), taken up in the second part with an indirect object clitic, and an impersonal in (185b) with agreeing direct object clitic.

23 See section 2.5.2.

172

Variation and continuity in time and space

(185) Lima Spanish se exprime bastante para a. La yucai DET. FSG cassava.FSG IMPERS squeeze-3SG a lot to sacarlei el algodón. take out-INF.CL 3SG the cotton ‘The cassava gets squeezed thoroughly to obtain all the (cotton-like) starch.’ b. A DOM

la DET. FSG

hay que exprimirlai yucai cassava must that squeeze-INF.CL 3FSG

bastante para sacarlei el algodón. a lot to take out.CL 3SG the starch ‘The cassava has to get thoroughly squeezed to take out the (cotton-like) starch.’ Recall example (172) from the last subsection, where differential object marking made a difference in the meaning of the verb. The same applies to clitic clusters conveying the same meaning. Consider the Limeño Spanish contact varieties laísta example in (186). (186) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Estoy con ella, ahora me la veo. am-1SG with PRO 3FSG now CL 1SG CL 3FSG see-1SG ‘I am with her, now I look after her.’ b. Yo PRO 1SG

sola me la he visto con alone CL 1SG CL 3FSG have-1SG seen-PARTIC with

mi hija también. my daughter also ‘Also, I alone have looked after my daughter.’ This canonical clitic cluster in (186b) shows overt marking of both the highly agentive and overtly expressed subject, and the affected and overtly mentioned object. Note that the direct object clitic doubles a prepositional phrase here. The examples so far show a difference in object marking strategies, depending on agentivity of the subject. This confirms the analysis of clitic clusters in chapter two. The plural in the leísmo direct object has no morphological correspondent in the feminine singular subject. A leísmo example from my data is given in (187).

Object drop and anaphoric recoverability

173

(187) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) O sea, la juventud está pues con más que uno so the youth is-3SG then with more that one se les aconseja, se les habla, se les dice se CL 3PL advice-3SG SE CL 3PL talk-3SG SE CL 3PL say-3SG las DET. FPL

cosas. La realidad de la vida es que things.FPL the reality of the life is-3SG that

es dura. is-3SG hard ‘So, young people are then . . . although one gives them all the advice possible, one talks to them, talks to them about things, about reality of life, which is hard.’ In Limeño Spanish contact varieties we note a tendency to differentiate between referential strategies and leísmo, depending on agentivity of the subject. In the latter case, clitic doubling can be extended to include prepositional phrases, as in (185a). Cases of floating plural have been found for both clitic agreement features, number and gender. As occurrence of this innovation is not restricted to a specific dialect or dialectal region, I assume a strong connection with the ongoing grammaticalization processes changing clitic noun phrase agreement into featureless object markers triggering primary object marking.

5.4 Object drop and anaphoric recoverability Another significant phenomenon related to primary object marking in Latin American Spanish is the occurrence of null direct objects, albeit not one restricted to a specific geographic region. It can be linked to non-standard linguistic systems, as found in contact languages and dialects, as topic drop. Null objects, or dropping of direct objects, is more restricted in Peninsular Spanish and will be discussed together with Ecuadorian conditions in the next section for reasons of better comparability. Henn-Memmesheimer (1997) reports that in some southwest non-standardized dialects of German, weak pronouns referring to mass nouns, and plural terms in a standard linguistic system can be replaced by a syntactic null position as shown in the example (188).

174

Variation and continuity in time and space

(188) Bodensee Alemannic (Henn-Memmesheimer 1997: 237) Ich glaube nicht, dass er Ø gekauft hat. PRO 1SG think-1SG not that PRO 3MSG Ø buy-PARTIC has-3SG ‘I don’t think he bought (it).’ This has been linked to Spanish indefinite object drop by Glaser (1993). My own Austrian Alemannic dialect in (189) would have covariation of the clitic form of the neuter PRO es24 and a null pronoun. (189) Bodensee Alemannic, Vorarlberg [. . .] dass er ’s / Ø kouft [. . .] that

PRO 3MSG

heat.

‘CL 3NSG / Ø buy-PARTIC has-3SG

‘[. . .] that he has bought it.’ Languages vary cross-linguistically in relation to the conditions licensing object drop, yet discourse topics seem to be the prime candidates in general. Null direct objects in most dialects seem to be constrained by definiteness and anaphoric recoverability. Vincent (2001) argues that null objects in Latin were topical. Quiteño Spanish (Yépez 1986; Suñer and Yépez 1988) and Paraguayan Spanish (Granda 1982; Palacios 2000) show patterns very similar to Brazilian Portuguese (Schwenter and Alamillo 2007; Vasconcellos Lopes and Cyrino 2005) with regard to anaphoric direct object coding. Choi (2000) reports for Paraguayan Spanish that human direct objects get encoded by the indirect object clitic le and inanimate, nonperson direct objects are dropped. Schwenter (2006) gives a comprehensive overview of the Latin American variability; country-specific studies are Lipski (1994) for Argentina and Paraguay, Stratford (1989) for Bolivia, Suñer and Yépez (1988) for Ecuador, and Escobar (1990) among others for Peru. For Colombia, Rodríguez de Montes (1981) reports object drop and also direct object clitic doubling with invariant lo among non-native Spanish speakers. Object drop is a general phenomenon across all social classes and in the speech of bilingual as well as monolingual speakers. Cross-linguistic data from closely related dialects and languages confirm this.

24 Es can function as a subject and in its weak form as an object pronoun. This dialect is part of ‘Bodensee-Alemannic’ as described in Brandner (2006). For an overview of pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages see Cardinaletti (1999).

Object drop and anaphoric recoverability

175

5.4.1 Ecuador Null objects in Ecuadorian Spanish occur with preposed object arguments in (190) dropping the resumptive direct object clitic. The morpheme las in (190b) is a representative of the direct object determiners being able to project a determiner phrase.25 (190) Ecuador (Suñer and Yepéz 1988: 514) a. Todos los cursos que hice, Ø hice all the courses that take-PAST-1SG CL 3MPL take-PAST-1SG en una fábrica en Massachusetts. in a factory in Massachusetts ‘All courses I took were at a factory in Massachusetts.’ b. Las

allá Ø cerraron. there CL 3FPL close-PAST-3PL ‘They closed the ones over there.’ DET. FPL

de

PREP

c. Las

elecciones yo nunca Ø entendí. elections PRO 1SG never CL 3FPL understand-PAST-1SG ‘I never understood the elections.’ DET. FPL

d. La

leche Ø vendían a $1.20. DET. FSG milk CL 3FSG sell-PAST-3PL PREP $1.20 ‘The used to sell the milk for $1.20.’

Classical inanimate elliptical objects as shown in (191a), (191c) and (191e) pose no directionality or ambiguity problems, as the dropped object is assumed to be an inanimate discourse topic. Full forms are given in examples (191b), (191d) and (191f). (191) a. Dame Ø. give-2SG .CL 1SG Ø. ‘Give me (something/anything).’ b. Dámelo. give-2SG .CL 1SG .CL 3MSG ‘Give it to me.’ [SPECIFIC]

25 As shown in Table 2.8.

176

Variation and continuity in time and space

c. Bueno, yo te Ø saco. PRO 1SG CL 2SG Ø take.out-1SG fine ‘Fine, I’ll take (it) out for you.’ d. Bueno, yo te lo saco. PRO 1SG CL 2SG CL 3MSG take.out-1SG fine ‘Fine, I’ll take it out for you.’ e. Ø vi en la televisión. Ø see-PAST-1SG PREP DET. FSG television ‘I saw (it) on television.’ f. Lo vi en la televisión. CL 3MSG see-PAST-1SG PREP DET. FSG television ‘I saw it on television.’ Concerning example (191a), Suñer and Yépez (1988: 512) note that these constructions do occur in Standard Spanish, but rarely, and preferably with verbs of understanding and knowledge as in (192), (cf. Schwenter and Alamillo 2007). (192) Penisular Spanish (Madrid) a. No Ø sé. not CL 3MSG know-1SG ‘I do not know.’ b. No lo sé. not CL 3MSG know-1SG ‘I do not know.’ Also for Peninsular Spanish, Fernández Soriano (1999) cites the three examples in (193) hypothesising that in Peninsular Spanish only the neuter (which is the typical object of these verbs) is being left out, and in contrast to Ecuadorian Spanish this treatment is extended to all inanimates. These facts constitute more evidence for topic drop (referring to the aboutness topic), when the topic is recoverable from the immediate discourse context. (193) Peninsular Spanish a. No te olvides de [decirle]. [decírselo] not CL 2SG forget-SBJV-2SG to tell-INF.CL 3SG [tell-INF.CL 3SG .CLMSG ] ‘Don’t forget to tell her/him.’

Object drop and anaphoric recoverability

177

b. ¿A

quién [le] preguntaste? [se lo] who CL 3SG ask-PAST-2SG [CL 3SG CLMSG ] ‘Whom did you ask?’

DOM

c. [Le] voy a contar. [se lo] CL 3SG go-1SG PREP tell-INF [CL 3SG CLMSG ] ‘I am going to tell him.’ This strategy is apparently very similar in Basque as well (Landa 1995), as will be shown in the discussion of Basque Spanish in section 4.3. Object/topic drop in Ecuadorian Spanish extends to verbs that subcategorize for two human arguments affecting the indirect object as shown in (194). Argument ellipsis with two human arguments in the case of (194a) presents interesting problems for ambiguity avoidance. Since both object arguments of this verb can be animate, the clause is ambiguous. For these examples Suñer and Yépez (1988) argue that the direct object clitic gets suppressed to avoid cooccurrence of an indirect object and direct object. An explanation to the previous point may be that Quiteño exhibits extensive leísmo and would replace the null direct object with le(s) instead of the feature-specific clitics (la(s)/lo(s). (194) Ecuador (Suñer and Yépez 1988: 513) a. Preséntame-Ø. introduce-2SG .CL 1SG .-Ø ‘Introduce me (to her/him/them).’ or ‘Introduce her/him to me.’ b. Preséntame a las chicas. introduce-2SG .CL 1SG DOM DET. FPL girls.FPL ‘Introduce me to the girls.’ or ‘Introduce the girls to me.’ Campos (1991b: 120) refers to object drop in Quiteño as follows: ‘A parasitic gap is licensed by a wh-element in situ or by the trace of a wh-element”. Parasitic gap licensing in Spanish is different from English. In Spanish, it must allow for both, the wh-element and traces of a who-element. Suñer and Yépez (1988) in their analysis of object drop in Quiteño do not share Campo’s assumption; in their view, it is just a coincidence that the null objects have the same referent. An example for silent objects of this kind is given in (195) from Campos (1991a). The silent object is indicated by ‘e’, replacing lo. (195) Quiteño (Campos 1991a: 123) Lo archivaron e(l) sin leer e. CL 3MSG put away-PAST-3PL e(1) PREP read-INF e ‘They put it away without reading it.’

178

Variation and continuity in time and space

It is clear, that contact varieties show higher frequency of object drop, especially in the intermediate stages. In Peru, object drop is a rather frequent phenomenon in the Andean regions and only now noticeable in Limeño contact.

5.4.2 Brazilian Portuguese and Paraguayan Spanish For Brazilian Portuguese, Vasconcellos and Cyrino (2005) point to a direct relationship between two competing systems,26 where the use of third person clitics is very rare, and strong pronouns seem to be preferred for animate and specific objects. Unlike European Portuguese, object drop in Brazilian Portuguese occurs very liberally in any syntactic environment. Cyrino furter argues that the utterance in (196) would be ungrammatical in European Portguese where the object pronoun o would be required.27 (196) Brazilian Portuguese (Vasconcellos Lopes and Cyrino 2005: 344) O rapaz que trouxe Ø agora mesmo da PREP- DET. FSG the boy that bring-PAST-3SG Ø now just pastelaria era o teu afilhado. pastry.shop is-PAST-3SG DET. MSG POSS godson ‘The boy that brought (it) just now from the pastry shop was your godson.’ Symeonidis (2005) corroborates the findings for Brazilian Portuguese and ascribes the similar situation in Paraguay28 to a strong influence of Guaraní on Paraguayan Spanish with regard to clitics. Guaraní uses third person object clitics almost exclusively for humans, rarely for animals and never for inanimate objects. Definiteness does not play a role. Note the strong parallel with differential object marking in standard Spanish varieties in this respect. Symeonidis argues further that in Paraguayan Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese, bordering the Paraguayan territory, third person direct object clitics are always used for humans, a parallel situation to Standard Spanish and Portuguese. In referring to animals we find variation resembling Guaraní norms and diverging from Standard Spanish or 26 This development seems to be restricted to Brazilian Portuguese and is part of a grammatical change that does not happen in European Portuguese. 27 Note that the third person clitics o (him) and a (her) show diverging morphological status, they are proclitics in Brazilian Portuguese and enclitics in European Portguese (Schwenter 2006). 28 The first and most comprehensive description of Paraguayan Spanish is without doubt de Granda (1988), but he did not specifically confirm object drop of inanimates.

Object drop and anaphoric recoverability

179

Portuguese. Inanimates are rarely referred to, in this unlike from Standard Spanish. Choi (2000) argues against substratum influence based on data from monolingual and bilingual speakers, and argues instead for taking into account language internal and external factors in the sense of Thomason and Kaufman (1998). Object drop of inanimate direct objects is found in oral and written language as in the examples in (197) and only affects direct objects. This demonstrates again the relation of the direct object to the recoverable aboutness topic or secondary topic. (197) Paraguay (Palacios 2000: 135–136) a. Todos le pueden decir que Ø vieron. CL 3SG can-3PL say-INF that Ø see-PAST-3PL all ‘Everybody can tell her/him that they saw him/her/it.’ b. Normalmente el gasto Ø paga. DET. MSG expense Ø pay-3SG normally ‘Normally she/he pays for the expense.’ c. Tuvo la mala idea de contarØ a la directora has-PAST-3SG the bad idea of tell-INF.Ø to the director (contárselo). (tell-INF.CL 3SG .CLMSG ) ‘She/he had the bad idea to tell the director about it.’ This confirms the close similarity of specifically Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish with Brazilian Portuguese, where object drop obtains primarily for inanimates if anaphoric recoverability is ensured from the immediate linguistic and pragmatic context. Again, the anaphoric dropping strategies presented in this section can be related to extensive leísmo (in Spanish only) and to specific object marking strategies that show considerable differences between European and Latin American Spanish and Portuguese.

5.4.3 Basque Spanish Bilingual Basque Spanish in contact with Basque shows similar behaviour to Ecuadorian (Landa 1995; Franco and Landa 2003),29 however it differs in 29 This description of Basque Spanish relies heavily on the work by Landa (1995) and Franco and Landa (2003).

180

Variation and continuity in time and space

exhibiting only partial leísmo restricted to animate direct objects. Compared with Peninsular Spanish, where only bare objects30 undergo object drop, in Basque Spanish only inanimate objects can be dropped, as in example (198a); animates cannot be dropped (198b). Noteworthy is that object drop in Basque Spanish is restricted to topical objects. (198) Basque Spanish (Franco and Landa 2003: 12–13) a. Ha llegado el paquetei esta mañana pero this morning but has-3SG arrive-PARTIC the parcel no hemos abierto Øi . not have-1PL open-PARTIC Øi ‘The parcel arrived this morning but we haven’t opened (it).’ b. Yoi

no he ido al PRO 1SG not have-1SG go-PARTIC PREP- DET. MSG departamento hoy porque no quiero que Juan apartment today because not want-1SG that Juan

me / *Øi vea. CL 1SG / *Øi see-SBJV-3SG ‘I have not been to the apartment today because I don’t want Juan to see me.’ Further, there are two more important conditions relating to Basque Spanish object marking. There is leísmo extending to all animate objects, as demonstrated in (199a), and absence of clitic doubling of inanimates (199b). (199) Basque Spanish (Franco and Landa 2003: 13) has visto a Juani? a. ¿Lei CL 3SG has-3SG see-PARTIC DOM Juan ‘Have you seen Juan?’ b. *No loi han abierto el paquetei . not CLMSG have-3PL open-PARTIC the parcel ‘They haven’t opened the parcel’. To complicate the matter further, object drop is not categorical but optional and dependent on topical status (Franco and Landa 2003: 319). In sum, more topical 30 Bare objects are determinerless objects as in e.g. ¿Compraste pan? -Did you buy bread?

Object drop and anaphoric recoverability

181

objects seem to be more likely to be fully dropped rather than expressed with an anaphoric clitic. This is a very interesting result and highly relevant to the findings from Latin American contact Spanish, specifically Andean Spanish and Limeño Spanish contact varieties discussed in the final subsection which follows. Limeño Spanish contact varieties object drop is all but restricted to definiteness as long as anaphoric recoverability is ensured by the immediate context. This involves definite noun phrase antecedents in postverbal argument position (200) and preposed in (201). Both objects are not overtly marked, they appear in canonical and topical object position, respectively. (200) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. ¿Recogiste los documentos? pick-up-PAST-2SG the documents ‘Did you pick up the documents?’ b. Ayer mismo Ø recogí. yesterday exactly Ø pick-up-PAST-1SG ‘I picked them up already yesterday.’ Note also the leísmo strategy in (201a) where the indirect object clitic takes up the inanimate preposed determiner phrase topic. Based on an extensive corpus study of Mexican and Madrid Spanish, Schwenter and Alamillo (2007: 119) find that the presence of the adverb ya attracts object drop, specifically of neuter lo. Example (201b) is the only example in my Limeño Spanish contact varieties data with ya; object drop here refers to an anaphoric topic, and perfect tense points towards telicity. The omitted full reference here would be the clitic cluster se lo, referring to the owner of the house and to ese gas. However, inserting only one reference, either of lo/le yields two different meanings as the clitics can refer to either of the two objects. (201) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Ese gas de Camisea yo no le veo su economía. that gas of Camisea PRO 1SG not CL 3SG see-1SG POSS economy ‘I don’t see how that gas from Camisea will be cheaper.’ b. ¿Ya Ø pusieron por su casa? already Ø put-PAST-3PL PREP POSS house ‘Did they already install it where you live?’ Leísmo topic drop includes animate definite pronominal anaphora as in (150) above. The floating topic in (202) reflects the strong relationship between topics and pro-drop, enough evidence to warrant the term topic-drop.

182

Variation and continuity in time and space

(202) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) Ella, yo le llevé a Iquitos, Ø llevé PRO 3FSG PRO 1SG CL 3SG take-PAST-1SG LOC Iquitos Ø take-PAST-1SG en

el

PREP

DET. MSG

90. 90

‘Her, I took to Iquitos, I took (her) in the nineteen nineties.’ Object/topic drop also extends to propositional object drop with the reference recoverable from the immediate discourse context. Example (191) is one of the very few occurrences in my corpus. (203) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) O sea, los pelo la parte de encima la that means CLMPL peel-1SG the piece of above the cascarita blanca y si no Ø quiere picante, las DET. FPL skin white and if not Ø want-3SG spicy saco las venas de adentro. take-off-1SG DET. FPL veins PREP inside ‘I mean, I peel off the top white skin, and if you don’t like it spicy, I remove the inner veins as well.’ Further object drop includes resumptive pronoun drop with preposed inanimate objects as in example (204b). (204) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. ¿Usted la pela? PRO 2SG - FORMAL CLFSG peel-3SG ‘Do you peel it?’ b. A

la

yuca sí Ø pelo. DOM DET. FSG cassava yes Ø peel-1SG ‘Yes, I peel the cassava.’

Another instance of object drop involves verb ellipsis in a propositional phrase leaving the head noun phrase behind as demonstrated in (204). (204) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) Bueno, yo veo la forma Ø o lo hago. ok PRO 1SG see-1SG the way Ø or CLMSG do-1SG ‘All right then, I’ll see how (I can get out of this) or I’ll do it.’

Summary

183

All data mentioned so far involve direct object/topic drop, including leísmo strategies typical for Latin American Spanish and for peninsular leísmo adstratum as described in Fernández Ordóñez (2007, 2009). The next two examples in (204) are typical for Andean Spanish speakers, where the indirect object clitic le is dropped. This may be related to the fact that indirect object clitic doubling does not occur in Andean Spanish. (205) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW) a. Yo Ø decía a la señora. PRO 1SG Ø say-PAST-3SG dat DET. FSG woman ‘I was telling the lady.’ b. Y la suegra Ø fue llevando un and the mother-in-law Ø is-PAST-3SG take-GERUND INDEF enterito a la hijita de mi sobrina. jumpsuit DAT the daughter PREP POSS -1SG niece ‘And the mother-in-law took a jumpsuit as a gift for the baby daughter of my niece.’ Examples for object drop in my data are scarce, consisting mostly of pronominal and noun phrase anaphora, and the rest relating to propositional anaphora or verb phrase ellipsis. For my data involving object drop I assume that only continuing topics can get dropped, hence topic drop would be a more appropriate term.

5.5 Summary All linguistic innovations mentioned for the Limeño Spanish contact varieties data coincide to some extent with the Peninsular Spanish variability set out at the beginning of this chapter. The specific Latin American Spanish leísmo strategy finds its counterpart in Peninsular Spanish in leísmo by adstratum/ contact. The variability described by Fernández Ordóñez (1993, 2007, 2009) is motivated by similar factors as in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, perhaps more visible in the latter due to extra-linguistic factors, such as widespread undereducation, contact mediated by Andean Spanish – which is already a contact variety itself – and the sheer number of speakers who have disconnected from their original first and second languages through migration from their rural homes to the periphery of the capital Lima, where they already were in dialect contact with the prestigious educated dialect and attrition and loss of the Amerindian languages. Furthermore, almost all factors except the mediated contact are also present specifically in the regions discussed in this chapter.

184

Variation and continuity in time and space

We see clearly that Limeño Spanish contact varieties display a hybrid clitic system but also a principled distinction between grammatical agreement with non-agreeing clitics and anaphoric agreement with mostly agreeing clitics. The variability is scalar and dependent on three main factors: 1. Dialect and/or language contact 2. Attrited31 monolingual speakers – responsible for the scalar clitic production 3. Access to formal (standardizing) education and community input Standard Limeño Spanish as the educated norm shows the full clitic system distinguishing between case, gender and number. In this respect it is very similar to Standard Spanish, except for a tendency to allow liberal direct object clitic doubling as in River Plate Spanish (Zdrojewski and Sánchez 2014). Andean Spanish represents a dialect continuum, and serves as the mediating contact language between Limeño Spanish and Quechua. Contact with Aymara is restricted to the most southern part of Peru reaching into northern Chile.32 Andean Spanish (attrited) monolingual speakers show a partial clitic inventory based on case, increasing leísmo, but still a preference for invariant lo with feminine determiner phrases disregarding number and gender. Limeño contact speakers show a variable hybrid clitic system depending on education and stage of the continuum; variability is found across all regions, in mono- and bilinguals. There is widespread consensus that based on a general reanalysis process of the third person paradigm, the grade of feature variability is fundamentally dependent on educational opportunities and not on multilingualism (Cerrón Palomino 1987, 1992, 2003; Caravedo 1999, among many others). Specifically, Caravedo (1999) sees the third person feature variability in Andean Spanish and Amazonian Spanish as a functional variation. The difference in use between agreeing and non-agreeing clitics in grammatical and anaphoric agreement applies to monolingual as well as bilingual speakers of Limeño Spanish contact varieties. These facts strengthen the reanalysis hypothesis and validate the distinction based on syntactic and pragmatic strategies. The most interesting part of the Limeño Spanish contact varieties variability is that speakers use invariant lo as a topicality, 31 The definition of attrited refers to heritage speaker. It is usually the first generation of migrants not speaking the parents’ language any longer but living in contact with the language. 32 The Quechumaran Hypothesis (Campbell 1995) proposing the existence of a distant genetic relationship between Quechua and Aymara is still unconfirmed. Given the strong semantic and structural parallels between the two languages, as well as the geographical restriction of Aymara speakers to the southernmost part of Peru, Aymara has not been treated here as a separate factor in contact. Also, as Cerrón Palomino (1994) demonstrated by extensive research notes and published material, the differences between the two Amerindian languages are mainly lexical.

Summary

185

specifically secondary topic marker and/or transitivity marker. This is also the most intrinsic part of the variability, specifically because of its perceived ungrammaticality. In dialects with extensive leísmo, le replaces the direct object clitics lo, la for all human and inanimate feminine and masculine direct objects. This constitutes a significant extension from standard Peninsular Spanish leísmo, referring mainly to male human direct object arguments, the more so as it also involves extending differential object marking to inanimate objects, which opens clitic doubling to core and non-core object arguments,33 and, as a by-product, admits semantic ambiguity as discussed referring to example (161). However, not all dialects go all the way. Quiteño34 and Paraguayan Spanish exhibit the most advanced stage of pronominal reanalysis. Andean Spanish and Limeño Spanish contact varieties exhibit various degrees of covariation of leísmo and loísmo, with occasional laísmo mainly restricted to anaphora. Paraguay is normally listed as one of the extensive leísmo regions, but it also shows the cline between urban and rural areas, where laísmo occurs to some extent in the former, as demonstrated in (154c), and loísmo to varying degrees in the latter. The twofold clitic doubling strategies (leísmo and loísmo) demonstrate the syntactic motivation for the dative-accusative alternation in monotransitive clauses in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. They show the syntactic and pragmatic strategies non-standardized dialects apply to mark the accusative as the primary object and secondary topic by extending differential object marking to inanimates and using invariant lo, and to a much lesser extent la, as topic-marker and/or transitivity marker.35 These strategies preferentially require an active agent and a theme argument as will be discussed further in the final chapter six. My Limeño Spanish contact varieties data show no evidence of the cluster variability mentioned in Ordóñez (2002) and Heap (1998), the reverse clitic order described there (e.g. me se) is absent from the Latin American data I had access to. Andean Spanish and Limeño Spanish contact varieties show the covariation of third person clusters se lo, se le which is due to leísmo, and ‘redundant’ 33 Note that in some contact dialects even prepositional phrases can be doubled. 34 Suñer and Yépez (1988) and Suñer (1989) deliberately restrict the variability they are describing to the capital of Ecuador. Vincent (2001) and others refer to extensive leísmo in Ecuador. As a dialect speaker myself, I am aware of regional differences, as well as rural and urban preferences, and use both interchangeably. 35 My data suggest that lo, when co-occurring with differential object marking, is in the process of evolving from topic marker to secondary topic and transitivity marker, apparently giving rise to a new accusative casemarker. This however may only be symptomatic of a stage on the way to extensive leísmo.

186

Variation and continuity in time and space

lo with the latter phenomenon occurring to a lesser extent in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. Under extensive leísmo the cluster se le replaces se lo and, as mentioned above lo becomes a null element. In utterances with a highly agentive or overt subject and a highly affected patient object, Limeño Spanish contact varieties data show laísmo. Cases of floating agreement include number and gender, a fact strongly connected to ongoing grammaticalization processes affecting the third person clitic paradigm as discussed in chapters two and four. Object drop in Limeño Spanish contact varieties is frequent, as in other varieties in contact with Basque (Spain), Northern Quechua (Ecuador), Guaraní (Paraguay), Amazonian languages and Brazilian Portuguese among others. The common factor here is that specifically under extensive leísmo conditions, definite patient or theme preverbal or postverbal objects are dropped as long as they are recoverable from the immediate context. This is particularly noticeable in clitic clusters where only direct object clitics are dropped. Here the correlation to topic marking is obvious and can be related directly to secondary topic drop.36 In pro-drop languages, null arguments comprise pronominal subjects and objects. The extension from the subject as primary topic to the object as secondary topic seems to be a natural consequence. Brazilian Portuguese stands out as a peculiar case especially in relation to the absence of object clitics in general use and in promoting full pronouns instead of third person clitics. Unlike European Portuguese which exhibits a full clitic system, Brazilian Portuguese shows a double object marking strategy based on animacy. In this respect the difference in morphological clitic status must be considered.

36 Cooccurrence of direct object clitic doubling and object drop has also been linked to marking “topicality and referent tracking” by Silva-Corvalán (2001).

Chapter 6

Contact and change In Limeño Spanish contact varieties, concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting head- and dependent-marking gave rise to a mix of semantic and pragmatic strategies in object marking and to a new relationship between clitic form and function. The focus of this chapter is on how contact as an external factor, together with the internal changes, may be linked to a language change in progress. Based on notable pragmatic similarities of the Quechua topic marker -qa and Spanish invariant lo as secondary topic marker, I argue that contact is a likely trigger factor for the pragmatic marking we find in contact dialects. I also claim that both morphologically inflected third-person clitic paradigms compete against each other within their respective paradigms for a featurally unmarked form to mark the primary object/secondary topic in clitic doubling.

6.1 Contact in Peruvian Spanish Peru is home to just over one hundred languages with two major Spanish dialects with bilingual and monolingual varieties.1 Andean Spanish is the result of roughly five hundred years of Spanish in contact with Amerindian languages such as Quechuan and Aymaran. Amazonian Spanish stems from contact with Amazonian languages (Arawakan, Panoan, Cahuapanan, Zaparoan, Yaguan, and others). Since the nineteen forties, massive migration has brought Andean Spanish, and to a much lesser extent Amazonian Spanish, into contact with coastal Spanish, resulting in a fairly rapid langage shift (Klee and Caravedo 2005; Mayer 2008; Mayer and Delicado Cantero 2015). As transfer in Peru flows from Quechua and Aymara through Andean Spanish and from Amazonian languages through Amazonian Spanish, the mediating languages to Limeño Spanish contact varieties, which in turn have come into contact with Lima Spanish, the prestigious norm, we are looking at several simultaneous and superimposed scenarios of uni- and bidirectional grammatical borrowing. Quechua and Andean Spanish show gradual convergence due to prolonged coexistence, most notably on the phonetic level and to some extent in object marking strategies (Cerrón Palomino 1987; Muysken 1981, 2001; Sánchez 2003, 2004, 2005). The same applies to Amazonian Spanish in contact with the Amazonian indigenous languages. However, mere proximity of two languages is 1 A first overview of Peruvian Spanish is Benvenutto Murrieta (1936). DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-006

188

Contact and change

not enough for syntactic convergence. As mentioned by Appel and Muysken (1987), it is imaginable that a large number of people speaking two languages will start using the same structures for the following two reasons. Either purely internally motivated resulting in similar structures in another language, or through the borrowing of structures from a contact language because the internal structure of the borrowing language allows it. Another possibility would be that a third language may influence the two converging languages independently. The hypothesis brought forward in this chapter is that the existence of similar structures in contact languages facilitates transfer and speeds up language change. This language external process falls on the fertile ground of a long standing and well documented language with an inherently unstable and highly variable pronominal reference and object marking system. An immediate result is simplified and scalar clitic systems and a complex mix of object marking patterns. I begin the discussion with Basque as an important point of comparison to Peninsular Spanish contact and continue with Amazonian and Andean Spanish object marking. Based on this, the hypothesis of potential transfer of Quechua word order and functional marking is discussed followed by semantic marking strategies and their relation to typological change.

6.1.1 Comparison with Basque Basque is a split ergative language isolate with subject-object-verb word order with a rich case system. Cases are morphologically attached as postpositional affixes to the last nominal constituents; verb-argument relations are head- and dependent-marked. Basque like Quechua lacks grammatical gender. Dative verb agreement is optional if anaphoric recoverability from the context obtains. This is like Andean Spanish, where accusative agreement is obligatory and dative optional. Head- and dependent marking is shown in (206). The subject, the direct object and the indirect object are obligatorily cross-referenced on the finite verb, showing number and person agreement. The auxiliary, as the final constituent of the verb phrase, carries all markers, including tense aspect markers. (206) Basque (Saltarelli 1988: 2) Gu-k gizon-ei liburu-ak ema-n d-i-eza-zki-e-ke-gu. we-E man-PD book-PA give-PRF 3A-3D - D -(PRS )-AUX- PD - POT-1PE ‘We can give the books to the men.’

Contact in Peruvian Spanish

189

Ergative, absolutive or dative nominal casemarkers can be omitted freely, as the obligatory doubles or copies crossreference the object on the verb providing information about person and number as shown in (207). (207) Basque (Saltarelli 1988: 3)2 Ema-n d-i-eza-zki-e-ke-gu. give-PRF 3A-3D -(PRS )-AUX- PA- PD - POT-1PE ‘(We) can give (them) (to them).’ Pro-drop in Basque extends to subject and object arguments, including free pronouns which are marked for person (first, second and third), number and ten cases (absolutive, ergative, dative, genitive, comitative, benefactive, modal/ instrumental, locative, allative and ablative). Important to note is that pro-drop does not extend to focus elements. Curiously, in Basque animacy is not a distinguishing factor in object marking. Therefore, and as has already been mentioned in chapter five, modern Basque Spanish object marking cannot be traced back solely to transfer from Basque, but needs to be linked to language-internal changes as well, a contact situation very similar to Spanish. Jendraschek (2007) argues that some contact-induced changes, such as neutralization of the morphosyntactic distinction between indirect and direct objects, are borrowings from contact with Romance. Although Basque distinguishes between syntactic functions by head- and dependent-marking, verbal morphology often lacks a distinction between direct and indirect objects in colloquial Basque and is replaced instead by case-specific auxiliaries. In (208a) the indirect object recipient is encoded in the auxiliary dit, the direct object in (208b) is encoded in the auxiliary nau. (208) Basque (Jendraschek 2007: 159) a. Ogi-a ekarr-i di-t. bread-DET bring-PARTIC PRES -3SGABS -1SGIO (3SGERG ) ‘He brought me the bread.’ b. Kotxe-an ekarri-i nau. car-LOC bring-PARTIC PRES -1SGABS (3SGERG ) ‘He brought me (here) by car.’ The extended use of the direct object auxiliary nau illustrated in (209) is an example of neutralization of the two object functions. Jendraschek traces this 2 I keep the formatting of the glosses as used in Saltarelli (1988). Glosses: PRS = present tense, PD = plural dative, PA = plural absolutive, PRF = perfective aspect, POT = potential (tense).

190

Contact and change

back to the Spanish and French case syncretic clitic me as in me ha traido/il m’a apporté (he has brought me), and proposes an analysis of translational equivalents (me ha: nau) over one arguing for genuine syntactic change. (209) Basque (Jendraschek 2007: 155)3 Ogi-a ekarr-i nau. bread-DET bring-PARTIC PRES -1SGABS (3SGERG ) ‘He brought me the bread.’ Proof of a syntactic difference in both cases is given by “the fact that the different bound morphemes on the auxiliary correspond to different cases of the optional emphatic pronouns” (Jendraschek 2007: 155), here niri in (210a) vs. ni in (210b). (210) Basque (Jendraschek 2007: 155–166) a. Ogi-a ni-ri ekarr-i di-t. bread-DET 1SG - DAT bring-PARTIC . PRES -3SGABS -1SGIO (3SGERG ) ‘He brought me the bread.’ b. Kotxe-an ni ekarr-i nau. car-LOC SG (ABS ) bring-PARTIC PRES -1SGABS (3SGERG ) ‘He brought me (here) by car.’ Contact Basque seems to show a general tendency to develop analytical forms and increased usage of prefixes and postposed relatives. This is treated as an influence from a grammaticalization that has taken place in Spanish and is being “imitated in Basque through calques that introduce a new grammatical construction” by adding a semantic feature (Jendraschek 2007: 160). This is the inverse strategy from Limeño Spanish contact varieties and other dialects that show an increase of pragmatic strategies over semantic and showing convergence with Quechua semantic marking.

6.2 Amazonian Spanish Apart from lexical borrowings, notable contact-induced traits of Amazonian Spanish are word order restructure, clitic reduplication and variability in dependent-marking.

3 This example is based on Lafitte (1944/2001).

Amazonian Spanish

191

6.2.2 Contact with Brazilian Portguese In Brazilian Portuguese, a Romance language very closely related to Spanish, third-person object clitics are experiencing substantial changes possibly due to isomorphism, in other words, increasing syncretism as shown in (211). The masculine singular determiner o in (211a) is syncretic with the preverbal masculine singular direct object clitic o in (211b). The feminine determiner and the object clitic a show the same syncretism. (211) Brazilian Portuguese a. Eu conheci o João numa festa. PRO 1SG meet-PAST-1SG DET. MSG João PREP- INDEF. SG party ‘I met João at a party.’ b. Eu

conheci numa festa. meet-PAST-1SG PREP- INDEF- FSG party ‘I met him at a party.’ PRO 1SG

o

CL 3MSG

These syncretic forms pave the way for the direct object clitics to be replaced by free pronouns (212a), which in turn can undergo object drop as in (212b). (212) Brazilian Portuguese (Farrell 1990: 327–328) a. Eu conheci ele numa festa. PRO 1SG meet-PAST-1SG PRO 3MSG PREP- INDEF. SG party ‘I met him at a party.’ b. Eu

conheci Ø numa festa. PRO 1SG meet-PAST-1SG Ø PREP- INDEF. SG party ‘I met him at a party.’

Farrell (1990: 344) draws a parallel between Brazilian Portuguese and Ecuadorian Spanish, specifically Quiteño, object drop, arguing for both empty positions to be analyzed as strong pronouns and as opposed to empty topics. In the case of the indirect object clitics (lhe(s)), strong pronouns are introduced by the case marker a or by the preposition para, showing a development parallel to Limeño Spanish contact varieties. The important differences are that, as argued by Farrell (1990: 372), both third-person object clitic paradigms are competing with full pronouns,4 producing two parallel systems especially in colloquial speech, triggering object drop preferentially of direct objects. Spanish shares the object 4 This includes also the impersonal a gente replacing first person plural pronouns postverbally in some colloquial varieties.

192

Contact and change

drop strategy but not the competition between object pronouns and strong pronouns. Brazilian Portuguese contact Spanish at the Colombian-Brazilian border produces examples like (213a) showing direct object drop, lack of differential object marking and clitic doubling. Standard Spanish in (213b), on the other hand, exhibits full production of the pronominal object and differential object marking since clitic doubling with a strong pronoun is obligatory except under limited circumstances as discussed above. (213) Amazonian Spanish, Leticia (Rodriguez de Montes 1981: 85) Ø nosotrosi. a. Cuando él Øi mira when PRO 3MSG Ø look-3SG Ø PRO 1MPL ‘When he looks at us.’ b. Standard Spanish Cuando él nos mira (a nosotros). PRO 3MSG CL 1PL look-3SG (DOM PRO 1MPL) when ‘When he looks at us.’ Contact-induced variability in (213a) does not obtain in Spanish in contact with European Portuguese, which has feature-specific object clitics like Peninsular Spanish though differing in morphological status (as described in section 2.1).

6.2.3 Contact with Ashéninka-Perené 5 Ashéninka-Perené is an endangered dialect of the Ashaninka languages which are Arawakan languages spoken in central Peru. It is a nominative/accusative language with split intransitivity conditioned by grammatical and pragmatic factors. Unlike Spanish, Ashéninka has rich subject and objet agreement. Subject pronons are verbal prefixes and object pronouns are affixes. The third-person pronoun stem -ri is shared with the demonstratives, distinguishing between anaphoric and cataphoric reference as shown in Table 6.1. Cataphoric references are driven by attaching the prefix ‘h’ to the anaphoric pronoun, for example, anaphoric near is irika (masculine) and iroka (feminine) vs. cataphoric hirika (masculine) and hiroka (feminine), with the Perené dialect showing more

5 Brazilian Portuguese is also in contact with several Ashaninka groups who migrated across the border. There is no research yet on the potential Romance continuum in their bilingual Spanish and Portuguese.

193

Amazonian Spanish

distinctive forms related to relative distance from the speaker. This dialect also has apart from gender-specific forms a gender-neutral form to refer to either masculine or feminine objects. Table 6.1: Ashéninka-Perené demonstrative pronouns (Reed and Payne 1986: 330) ADVERBS

ANAPHORIC

CATAPHORIC

haka

irika (yoka) iroka

hirika hiroka (hiraka)

‘near m’ ‘near f’ ‘near m or f”

(ara)

(yora) (irora)

(hirira) (hirora) (hirara)

‘far-1 m’ ‘far-1 f’ ‘far-1 m or f”

hanta

irinta (yonta) ironta

hirinta hironta (hiranta)

‘far-2 m’ ‘far-2 f’ ‘far-2 m or f’

hantó

irintó irontó

hirintó hirontó (hirantó)

‘far-3 m’ ‘far-3 f’ ‘far-3 m or f’

The common genesis of the Ashéninka-Perené and Spanish third-person paradigm from demonstratives, as well as the expression of third person genderspecific and gender-nonspecific marker is an important parallel which is reflected in my Ashéninka Spanish contact data. They show extensive leísmo even with primary transitive verbs6 and lack of differential object marking with human highly affected patients in (214a), and gender and number neutralization and clitic reduplication in (214b). Clitic reduplication as shown in examples (214b) and (215a) is another very productive and specific trait and can be traced back to the fact that all arguments in transitive constructions require obligatory pronominal agreement resulting in convergence. (214) Ashéninka Spanish in contact with Ashéninka-Perené (Mayer-FW) a. Esos chunches hay que matarles. DEM . MPL chunches must that kill-INF. CL 3SG ‘Those wild tribesmen have to be killed.’7 b. Le

vamos brindarle nuestroi danzasi . CL 3SG go-1PL give-INF. CL 3SG POSS -1MPL dances.FPL ‘We are going to offer our dances to you.’

6 See Andrews and Manning (1999) for an explanation for Standard Spanish. 7 Normally it is chunchos, the term refers to an ethnic group living in the Andean and Amazonian regions in Peru at the time of the Spanish conquista.

194

Contact and change

Example (215b) is representative of the entire range of object marking variability in one single sentence. It shows lack of differential object marking for the definite, specifc human subject, non-agreeing gender in the immediately following direct object anaphoric clitic, human third-person marking with indirect object clitic reduplication and lo as transitivity marker. (215) Ashéninka Spanish (Mayer-FW) a. Le estamos hablándole. CL 3SG are-1PL talk-GERUND.CL 3SG ‘We are talking to you.’8 b. Que Ø el Curacai lai agarraron, lei torturaron CL 3FSG catch-PAST-3PL CL 3SG torture-PAST-3PL that Ø the priest pero no loi han podido matarlei . but not CL 3MSG have-3PL can-PARTIC kill-inf.CL 3SG “That they captured the priest, they tortured him but they could not kill him.’ Ashéninka-Perené bilingual Spanish and Northern Peruvian Andean Spanish share a common differential object marking variant with different locative prepositions. Northern Peru uses the locative onde which is equivalent to donde9 as differential object marker instead of a as in the example (216a) for AshéninkaPerené Spanish and in (261b) for Northern Andean Spanish. Ashéninka-Perené Spanish uses the peposition en instead in (216c). (216) Northern Peru (Bossong 1991: 148) a. Buscaré onde ‘l corderito más gordo. most fat seek-FUT-1SG DAT = ACC DET lamb ‘I shall look for the fattest lamb.’ Northern Andean Spanish, Cabana, Pallasca (Andrade 2012: 219) b. Que lo miraba, dice, onde ella, la Virgen. that CL 3 look-PAST-3SG say-3SG DOM PRO 3FSG the virgen ‘That s(he) looked, s(he) said at the Virgin.’ Ashéninka-Perené Spanish (Mayer and Sánchez 2016, 2017b, 2017c) c. Le iba Ø picar semejante culebra CL 3SG is-PAST-3SG PREP bite-INF such-big snake en

su

PREP

POSS

bebita. baby.DIMIN

‘Such a big snake was going to bite her little baby.’ 8 Meaning really: ‘I am talking to you.’ 9 The locative donde is also used to link clauses and topics.

Amazonian Spanish

195

Verbal agreement is reduced to second and third person singular and thirdperson plural with some verbs. Clitic reduplication with either two dative clitics or a mix of accusative lo followed by dative le can be a possible result of convergence due to similar subject and object agreement in Spanish. AshéninkaPerené bilingual Spanish shows contact-induced simplification in the clitic paradigm with invariant lo as a topic and transitivity marker specifically in clitic reduplication.

6.2.4 Contact with Yagua Payne and Payne (1990) describe Yagua spoken in the north-eastern part of Peru reaching into the Colombian Amazon region. This verb-subject-object language of the Peba-Yaguan language family marks determiner phrase object arguments with a coreferential clitic as shown in (217) and (218). Yagua has a set of proclitics and enclitics, both sets are morphologically similar but only the third-person singular paradigm shows completely different forms (Payne and Payne 1990: 364). Locality condition and animacy constraints are interesting especially for the object enclitic níí. It is not attached to the object itself but to any constituent preceding the object to be marked. Also, animacy as a grammatical category is not based on biological grounds as can be seen in (217b), where pineapple is treated as animate10 like the co-occurring human patient object in (217a) marked on the locative phrase by níí. The proclitic sa marks the agent. (217) Yagua (Payne and Payne 1990: 376) a. Sa-púúchiy Pauro rooriy-viimu-níí Anita. 3SGSUBJ -lead/carry Paul house-inside-3SGOBJ Anita ‘Paul leads/carries Anita inside/at the house. Yagua (Payne and Payne 1990: 365) b. Sa-vaąąta-níí niintyu. 3-want-3SG . ANIM pineapple ‘He wants the pineapple.’ In the next example the proclitic sa marks the agent. The postpositional enclitic object marker -níí doubles an animate patient argument in (218a) and (218b) and appears as in (217a) on the locative phrase instead of the patient argument. 10 Animate status in Yagua includes “rocks, fans, brooms, the moon, stars, mirrors and photographs” (Payne and Payne 1990: 376).

196

Contact and change

(218) Yagua (Payne and Payne 1990: 255) a. Sa-jimyiy Alchíco-níí quiivą. 3SG - SUBJ -eat Alchico-3SGOBJ fish ‘Alchico is eating the fish.’ b. Sa-jimyiy-níí quiivą. 3SG - SUBJ- eat-3SGOBJ fish ‘He is eating the fish.’ c. Sa-jimyiy sinu-mu-níí quiivą. 3SG - SUBJ-eat land-LOC -3SG II fish ‘He is eating the fish on land.’ Yagua contact Spanish reflects very liberal clitic doubling like Lima Spanish (and also River Plate). In fact, topical direct objects in Yagua seem to be more marked than non-topical direct objects (Payne and Payne 1990) albeit on a different animacy hierarchy.11 To sum up this section about similarities and differences in contact languages discussed here. Both contact Spanish varieties, Amazonian Spanish and colloquial Basque Spanish seem to show an inverse development. While in Basque the increasing importance and occurrence of the accusative auxiliary nau points towards object neutralization in favour of the accusative, object marking in Amazonian Spanish shows varying outcomes according to contact. In Colombian Spanish in contact with Brazilian Portuguese object marking disappears, the direct object is dropped and clitic doubling does not obtain. Peruvian Amazonian Spanish in contact with other Amazonian languages, like Yagua and Ashéninka-Perené for example, shows very similar variability to Limeño Spanish contact varieties in exhibiting lo as topic and transitivity marker, extensive leísmo doubling and clitic reduplication, with the latter restricted to Spanish in contact with Ashéninka-Perené.

6.2.5 Quechua Quechua and Spanish are typologically distant languages. Information structure in the subject-verb-object language Spanish is encoded in syntax and prosody (O’Rourke 2004, 2005). In Quechua, information-structure is expressed in morphology and syntax (O’Rourke 2009). Quechua differential object marking is 11 Based on a slightly modified version of the well known distinction into head- and dependentmarking (Nichols 1986), Sinnemäki (2008: 74) categorizes patient-marking in Yagua as dependentmarking.

Amazonian Spanish

197

mainly regulated by semantic strategies and correlation with information structure is incidental, classifying it as type two in the typology of differential object marking languages (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 215). Recall that Spanish is a type three (a) language where semantic and pragmatic marking are governed by the topicality of the object. Since Landerman’s (1991) review of former classifications of the Quechua languages, the strict twofold classification into Central Quechua and all others, based on first person, has been modified to a language family of closely related languages of many dialects showing considerable variability – a situation comparable to the Romance language family as suggested by Muysken (1989: 4) while avoiding the term dialect. The comparison with Romance allows us to classify Quechua languages as belonging to the same genetic group but for which one speaks of different languages where some variability can be characterised as a dialect continuum. During the Inca Empire, the southern variety of Quechua, or Quechua II, served as the lingua franca (Cerrón Palomino 1987; Chirinos Rivera 2001). Quechua is a left branching (subject)-object-verb language with free word order in main clauses, where arguments are extensively marked by case and agreement (Cerrón Palomino 1987; Lefebvre and Muysken 1988). A distinctive feature is that pronouns, nouns and adjectives form a single category. Quechua is also a two-person language12 distinguishing between human and non-human referents for the third person. The nonhuman third-person is identical with the demonstrative, this however varies from dialect to dialect and has to be taken into account (Weber 1989). Cusihuamán (1976: 108) argues that Quechua lacks third-person clitics and that names are replaced by personal pronouns. Verbal inflection shows morphological marking of first and second person for direct and indirect objects, third-person is not cross-referenced on the verb, but is a zero morpheme as shown in (219a). Compare this with the Spanish example (219b) which has a feature-distinguishing full paradigm. (219) Quechua (Escobar 1990: 86) a. Ø riku-ni. Ø see-INF-1SG ‘I see Ø (him/her/it/them).’ 12 I follow here the distinction in Bhat (2004) where a two-person language has only two personal pronouns, one for the speaker and the other for the addressee. A three-person language has an additional third person pronoun, denoting a person different from speaker and addressee. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online available at http://wals.info/features/chapter43, offers extensive documentation on the relationship between third-person pronouns and demonstratives.

198

Contact and change

Standard Spanish b. Lo(s) / la(s) / le(s) veo. CL 3MSG (PL) / CL 3FSG (PL) / CL 3SG (PL) see-1SG ‘I see him/her/it/them.’ The lack of a third-person object clitic paradigm is most important for the apparent free variation of third-person clitics found in Andean Spanish. Camacho and Sánchez (2002: 37) show that competing case in both grammars, Quechua and Spanish contact, allows for permeability and transfer concluding that “dialects in contact with Quechua can simplify either in favour of the dative or the accusative”. Quechua has a very complex postverbal agreement system where subject and object marking is dependent on the relation between subject and object. Subjects are casemarked with agreement markers, and only special subjects receive casemarking (nominative and genitive by inflection). Objects are marked on the verb either in terms of the non-subject function, or dependent on the semantic roles Theme, Source and Goal, or in relation to the verbal subcategorization frame. There is no distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. Quechua follows the classic nominal marking pattern of nominativeaccusative languages in marking the object with the object marker -ta which has multiple functions. In its marking function (i), it marks the accusative based on the thematic roles patient, theme; the dative, except recipients which are marked by prepositions; and goal and locative arguments; and (ii) it acts as a transitiviser. As Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 261) remark “object marking is sensitive to argument status: not only must the NP be a constituent of the matrix VP, it has to be an argument of the matrix verb”. Accusative marking is shown in (219), where the nominative subject is unmarked on the noun, but cross-referenced on the verb. Every component of the direct object argument in this Northern Peruvian Quechua variety receives accusative marking (219b).13 (219) Cajamarca Quechua (Bossong 2003: 25) a. Noqa-Ø Lurinsu-ta tinku-rqa-ni nañ-pi. PRO 1SG - NOM Lorenzo-ACC meet-PAST-1SG way-LOC ‘I met Lorenzo on the way.’ b. Taytay-Ø tanta-ta fidiyus-ta arrus-ta ranti-rqa-n. POSS -father-NOM bread-ACC noodles-ACC rice-ACC buy-PAST-3SG ‘My father bought bread, noodles and rice.’ 13 Note that not all Quechua varieties mark all parts of the object.

Amazonian Spanish

199

The case suffix –ta in (220a) can also be used to mark Goal arguments and in (220b) to express motion through space as perlative case in Ayacucho Quechua. (220) Ancash Quechua (Cole 1985: 2-3) a. [Lima-ta chaari-r] rikaari-shaq amigu-uta. Lima-ACC arrive-SEQ - SS see-FUT-1SG friend-my-ACC ‘After arriving in Lima, I’ll see my friend.’ Ayacucho Quechua (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 215) b. Urku-n-ta ri-n. mountain-3POSS -ACC go-3SUBJ ‘It goes through the mountain.’ The claim that Quechua object marking has double actant marking is based on the interaction of an animacy hierarchy (first person > second person > third person) and an object-subject constraint (Lakämper and Wunderlich 1998: 127). This is a strong parallel to Limeño Spanish contact varieties, possibly due to convergence. Object marking as shown in (221), only occurs if the (object) person outranks the subject on the animacy hierarchy. (221) Quechua (Lakämper and Wunderlich 1998: 128) a. Quam-ta rika-r-ni-(y)ki. 1/2 you-ACC see-SS-ni-2 ‘When I see you.’ b. Rika-shu-r-ni-(y)ki. 3/2 see-OBJ-SS-ni-2 ‘When he/she sees you.’ In Quechua double object constructions, we find objective and dative case alternation with animate objects. In some varieties, such as Imbabura Quechua (Ecuador, part of Northern Quechua) and Tarma Quechua (Peru, central Andean Southern variety) absence of morphological marking of direct objects is permitted under adjacency conditions; this is not the case for Cuzco Quechua. Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) analyze all elements marking case, number, tense, and person on nominalised verbs as affixes and not clitics. An important difference between the head-final language Quechua and Spanish is that case in Quechua in (222a) is morphologically marked by case suffixes (Cerrón Palomino 1987), and in Spanish in (222b) by prepositions (Sánchez 2012).

200

Contact and change

(222) Ulcumayo Quechua (Sánchez 2012: 511) a. Huk runa-n pukl-ya-n algu-wan. One man-FOC / EVID play-PROG -3SG dog-COM ‘A man plays with a dog.’ Spanish (Sánchez 2012: 511) b. Un hombre juega con un perro. A man play-3SG PREP a dog ‘A man plays with a dog.’ As (222a) shows, Quechua lacks overt determiners and therefore does not show morphologically the definite-indefinite distinction on nominals which is an important aspect in differential object marking dependent on the semantic properties definiteness and animacy. Andean Spanish, the Spanish contact variety born out of dialect contact with Standard Spanish and Amerindian Languages, clearly reflects this difference in casemarking. 6.2.6 Andean Spanish Andean Spanish is neither a discrete nor homogeneous variety, shaped through five hundred years of continuous language contact with Spanish and Amerindian languages. It represents a dialect continuum involving monolingual and bilingual speakers from close to Standard Spanish to strongly influenced by Quechua and is generally classified as a dialect based on the following facts: it shows particular phonological (assibilation of /r/ → [ř], vowel alternation of mid and high vowels – Quechua has no mid vowels); lexical borrowings; and specific grammatical characteristics (Cerrón Palomino 2003; de Granda 2001; Pérez 1997). The geographic extension reaches from the southern part of Colombia, through Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru into the northern provinces of Argentina (Santiago de Estero). I follow Escobar (1994), Cerrón Palomino (2003) and others in not making a distinction between Bilingual Spanish and Andean Spanish as there is no perceivable difference with regard to the behaviour of clitic doubling as object marking. The following points of variability in clitic usage in Andean Spanish have been attributed to Quechua influences (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 595–597): a partial scalar clitic inventory on a continuum based on case; and leísmo and invariant lo as topicality and transitivity marker.14 The latter refers to the seemingly redundant appearance of an invariant clitic lo in monotransitive constructions (Cerrón Palomino 2003). According to Pérez (1997), Andean Spanish 14 See Coronel-Molina and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2012) for a very comprehensive overview re Universal Grammar and Language contact in the Andean region.

Amazonian Spanish

201

speakers have practically collapsed the third-person clitic paradigm and reanalyzed the gender, number and case, discerning Spanish object agreement system as a unique category with free variation of all possibilities. Caravedo (1990) argues for Andean Spanish and Amazon Spanish that all pronouns have lost their original referential function and are mere remnants of an unstable system in the process of dissolving. Examples (223) and (224) highlight the differences in object marking for Standard Spanish, Andean Spanish and Quechua, with (223) showing the previously mentioned sole category of the third-person object clitic paradigm. (223) Andean Spanish (Pérez 1997: 36) / loi / lai conoce a mi mamái. Juan lei Juan CL 3SG / CL 3MSG / CL 3FSG knows-3SG DOM POSS mother ‘Juan knows my mother’ Pérez ascribes the absence of the obligatory direct object clitic in the preposed construction in Andean Spanish in (224b) to a direct transfer from the Quechua object-verb agreement system as in example (224a). Dislocated (or preposed) noun phrase arguments in Standard Spanish (224c) require an immediate preverbally located pronominal copy. This applies to direct and indirect objects as well as to leísmo constructions. (224) Quechua (Pérez 1997: 42) a. Huwan-ta riqis-ni llaq-ta-y-man-ta. Huwan-ACC know-1SG town-POSS -1SG - from ‘I know Huwan from my town.’ Andean Spanish (Pérez 1997: 35) b. A Juan Ø conozco de mi pueblo. OM Juan Ø know-1SG PREP POSS village ‘I know Juan from my village.’ Standard Spanish (Pérez 1997: 36) c. A Juan *(lo) conozco de mi pueblo. OM Juan CL 3MSG know-1SG PREP POSS village ‘I know Juan from my village.’ As already shown for Amazon Spanish third-person, clitic reduplication as in (225) with complex predicates also obtains in Andean Spanish.

202

Contact and change

(225) Andean Spanish (Luján 1987: 117) Me está castigándome. CL 1SG is-3SG punishing-me-1SG ‘(S) he is punishing me.’ At the southern end of the Andean Spanish geographic extension, the variability exposed above has also been reported for Chile.15 Limeño Spanish contact varieties are part of the Andean Spanish continuum, with migrant speakers of first, second and third generation from the Andean regions to the capital Lima, exhibiting a scalar range of variability in morphosyntactic objective marking due to dominant vs. balanced competencies.

6.3 The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa Given the multifunctional use of the Quechua casemarker -ta, overgeneralization of a functionally partially equivalent form in Spanish could be attributed in part to it (Lipski 1994, 2007a, 2007b, 2014; Paredes 1996: 30). Another proposal towards an explanation of a potential transfer of pragmatic strategies included word order transfer (Pérez 1997). A distinction into referential and non-referential lo is drawn by Calvo (2000), with the latter being analyzed as transitivity and possible aspect marker. In Huallaga Quechua, the object marker -ta is treated as a simple postposition heading object noun phrases (Weber 1993: 96). Lipski (1996, 2007b) and Pérez (1997) treat the grammaticalized featureless form lo as an accusative marker for the direct object. The suffix -ta is located at the right edge of its object, and, due to basic (subject)-object-verb Quechua word order, happens to appear in preverbal position. Therefore, by virtue of locality co-occurrence in preverbal position of the Quechua accusative casemarker -ta in (226a) and (226c), and Spanish invariant lo, non-agreeing direct object marking as in (226b) and (226d) is explained as the transfer of the dependent-marker -ta and the head-marker lo from Quechua to Spanish. (226) Lipski (2007b: 3)16 a. T’ika-ta kuchu-ni. Flower-ACC cut-1SG ‘I cut the flower.’ b. Lo corto la flor. CL 3MSG cut-1SG DET. FSG flower ‘I cut the flower.’ 15 See Silva-Corvalán (1989) for an extended discussion. 16 Accessed online at http://www.personal.psu.edu/jm/34/papers.htm.

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

203

c. Ima-ta kuchi-ni? what-ACC cut-1SG ‘What do I cut?’ d. ¿Qué lo corto? what CL 3MSG cut-1SG ‘What do I cut?’ As shown in (226b) and (226d), contact speakers may misinterpret the relationship between form and meaning, and mistake it for a topicalised left dislocated construction17 which requires a resumptive pronoun in standard Spanish as in (227). (227) Vargas Llosa (2003) asumo totalmente. El compromisoi de escribir, loi the commitment of write-INF CL 3MSG assume-1SG fully ‘I fully embrace the commitment to write.’ Preposed direct objects and indirect objects also mimic Quechua (subject)object-verb word order, in that they obligatorily introduce a third-person clitic in immediate preverbal position. In Standard Spanish, feature agreeing clitics co-occurring with the coreferential object in (228a) depend on semantic strategies. In contact varieties in (228b), invariant lo is pragmatically motivated. (228) Standard Spanish vimos ayer en la fiesta. a. A Marlenei lai DOM Marlene CL 3FSG see-PAST-1PL yesterday in the party ‘Marlene, we saw her yesterday at the party.’ Nicaraguan Spanish loj rompió el viento. b. A la velai DOM DET. FSG sail.FSG CL 3SG break-PAST-3SG the storm ‘The sail was broken by the wind.’18 The most extensive comparative description of Quechua and Aymara structures places emphasis on the close relatedness of the topicalizer Quechua -qa and Aymara –xa (Cerrón Palomino 1994: 136). The simple declarative clause in (229) 17 In topicalized left dislocated constructions, a-marking is optional. 18 Spanish TV, September 6, 2007. Oral data from an interview with a young man in Nicaragua asking him about the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Felix.

204

Contact and change

shows the similarities of the three languages in argument marking for Quechua (229a), Aymara (229b) and Andean Spanish (229c). (229) Quechua (Cerrón Palomino 1994: 144) a. Allqu-qa kawallu-ta kani-n. dog-TOP horse-ACC bite-3SG ‘The dog bites the horse.’ Aymara b. Anu-xa kawallu ach-thap-i. bite-into-3SG dog-TOP horse ‘The dog bites the horse.’ Spanish c. El

perro muerde al caballo. dog bite-3SG DOM - DET. MSG horse.MSG ‘The dog bites the horse.” DET. MSG

Note that Aymara is a tonal language, it marks the object kawallu with a falling tone on the last syllable, instead of the morphological accusative casemarker -ta used in Quechua. The topicalizer -qa marks the subject, the directional/ locational -thap-i marks the object and third-person of the subject. The topic marker -qa is an independent suffix; it can also function as contrast and can attach to verbal and nominal expressions (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 209). It can co-occur with the object marker -ta (230a) but is restricted to main clause constituents, resembling a direct object clitic doubling construction with agreeing clitics. This restriction is based on the following conditions. Firstly, specificity and topicality as found in liberal clitic doubling dialects (230b) and secondly, the non-standardized innovation in Limeño Spanish contact varieties which in turn is based on pragmatic strategies in (230c). (230) Huallaga Quechua (Weber 1989: 395) a. Hatun wasi-ta-qa muna-:. big house-ACC -TOP want-1SG ‘I want a big house.’ Standard Limeño Spanish b. ¿Lai frío a la cebollai? CL 3FSG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘Shall I fry the onion?’

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

205

Mayer (FW-LSCV) frío a la cebollai . c. Loi CL 3SG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ The extension of differential objet marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties is like the treatment of primary topics in Quechua as shown in (231) morphologically marking a primary topic in situ with an accusative. Monotransitive clauses in Limeño Spanish contact varieties exhibit very much the same phenomenon with extended differential object marking to topic inanimates, whereas Standard Spanish restricts differential object marking to specific and animate objects. However, personal a-marking can be extended to inanimate objects to topicalize them. (231) Quechua Wasi hunt’u-ta riku-ni. house full-ACC see-1SG ‘I see a full house.’ In Quechua, secondary topics can appear either on the right or left periphery of the verb, co-occurrence of a coindexed lexical pronoun and -ta in the same clause is constrained to the noun in topic position (232). This construction is very similar to secondary topic marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and can be linked to double actant marking. (232) Quechua (Lefebvre and Muysken 1988: 138) Hamu-q warma-(ta)-qa, Santiyagu riku-n. come-INDEF girl-(ACC )-TOP Santiago see-3 ‘Santiago sees the girl who is coming.’ The typological differences and even more so the similarities between Spanish and Quechua languages are of special importance regarding argument marking and potential transfer through Andean Spanish to Limeño Spanish contact varieties as shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 shows a comparison of the Quechua topic marker -qa and the secondary topic marker lo in contact Spanish. The tentative summary shows the high degree of affinity of both.19

19 For the compilation of the Quechua parameters I relied on Weber (1989) and Bossong (1989).

206

Contact and change

Table 6.2: Topicality markers in Quechua and Limeño Spanish contact varieties properties

lo

-qa

phonologically dependent specific locality conditions co-occurrence with casemarker

yes yes yes

yes yes yes

multiple occurrence

no

yes

grammatical agreement head-marking cataphoric reference

yes yes yes

yes yes yes

no object drop

yes

no

Adjacency conditions are specific to each and differ as to the host category; however, both are restricted to main clause constituents only; -qa can attach to a number of syntactic categories which lo cannot use as a host as in Quechua case can be part of nominal or verbal projection. Both can co-occur with a casemarker. Both markers are part of grammatical agreement and when in cataphoric agreement they point towards the relevance of the subject and object and their relationship within the context. By that Weber (1989: 404) means “the set of propositions that the speaker assumes the hearer to know at the point at which he says the sentence.” Weber emphasises on the high frequency of use of -qa in folktales compared with low frequency in personal narratives, ascribing this to the pointing effect when shifting speakers and events. This is the reason for the cataphoric reading in the chart. Despite the morphological and syntactic differences of both contact languages, the semantic and pragmatic marking strategies are almost identical. In both languages, the essence is that the speaker seeks to “guide the attention of the hearer.” The examples presented in this section also show that invariant lo is most probably not only a secondary topic marker but also a transitivity or aspectual marker referring among other values to aspectual marker in cases of redundant or false pronominalizations in phrases such as lo durmió (acaba de dormir) ‘I just slept’, lo iré (iré ahora mismo) ‘I’ll go (there) right now’. Cerrón Palomino (Cerrón Palomino 2003: 157) traces these instances of invariant/redundant lo back to a calque from the Quechua perfective suffixes -rqu, (pronounced -l?u in some dialects), with the equivalent Aymara form -t’a expressing a sudden action. Based on the extensive increase and diffusion of its use, Muysken (1984) argues against a transfer hypothesis and for an internally motivated change. However, given the difference in word order, and due to the inherent characteristics of pragmatic object marking in both languages as shown in Table

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

207

6.1, prolonged contact engendered innovative structures through lexical and semantic borrowings, yielding a specialized pragmatic strategy appropriate for communication in a multilingual environment. In my view this invites to speculate that non-standard clitic doubling structures and extended differential object marking form a virtual template which facilitates syntactic transfer including of course language-internal processes.

6.3.1 Topicality vs. transitivity I have previously argued that grammaticized clitics devoid of referential information evolve into topicality and transitivity markers and denote secondary topics based on double actant marking (Bossong 2003) and topic-worthiness (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). I will now present more evidence that shows that the featureless grammaticalized form lo is both, and that the transition from topicality to secondary topic and transitivity marker is marked by grammaticalized clitics evolving from agreement marker to objective marker. Topicality is a status that is shared by the subject as the natural topic and the direct object because it expresses the relationship that holds between both. The stronger the relationship between them, the more topical the argument. For example, the grammatical relations subject-verb and clitic-thematic object show both strong agreement and as such are highly topical. In Spanish objective marking in terms of the differential object marker as dependent-marker and third-person clitics as head-markers show a very interesting diachronic development of both marking devices concurrently as shown in the evolution model in Table 4.1. Differential object marking employs semantic strategies to mark objects of highly transitive verbs which in Standard Spanish yield a topical object. In non-standardized mainly oral varieties such as Limeño Spanish contact varieties, grammaticized clitics as head-markers show a mix of marking strategies as shown below. The invariant clitic lo in (233) fulfils a double function. Together with extended differential object marking, lo pragmatically marks a secondary topic, (lo = (TOP↑)), in the postverbal direct object slot which is the preferred place to introduce new information. Secondly, it acts as a transitiviser for the statechanging primary-transitive verb, marking both the non-overt agentive subject and a highly prototypical patient object argument20 representing the ultimate target of the transitivity (the thematic role goal). This leads in (233) to multiple, 20 In the sense of double actant marking (Bossong 2003).

208

Contact and change

simultaneously occurring, semantic and pragmatic strategies in object marking apparently breaking all conventional rules. (233) Mayer (FW-LSCV) frío a la cebollai . Loi CL 3SG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ The annotation in (234) formalises the requirements for the grammaticized topicality marker lo. It requires the presence of an object so it can function as a transitiviser and to ascribe topicality to that object. (234) ↑ = ((OBJ ↑) TOP) The evidence presented so far motivates the analysis of lo, including la in a laísmo strategy specific to Limeño Spanish contact varieties, acting as topicality and transitivity marker – based on thematic roles, particularly highly affected Patients. As topic marker, lo marks secondary topic. I assume at this stage for Limeño Spanish contact varieties a mixed typological configuration of accusativedative in monotransitive (single object) clauses and primary object/secondary object in ditransitive (double object) clauses. In these cases differential object marking cannot be explained in purely semantic terms (Aissen 2003) but has to take into account that in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, differential object marking is partly determined by information structure role. The correlation of grammatical marking with information-structural encoding (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011) and semantic strategies can be linked to a split object marking system where both internal arguments compete for primary object status. In the rest of this chapter I focus on grammatical marking in the syntax – semantic interface which due to exended differential object marking and syncretism of the dative and accusative casemarker results in competition of the direct and indirect object for primary object status. This will link contact-induced changes to inherent reanalysis processes and complete the overarching argument.

6.3.2 Primary object and secondary object marking In work on Chicheŵa, Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) distinguish between two kinds of objects based on the relation of thematic roles (Dryer 1986) and grammatical function. The primary object is the thematically unrestricted object in Lexical-Functional Grammar; it can fulfil more than one thematic role. The

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

209

secondary object is thematically restricted to arguments with specific thematic roles (OBJθ). From a crosslinguistic perspective, the secondary object is mostly patients and themes. Butt and King (1996) correlate weak (nonspecific) objects in Hindi/Urdu with the primary object and strong (specific) objects with the secondary object. The secondary object then is the marked object, a view shared by Alsina (1996a, 1996b, 2001). Based on Dryer (1986), Alsina (2001: 369) defines secondary objects as more marked and more restricted in their distribution than primary objects. Primary objects are the default option as only the primary object can undergo passivization expression by object markers. The theory of object asymmetries establishes a correlation between the typology of passives, pronominal object marking and other properties. In Alsina (2001), primary objecthood shows the properties in (235) (adjacency to the verb is an additional property but should not be tested in conjunction with those properties). (235) a) ability to be expressed by means of an object marker; b) ability to be expressed as the passive subject; c) ability to be accessed by reciprocalization. Applying these criteria to the direct object and indirect object in monotransitive clauses in Spanish should allow their respective object status to be defined. In example (236), the indirect object (a Clara) can be expressed by a clitic in (236a), it cannot be expressed as the passive subject in (236b), and it can be accessed by reciprocalization in (236c). (236) Standard Spanish a. Pablo le habla (a Clara). Pablo CL 3SG talk-3SG DAT Clara. ‘Pablo talks to Clara.’ b. *Clara es hablada por Pablo. Clara is-AUX 3SG speak- PARTIC PREP Pablo ‘Clara was talked to by Pablo.’ c. Pablo y Clara se hablan. Pablo and Clara RECIPR talk-3PL ‘Pablo and Clara talk to each other.’ The indirect object in monotransitive clauses fulfils properties (a) and (c), and does not fulfil property (b), it therefore does not qualify for primary object status in monotransitive clauses in accordance with Alsina’s definition of primary object above.

210

Contact and change

The direct object (a Clara) in (237) in turn fulfils all three conditions and is thus identified as the primary object in Spanish monotransitive clauses. (237) Standard Spanish a. Pablo besa a Clara. Pablo kiss-3SG DOM Clara ‘Pablo kisses Clara.’ b. Clara es besada por Pablo. Clara is-AUX .3SG kiss-PARTIC PREP Pablo ‘Clara is kissed by Pablo.’ c. Pablo y Clara se besan. Pablo and Clara RECIPR kiss-3PL ‘Pablo and Clara kiss each other.’ Further, Spanish monotransitive clauses comply with the definition of primary versus secondary object in Dryer (1986: 808), where “A primary object is an indirect object in a ditransitive clause or a direct object in a monotransitive clause, while a secondary object is a direct object in a ditransitive clause.” Primary object status of the direct object from Standard Spanish, Limeño Standard to Limeño Spanish contact varieties is shown in the distribution in Table 6.3. Note that line one in the Table specifies the semantic conditions for dependent-marking rather than simply stating them. I have chosen to be specific as all language varieties show varying restrictions on differential object marking. Properties (b) and (c), passivization and reciprocalization, are also fulfilled by the direct object. Table 6.3: Primary object (PO) properties for the direct object in Spanish varieties PO properties

Standard Spanish

Standard Limeño

LSCV

a. Dependent-marking

cpro

[+anim,+top]

[–anim, +def]

b. Passivisation

Z

Z

Z

c. Reciprocalisation

Z

Z

Z

Table 6.3 shows the grammaticalization processes of differential object marking and clitic doubling in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. Property (a), dependentmarking, shows a steady increase from pronominal arguments in Standard Spanish to include topical animates in Standard Limeño (and also River Plate), and extending to inanimate definites in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. The

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

211

increase in marking weakens the status of the direct object as the default primary object, preparing the way for becoming the secondary object. Casemarking in Spanish is a system that allows identification of different grammatical relations,21 which in turn are intrinsically related to the grammatical functions of objects as indirect and direct objects. The thematic or semantic roles of these arguments play an important role in the conceptualization of meaning realised by the predicate.

6.3.3 Semantic roles The thematic roles of all noun phrase arguments are determined by each verb’s subcategorization frame/argument structure and depend on the grammatical function of the argument and on pragmatic functions such as word order restructuring. Semantic roles (Andrews 2007) are better known as thematic roles (Dryer 1986; Fillmore 1968), as thematic relation (Jackendoff 1990) and finally Proto-roles (Dowty 1991).22 Ackerman (2001) proposes a double argument selection principle within a prototype theory of semantic roles to link predicate semantics to argument encoding. Alsina (1996b: 41) links classification of arguments to absence and presence of an extended version of Dowty’s Proto-roles. Arguments containing a Proto-Role P-Agent and P-Patient count as direct arguments and those lacking a Proto-Role are indirect arguments. A further distinction divides internal arguments with a P-Patient role from external arguments with a P-Agent role. In the following I will only be concerned with the semantic roles involved in core arguments and direct functions and follow closely the general characterisations in Andrews (2007: 9) who distinguishes between Participatory roles which are closely linked to argument functions and Circumstantial roles associated with adjuncts. Circumstantial roles include Benefactive, Outer Locative, Temporal, Reason and Circumstantial Comitative. Agents and Patients are the main active participatory roles, others like Experiencer, Recipient, Theme, Causer, Locative, Instrumental and Comitative participate in the verbal action to various degrees. Agents are volitional, conscious or accidental performers of an action when occurring with primary transitive predicates like ‘kill’, ‘hit’. Objects in this transitive (accusative) scenario are usually patients undergoing or suffering the action performed by the agent. In Spanish, such objects are clearly marked by 21 I follow here the distinction between grammatical functions and grammatical relations as proposed in Andrews (2007). 22 To cite only the most influential representatives among a considerable body of research.

212

Contact and change

dependent- and head-marking. Volitional agents together with patient object arguments play a decisive role in secondary topic marking through double actant marking (Bossong 2003). Perception verbs like ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘know’ usually follow an active pattern with the subject as Experiencer who is not necessarily in control and the Patient unaffected by the action. Recipients are potentially aware and able to respond, whereas Goals could be located above Patients, and Experiencers below Patients, on a thematic role hierarchy. The dative is placed consistently on certain semantic roles, and reflected in both dependent- and head-marking. The Patient role alternates between subject and object, and different degrees of awareness might be involved. Agent and Locatives alternate between nonobject functions as mentioned in Bresnan and Kanerva (1989: 25–6). Themes characterise a state or a position and, depending on the predicate, are sometimes difficult to differentiate from Patients, particularly with Patient/Theme human arguments.

6.3.4 Mapping of thematic roles to grammatical functions Lexical Mapping Theory (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989) assumes the ranking of thematic roles according to their prominence ranking on argument-structure in the thematic hierarchy23 in (238) and the partial ordering of argument functions in (239) which assumes that all languages have subjects and notes that languages that lack ditransitive verbs also lack restricted objects (Bresnan 2001c: 309). (238) ag > ben > goal/exp > ins > pat/th > loc (239) Subject > Object, Obliqueθ > Objectθ Alsina (2001: 361) defines argument structure to be “the information of lexical items that constrains their complement-taking abilities in the syntax. It is also proposed to be the information of lexical items that constrains their ability to undergo lexical derivations.” He further argues that (i) the distinction between primary and secondary object must be part of argument-structure and (ii) that this distinction is not of semantic but of syntactic nature. The distinction between the primary object (unrestricted) and the secondary object (restricted) is represented on two different levels. The concept of object is represented at 23 The abbreviations are as follows: ag = agent, ben = beneficiary, exp = experiencer, ins = instrument, pat = patient, th = theme, and loc = locative.

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

213

the level that represents grammatical functions, that is on functional-structure. The concept of restrictedness is represented at the level of argument-structure. Therefore, an object represented as a restricted object on functional-structure maps onto a restricted argument on argument-structure. An object represented as an unrestricted object on functional-structure does not map onto a restricted argument on argument-structure. The features restricted [+R] and unrestricted [–R] and objective [+O] and non-objective [–O] regulate the mapping of thematic roles to argument functions. Table 6.5 shows the correlation of these restrictedness features and the syntactic functions they can map onto. Table 6.5: Feature correlation and mapping on to syntactic functions –Restricted

+Restricted

–Objective

Subject

ObliqueƟ

+Objective

Object

ObjectƟ

Bresan et al. (2016: 326ff.) subdivide argument functions into external arguments and internal arguments which map onto restricted and unrestricted syntactic functions. The term external argument refers to the subject function; internal arguments are direct functions, which can be either the direct object or the indirect object; oblique arguments are never internal functions. In Spanish, the direct object (±DOM) in monotransitive clauses fulfils all primary object properties (following the definition of Alsina (1996b) and also Dryer (1986)), and can map onto a range of thematic roles, it is the unrestricted [–R] object. In ditransitive clauses, the indirect object is the unrestricted [–R] object as it is dependent-marked and can map onto a range of thematic roles. The correlation of restrictedness [±R] and grammatical function for both internal arguments determines the syntactic functions they can map onto. This is demonstrated in Table 6.6: the left columns show the direct object as the primary object (Object) in monotransitive clauses. In ditransitive clauses (Table 6.6 right hand columns), the indirect object is the primary object [+OBJ, –R] and the direct object as the semantically restricted object [+OBJ, +R] which takes on the role of secondary object. Direct objects with Patient/Theme semantic role can be passivized. Table 6.6: Monotransitive and ditransitive primary and secondary object mapping Monotransitive

–R

+R

– Object

Subject

Obliqueθ

+ Object

Object

Ditransitive

–R

+R

– Object

Subject

Obliqueθ

+ Object

Object

Objectθ

214

Contact and change

The partial prominence scale in (239) is a standard part of the Lexical-Functional Grammar theory of grammatical relations. To comply with the mapping rules in Table 6.6, the prominence scale needs to be adapted for Spanish argument functions as follows: SUBJ > OBJ, OBJθ > OBLθ. Importantly, Romance languages can have maximally two unrestricted coarguments. Further, Spanish has constructions with one primary object and no secondary object, and cooccurrence of one primary and one secondary object as shown in the Table 6.6. All direct functions are argument functions, that is unrestricted, and all except the subject are also non-discourse functions. Consequently, the subject enjoys special status as argument and discourse function. The classification of primary and secondary object arising from the Limeño Spanish contact data is given in Table 6.7. Table 6.7: Primary (PO) and secondary object (SO) in contact Spanish Clause

Subject

Object PO

Transitive

Agent

Patient/Theme +Primary +Direct

Ditransitive

Agent

Recipient +Primary –Direct

Locative

Agent

Goal +Primary –Direct

Objectθ SO

Theme –Primary +Direct

The classification in Table 6.7 allows us to account for case erosion, floating features in leísta clitic clusters, gradable objecthood (discussed below) and pragmatic marking based on topicality. In assuming that the Agent role as the most topical maps on to the external function subject, the internal functions then comply with the primary/secondary object. The facts presented in Table 6.7 are consistent with the primary object and secondary object marking principle assigning the following rules (Dryer 1986: 836): 1. In monotransitives, the primary object is the direct object. 2. In ditransitives, the primary object is the indirect object and the secondary object is the direct object. 6.3.5 Two primary objects? The notion of gradable direct objecthood is based on a cross-linguistically observable “semantic and pragmatic overlap between the categories . . . dative and accusative human patient in Spanish” (Givón 1997: 25). In work on the

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

215

dative in German, Kiparsky (1998) proposes that morphological case marks either thematic role or topicality of the argument. In the following I explore the semantic overlap which is intrinsically involved with a difficult distinction between the semantic roles Patient and Theme.24 In Limeño Spanish contact varieties the distinction between Patient and Theme object is not straightforward. This is due to the fact that, in monotransitive clauses, Theme objects can be marked as in (240a)25 just as Patients in (240b). Moreover, unlike dative case which marks either semantic role or topicality, differential object marking marks both semantic role and topicality, thus applying semantic and pragmatic marking concurrently. (240) Limeño Spanish contact varieties, lo [+primary, +direct] a. Lo frío a la cebolla. CL 3SG fry-1SG DOM DET. FSG onion.FSG ‘I fry the onion.’ Liberal clitic doubling varieties, lo [person, gender number] DO b. Lo abrazo a Juan. CL 3MSG embrace-1SG DOM Juan ‘I embrace Juan.’ The mapping principles for examples (240a) and (240b) are given in (241). The predicate implies a difference in change of state or grade of affectedness of both semantic roles, however this does not have any impact on argumentstructure nor functional-structure: both share the same syntactic functions. (241)

Monotransitive clause argument-structure: freír/abrazar

functional-structure:

[–o] [–r] | | SUBJ OBJ

Next consider two typical leísmo constructions from standard Peninsular Spanish with an active Agent subject in (242a) and an Experiencer subject in (242b). 24 The difficulty if not the impossibility of drawing a clear line between Themes and Patients as noted by Miriam Butt (p.c.). 25 Recall that (240a) is not possible in Standard Spanish and liberal clitic doubling dialects, it is restricted to certain contact varieties. What is rejected is only the clitic doubling strategy because of the non-agreeing clitic. Liberal clitic doubling dialects would allow the doubling strategy with a feature agreeing clitic.

216

Contact and change

Extension to inanimate Theme objects in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and also in liberal clitic doubling dialects are doubled by accusative clitics as shown in (242c). Finally in fully grammaticalized dialects, not only inanimate Themes but all unique objects in transitive sentences are doubled by dative clitics as shown in (242d). (242) Peninsular Spanish leísmo a. Le abrazo a Juan. CL 3SG embrace-1SG DOM Juan ‘I embrace Juan.’ b. Le

veo a Juan. CL 3SG see-1SG DOM Juan ‘I see Juan.’

Liberal clitic doubling dialects and Limeño Spanish contact varieties c. Lo veo al carro. CL 3SG see-1SG DOM - DET. MSG car.MSG ‘I see the car.’ Ecuadorian/Paraguayan Spanish, extensive leísmo d. Le veo al carro. CL 3SG see-1SG DOM - DET. SG car.MSG ‘I see the car.’ Mapping of a different semantic role this time for the subject does not seem to change syntactic function in (242) either. Neither does mapping of inanimate Themes in (242c) and (242d). Perception verbs such as ‘see’ subtract also the control factor of the Agent and the affectedness of the Patient/Theme object. (243) Monotransitive clause argument-structure: abrazar/ver [–o] [–r] | | functional-structure: SUBJ OBJ These examples expose an important difference between dependent-marking and head-marking in monotransitive clauses. They show that clitics play a crucial role in marking the primary object which can be extended to contact dialects, where ‘apparent’ indirect object constructions as (242d) can be passivized.

The pointing effect of lo and (-ta) -qa

217

The object can get promoted to subject as shown in (244) and the finite verb obviously must agree with the derived subject.26 (244) Ecuadorian Spanish El carro es visto (por mí). DET. MSG car is-AUX 3SG see-PARTIC PREP CL 1SG ‘The car is seen (by me).’ In sum, I have shown that the grammatical object function in Spanish is undergoing changes due to two concurrent grammaticalization processes which affect dependent-marking and head-marking concurrently and differentially. Extension of differential object marking to inanimate Themes is not new, but existed already in early Spanish where personified things (Themes) received the same treatment as human Patients (a-marking). However, extending clitic doubling from animate Patients to include inanimate definite Themes, led to obliteration of any important potential difference that could separate them. The common denominator in both direct object constructions is the affected participant on the semantic side and topicality on the pragmatic; and all a-marked and clitic doubled direct objects share the same topicality status. Under extensive leísmo, the ‘apparent’ indirect object is the primary object. These changes are constrained to monotransitive constructions and the le/lo variability is actual evidence for the competition for primary object. I believe this is also evidence for convergence in mapping strategies by contact speakers leading to gradable objecthood.

6.3.6 Object behaviour Spanish codes syntactic functions by head- and dependent marking and word order arrangements, such as preposing and left dislocation. These different strategies can be used in almost any combination to mark grammatical relations and configure or signal pragmatic functions. We have already seen that objecthood is not clearcut but gradable. Specifically in regard to both objects, Alsina (1996b: 150) argues “all that distinguishes direct from indirect objects is morphological case: indirect objects are objects marked with dative case, whereas direct objects

26 This may seem like inconclusive evidence but it is an attested strategy that speakers of extensive leísmo in Ecuador and Paraguay apply.

218

Contact and change

are objects without dative case”. However as Bossong (1991) notes, differential object marking is applied differentially and dative case not. Table 6.7 summarizes the striking morphosyntactic similarities of the Spanish direct object and indirect object arguments with respect to passing syntactic tests for objecthood – contrasting Standard Spanish with Limeño Spanish contact varieties (LSCV). It also shows that the differences centre on dependent- and head-marking and that the language inherent and contact-induced changes in those areas obliterate all differences between both internal objects in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. Table 6.7: Syntactic properties of direct object, indirect object and primary object in Spanish Syntactic properties

Direct object St. Spanish

Indirect object St. Spanish

Primary object (DO+IO) LSCV and Contact Spanish

Passivization

Z

Ø

Z

Impersonal / Middle passive

Z

Z

Z

Adjacency

Z

Z

Z

Agreement

Z

Z

Z

DOM

Z

Ø

Z

Dative +

Ø

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Clitic doubling Pronominal clitic

c

top

Z

The first two columns show the syntactic properties of direct object and the indirect object in Standard Spanish. Both objects can appear adjacent to the verb, can be cross-referenced on the verb with agreeing clitics and can be replaced by theta-role bearing clitics. The major difference between both objects, as shown by zero (Ø), is the inability of indirect objects (and obliques) to become the grammatical subject under passivization, and direct object clitic doubling is constrained to topical arguments. In Standard Spanish both internal objects are sufficiently different to make a distinction between direct object and indirect object. The situation is very different for non-standard contact varieties such as Limeño Spanish contact varieties shown in the last column. All boxes are ticked, reflecting two major changes related to the extension of case marking, as shown in the mapping in (241), and correlated grammaticalization processes of the thirdperson clitic paradigm, mainly affecting the direct object clitics. By removing

Object alternations

219

constraints on clitic doubling and casemarking in non-standard contact varieties, both objects show primary object properties in the last column in Table 6.6. Under a single case leísta clitic system, lo is used only as propositional anaphor and passivization is no longer an issue.27

6.4 Object alternations In the following three subsections, I examine three parameters which elucidate the effects of the correlation and interaction of morphological casemarking and semantic roles. Understanding the semantic strategies involved will contribute to a deeper understanding of marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, particularly identification of grammatical functions through semantic roles, clarification of the multiple roles of invariant lo and the covariation of the invariant clitics le/lo.

6.4.1 Disambiguation/Agency The direct object and its individuation are intrinsically linked to optional marking. Optional a-marking of two arguments with identical animacy properties has been analyzed as marking the unique or accusative direct object (Hanssen 1945), or the verb’s aspectual characteristics may select for a-marking (Torrego 1998: 17). Rivero (1975) and Leonetti (2004, 2008) define subjunctive mood in restricted relative clauses based on specificity and animacy as a requirement for a-marking. Others argue for a decisive role of the semantic and pragmatic nature of the nominal object (Aissen 2003). Kittilä (2005: 491) argues that due to the animacy difference, the formal ambiguity of (245a), where both human arguments share equal semantic status as potential Agents, does not arise in (245b). Therefore, there is no need for differential object marking, as ambiguity is restricted to a double reading with a semantically plausible explanation.

27 This applies especially to extensive leísmo which has led to a single case system in some dialects of Ecuadorian and Paraguayan Spanish, and to a partial system in Limeño Spanish contact varieties. While some Ecuadorian and Paraguayan varieties have gone all the way, Limeño Spanish contact varieties still show covariation of secondary topic marking with Latin American Spanish leísmo.

220

Contact and change

(245) Sierra Popoluca28 (Kittilä 2005: 491) a. i-ko’ts-pa xiwan petoj. 3-P 3-A-T- PERF Juan Pedro ‘Juan hit Pedro. or Pedro hit Juan.’ b. i-ku’t-pa xiwan wi’kkuy. 3-P 3-A- EAT- PERF Juan food ‘Juan ate food.’ Zubizarreta (1999) claims that Spanish shows overt morphological case that distinguishes objects from subjects as shown in the monotransitive clause in (246a) where one of the two human coarguments bearing identical featural specifications is morphologically marked. Patient marking here is obligatory even under word order restructuring (246b) yielding a case of classic personal a. Butt (2005) argues that it allows the semantic role of the nouns and their syntactic relationship to the verb to be established. (246) Standard Spanish a. Juan mata a Pedro. John kill-3SG DOM Peter ‘John kills Peter.’ b. Mata Juan a Pedro. kill-3SG John DOM Peter ‘John kills Peter.’ Optional differential object marking with two almost identical inanimate coarguments only differing in gender in (247) cannot be explained in terms of personal a-marking though. The definite subject and object in (247a) can be replaced by pronominals in (247b). In Spanish, subject arguments can be easily omitted or, for emphasis or disambiguation replaced by strong pronouns; Theme and Patient objects can be null or replaced by a clitic. Note when switching arguments, morphological marking remains in situ, marking the switched argument as shown in (247c) and (247d). (247) Standard Spanish a. El interruptor controla (a) la máquina. DET. MSG switch control-3SG DOM DET. FSG machine.FSG ‘The switch controls the machine.’ 28 These examples are originally from Payne (1997: 151).

Object alternations

b. (Él) PRO 3MSG

la CL 3FSG

221

controla. control-3SG

‘He controls it.’ c. La

máquina controla (a)l interruptor. machine.FSG control-3SG DOM - DET. MSG switch. MSG ‘The machine controls the switch.’ DET. FSG

d. Ella PRO 3FSG

lo CL 3MSG

controla. control-3SG

‘She controls him.’ Action verbs like controlar take an Agent as subject and, as Torrego (1999: 1785) argues, only that class of verbs which takes an Agent as semantic subject role can a-mark the direct object. Examples (248) show the Patient role alternating between animate and inanimate objects. Examples of this kind are probably the only ones to warrant a distinction between the semantic roles of Patient in (248a) and (248b) with a-marking and an unmarked Theme in (248c). (248) Standard Spanish a. El profesor reemplaza al libro. DET. MSG teacher.MSG replace-3SG DOM - DET. MSG book.MSG ‘The teacher replaces the book.’ b. El

libro reemplaza al professor. DET. MSG book.MSG replace-3SG DOM - DET. MSG teacher.MSG ‘The book replaces the teacher.’

c. El profesor reemplaza el libro con otro. the teacher replaces-3SG DET. MSG book PREP another ‘The teacher replaces the book with another.’ These examples clearly show that differential object marking as disambiguation is dependent on a volitional Agent, and that Patient marking allows the semantic role of the nouns and their relationship to the verb to be established. The semantic role of Patient is crucially an object directly affected or changed by the verbal action with degree of affectedness marked by case alterations. 6.4.2 Affectedness Affectedness indirectly correlates with the semantic features animacy and definiteness of the object as these features in turn are strongly associated with indi-

222

Contact and change

viduation of the referent (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011; Hopper and Thompson 1980; Naess 2004). Semantic based dative-accusative or other kinds of alternations can be found in many languages. The Icelandic example in (249) exemplifies affectedness differences with the same verb, where the accusative in (249a) marks an almost painful act with the intention to hurt; the dative marking in (249b) means that somebody helped out and scratched a place the person cannot reach on their own. (249) Icelandic (Naess 2004: 1205) a. Hann klórað-i mig. he-NOM scratch-PAST-3SG me-ACC ‘He scratched me (ACC).’ b. Hann klórað-i mér. He-NOM scratch-PAST-3SG me-DAT ‘He scratched me.’ Finnish shows similar case alternation between accusative and partitive: the accusative marks highly affected objects (250a) and the partitive case stands for partly affected objects (250b) as in the examples from Kittilä (2002) cited in Naess (2004): (250) Finnish (Naess 2004: 1203) a. Hän jo-i maido-n. s/he drink-PAST-3SG milk-ACC ‘She drank (all) the milk.’ b. Hän jo-i maito-a. s/he drink- PAST.3SG milk-PART ‘She drank (some of the) milk.’ Naess (2004: 1203) argues that the accusative-partitive alternation in (250) is a form of differential object marking, although the distinction is based on degrees of affectedness and not on the more usual semantic factors animacy and definiteness resulting in optional case marking. Limeño Spanish contact varieties data in (251) also show the difference in transitivity with the accusative la in (251a), and lo in (251b) indicating a highly affected object. The dative le in examples (251a) and (251b) is a lesser affected object.

Object alternations

223

(251) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer, FW-LSV) a. El doctor le sobaba, la sobaba the doctor CL 3SG massage-PAST-3SG CL 3FSG massage-3SG and le calmaba los dolores. CL 3SG sooth-PAST-3SG DET. MSG pain y ‘The doctor massaged her, he massaged her some more and soothed her pain.’ b. Que le rasque la cabeza, que le rasque that CL 3SG scratch-SBJV-1SG that CL 3SG scratch-SBJV-1SG the head la espalda, basta con que lo rasque. the back enough with that CL 3MSG scratch-SBJV-1SG ‘That I scratch his head that I scratch his back it is good as long as I scratch him.’ Verbal lexical semantics also seems to play an important role in the data from Limeño Spanish contact varieties. Some verbs change lexical meaning depending on selection of direct object and indirect object. This has indeed been put forward by Ormázabal and Romero (2007: 331) suggesting that meaning alternations may be a possible source for dative and accusative marking in Spanish. And considering aspectual differences as, for example, ‘look at’ vs. ‘see’, dual marking could then be explained in the following way: dative would mark real Recipients and accusative would mark Goal/Targets. Similar instances of ko-marked direct objects in Hindi/Urdu have been analyzed as telic (Butt 2008). The relationship to leísmo here is clear, and I assume that the examples above do not represent a case of leísmo but rather degrees of affectedness depending on choice of clitic.

6.4.3 Telicity In direct objects with an event verb, another underlying cause for alternating case could be telicity. For Hindi/Urdu ko vs. non-ko, Butt (2008) assumes resultative and non-resultative meaning but cautions that “nothing is neat, there are outliers”. Ritter and Rosen (2001) argue for object split based on either definiteness or specificity of the direct object, or motivated by boundedness or delimitation of the event. Crosslinguistic variability of the strategies is based on the locus of a quantifying feature which can be either the verb or object agreement.

224

Contact and change

Kiparsky (1998) makes a distinction between unbounded and bounded events and applies an objective test to distinguish between them. He claims that whereas bounded events require absolute participation and therefore do not admit quantization in the form of degree modifiers (un poco, mucho) ‘a bit, a lot’, unbounded events do. This is shown in (252) for Spanish, modelled on Kiparsky’s original example (1998: 266) where differential object marking is mandatory in (252a) representing a bounded event, and optional in the unbounded form (252c). (252) a. Carmen mata al gato de su hermana. Carmen kill-3SG DOM - DET. SG cat.MSG PREP POSS sister.FSG ‘Carmen kills her sister’s cat.’ b. Carmen mata al gato de su hermana Carmen kill-3SG DOM - DET. MSG cat.MSG of POSS sister *(un poco/mucho). (a little/much) ‘Carmen kills her sister’s cat (a bit/much).’ c. Carmen quería mucho al gato de su hermana. Carmen love-PAST-3SG much DOM - DAT cat PREP POSS sister ‘Carmen loved her sister’s cat a lot.’ Primary transitive verbs such as ‘kill’ in Spanish always trigger personal amarking and the psych verb ‘want/love’ optionally triggers differential object marking with specific and topical objects. This shows that event predicates may follow a double strategy and may not be subsumed under a single semantic property – a difficulty Kiparsky acknowledges. Finally, telicity in the sense of delimitation or endpoint (Torrego 1998: 21) characterizes the event as having an endpoint as illustrated in the Andean Spanish oblique locative example in (253) with invariant lo analyzed as false pronominalization in Cerrón Palomino (2003). Here the invariant lo marks an intransitive Goal that has been reached. I analyze these two concurrent goal-marking strategies as convergence: lo from Quechua transfer and prepositional case marking from Spanish as discussed in section three this chapter. (253) Andean Spanish (Cerrón Palomino 2003: 170) Lo llegaron a este pueblo. CL 3SG arrive-PAST-3PL LOC DEM . MSG village.MSG ‘They arrived at this village.’

Double object constructions

225

Summarising the results so far, object alternations in monotransitives are implicated in an interaction involving morphological casemarking, the semantic role of the internal object and the external subject. The change from an accusativedative case system to a single primary object, as described earlier, are constrained to monotransitive clauses. Ditransitive clauses already show a binary distinction of primary and secondary object marking, as we will see in the last section of this chapter.

6.5 Double object constructions Following the principles articulated by Alsina (1996a, 2001) and Dryer (1986), in double object constructions the indirect object is the primary object and the direct object is the restricted secondary object. Cooccurrence is regulated by the Restricted Argument Parameter which says “in an argument structure with two morpho-syntactically distinct internal arguments, one must be [R]” (Alsina 2001: 370). In Spanish double object constructions, the default word order is (subject)verb-direct object – indirect object and a-marking is restricted to the unresticted object. This constraint is regulated by the Linear Precedence Principle (Alsina 1993), which says that the Spanish accusative Patient is usually a bare noun phrase while the dative Recipient or Goal is a prepositional phrase. With ditransitive verbs case marking distinguishes between internal arguments, which are both expressed by objects. This is shown in (254a) where the Patient/Theme direct object is unmarked (l’indult) and the indirect object the Recipient (als generals) is marked. Passivization in (254b) is restricted to the Patient/Theme object. This is like German and Dutch. (254) Catalan (Alsina 1996b: 149–150) a. El parlament ha concedit l’indult the parlament has-3SG grant-PARTIC DET ’pardon als OM - DET- MPL

generals. generals

‘The parliament has granted (the) pardon to the generals.’ b. L’ indult ha estat concedit als the pardon has-3SG be-3SG grant-PARTIC OM - DET- MPL generals pel parlament. generals PREP parliament ‘Pardon has been granted to the generals by the parliament.’

226

Contact and change

As shown in (255) restrictedness is represented at the level of argument-structure and the concept of object is represented at the level of functional-structure. The phrase-structure rules determine the order of grammatical functions. The nonobject argument maps onto the subject function indexed with 1, and both other arguments are assigned object function, with the unrestricted object (direct object) adjacent to the verb and the restricted object argument (indirect object) mapping onto the secondary object. (255) Ditransitive clause argument-structure: dar | | | functional-structure: [SUBJ OBJ OBJθ] In double object constructions, only the Patient/Theme object is open to passivization, the passive rules are given in (256). The first line spells out that the subject becomes either null or an oblique introduced by the preposition por (‘by’). Line two shows the promotion of the object to subject. (256) (SUBJ) → Ø / (OBL) (OBJ) → (SUBJ) 6.5.1 Dative alternation As shown for Spanish below, optionality of presence and absence of the clitic or full noun phrase (as indicated by the brackets) is due to a contrast between the double object construction in (257) and the dative alternation in (258). In both constructions, the recipient argument, which is the indirect object, is casemarked as indicated by a. In asymmetrical languages, adjacency to the verb is required for nonrestricted arguments to receive structural casemarking (Bresnan and Moshi 1990). In some dialects of Chicheŵa, the order can be reversed and the restricted object would precede the unrestricted object (Alsina 2001: 376).29 The Spanish direct object – indirect object word order in the double object construction in (257) shows this as well. This order allows for an optional clitic crossreferencing the indirect object and word order is unmarked.

29 According to Jonni Kanerva, p.c. to the author, Alsina.

Double object constructions

227

(257) Double object construction: direct object – indirect object word order constituent structure: (NP) (CL) V argument-structure: functional-structure:

(SUBJ)

NP aNP | | Theme Recipient | | OBJ OBJθ

Restructuring of word order into indirect object – direct object reflects the dative alternation in (258). This word order is considered pragmatically marked and requires casemarking and clitic doubling of the unrestricted object. (258) Dative alternation: indirect object – direct object word order constituent structure: (NP) CL V argument-structure: functional-structure:

(SUBJ)

aNP NP | | Recipient Theme | | OBJ OBJθ

The information structure role in ditransitives is marked through word order in accordance with the thematic hierarchy where the Recipient precedes the Theme/Patient and not through casemarking. The Restricted Argument Parameter remains active even with pragmatically motivated word order restructuring. This word order variation is often called the prepositional dative construction (Bleam 2003; Demonte Barreto 1994a) and Kayne (1975) for the French counterpart). In these indirect object – direct object constructions the indirect object clitic is obligatory with the a-marked referential object. Note also that in double object constructions both objects can be replaced by a clitic cluster where the fixed order of indirect object and direct object in unmarked constructions can vary to include obliques.30 The distinction is shown for English in (259) and for Standard Spanish in (260). The example in (259a) exemplifies the prepositional dative construction and (259b) the double object construction. (259) a. John gave the book to Mary → V NP PP b. John gave Mary the book → V NP NP

30 See chapter two for clitic clusters in Standard Spanish and chapter five for floating agreement in non-standard clitic clusters.

228

Contact and change

The prepositional datives in (260a) and (260b) only differ in placement of both internal objects. In both constructions, the indirect object is clitic doubled and only the clitic doubled (referential) argument can be a-marked. Simultaneous marking of both arguments as in (260c) is ungrammatical and falls under the Restricted Argument Parameter. Finally, as remarked before, both internal arguments can be replaced by a clitic cluster (250d). (260) Standard Spanish a. Double object construction Juan (le) dio el libro a María. Juan CL 3SG give-PAST-3SG the book DAT Maria ‘John gave the book to Mary.’ Dative alternation b. Juan le dio a María el libro. Juan CL 3SG give-PAST-3SG DAT Maria the book ‘John gave Mary the book.’ c. *Juan le dio a María al libro. Juan CL 3SG give-PAST-3SG DAT Maria DOM - DET. MSG book ‘John gave Mary the book.’ d. Juan se lo dio. Juan SE CL 3MSG give-PAST-3SG ‘John gave it to her.’ One last point, only the direct object (el libro) is open to passivization in accordance with rule (256) – this is shown in (261). The Theme object is promoted to subject and the Recipient/Beneficiary retains the clitic. Given these facts, it is clear that ditransitive clauses are sensitive to the primary/secondary object distinction. (261) El libro le fue dado a María (por Juan). the book CL 3SG is-PAST-3SG give-PARTIC DAT María (by Juan) ‘Mary was given a book (by John).’ Passivisability of a secondary object may seem unusual in theory, but Latin American Leísta speakers do not hesitate to promote the direct object to subject. A parallel to English would be e.g. “a book was given Mary”. Constraints on indirect object clitic doubling in locative alternation have been widely mentioned by linguists. This construction as shown in (258) is considered grammatical without clitic doubling. Bleam (2003) argues that

Double object constructions

229

prepositional Goal objects that can be analyzed as ending up as possessor of the referent of the Theme direct object may be clitic doubled as shown in (262). (262) Bleam (2003: 233) Carmen (le) envió el libro a su profesor. Carmen (CL 3SG ) send-PAST-3SG the book DAT POSS professor ‘Carmen sent the book to her professor.’ Demonte (1994a) claims that indirect object – direct object word order in Spanish requires indirect object clitic doubling, and that it is impossible without the doubling. Demonte (1994b: 78) further argues that the presence of an indirect object clitic in a ditransitive construction indicates affectedness “in the sense that it is taken either as the possessor or an intrinsic part of the Theme argument.” This could also be interpreted as another sign of primary objecthood of the indirect object. In example (263) changing tires entails possession of tires by the Goal object the car. (263) Le

cambié las llantas al carro. change-PAST-1SG the tires DOM - DET. MSG car.MSG ‘I changed the tires of the car.’ CL 3SG

Recall the discussion of affected objects, ending with a discussion of telicity in terms of delimitation or endpoint. Indirect object clitic doubling of the last examples all show exactly that, namely the endpoint and completeness of an event described by the predicate. The discussion of ditransitives in this section has served the purpose of illustrating the multiple functions of a in Standard Spanish varieties as a basis of comparison for the contact-induced variability and changes shown in the examples from Limeño Spanish contact varieties and Brazilian Portuguese in relation to a being replaced by the preposition para as discussed next.

6.5.2 Dative vs. oblique Given the syncretic form a as dative casemarker, differential object marker and locative preposition as well as the linking of semantic roles, as Goal for example, to grammatical object functions, the distinction between indirect objects and obliques is debatable. Bresnan (1982) and Zubizarreta (1985) for example analyze indirect objects in Spanish as oblique functions. Alsina (1996b) argues that indirect objects are direct functions, datives are prepositional phrases and not

230

Contact and change

noun phrases, and therefore they may morphologically look like obliques. Another factor contributing to the oblique hypothesis is lack of passivization which also applies to datives. However, unlike direct objects and obliques, they can be targets of secondary predication. This is shown in (264a) for the direct object and in (264b) for the indirect object modelled after the Catalan example in Alsina. (264) Catalan (Alsina: 158–159) a. Quieren retratar a María disfrazada de princesa. want-3PL portray-INF DOM María disguised PREP princesse ‘They want to portray Maria disguised as a princess.’ b. Quieren hacer un retrato a María disfrazada want-3PL make-INF a portrait OM María disguised- PARTIC de princesa. of princesse ‘They want to take a picture of Maria disguised as a princess.’ Kayne (1975) argues that French, a non-clitic doubling language, makes a distinction between datives and ‘for’-prepositional phrases as demonstrated in (264). The anaphoric clitic in (264c) is per Kayne not too popular and seems to be more closely related to (265a) than (265b). (265) French (Kayne 1975: 135) a. On a construit une maison pour Jean. IMPERS have-3SG build-PARTIC a house for Jean ‘They built a house for Jean.’ b. On

a construit une maison à Jean. have-3SG build-PARTIC a house DAT Jean ‘They built Jean a house.’ (my translation)

IMPERS

c. On

lui a construit une maison. IMPERS CL 3SG have-3SG build-PARTIC a house ‘They built him a house.’

In Limeño Spanish contact varieties, head-marking extends to prepositions specifically with para ‘for’ as shown in (266). Here we have two different uses of para: the first is a real preposition and could not be replaced by a; the second para should be the indirect object casemarker a as the doubling clitic shows.

Double object constructions

231

(266) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer FW-LSCV) Trabajan para ellos nomás, para su mamá for-PREP POSS mamá work-3PL for-PREP PRO 3MPL only no le da ninguno. not CL 3SG give-3SG QUANT. MSG ‘They only work for themselves, nobody gives anything to their mother.’ The ‘for’- prepositional phrase agrees in person with the dative in Limeño Spanish contact varieties as shown in (267). (267) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer FW-LSCV) La señora me ayudaba hacer mis tareas o CL 1SG help-PAST-3SG do-INF POSS homework or the lady dibujaba, ella me hacía los dibujos porque draw-PAST-3SG PRO 3FSG CL 1SG do-PAST-3SG the drawings because yo PRO 1SG

no sé dibujar muy bien y ella not know-1SG draw-INF very well and PRO 3FSG

me los dibujaba a mí. CL 1SG CL 3MPL draw-PAST-3SG DAT CL 1SG ‘The lady (of the house) helped me with my homework or drew, she did the drawings for me because I can’t draw very well and she did the drawings for me.’ Alternation between case marking and the preposition31 in French and Spanish can be analyzed as an alternation between a preposition serving as a dative case marker versus a preposition as an ‘oblique marker’ introducing a thematically restricted oblique (OBLθ). More evidence comes from Brazilian Portuguese in (268a) which shows a strong preference for prepositional marking of the Recipient with pra ‘for’ instead of the preposition a which is normally used as dative casemarker. Again, as in Limeño Spanish contact varieties this is pragmatic marking and is different from the semantic marking strategy European Portuguese in (268b) shows. European Portuguese in turn makes a clear distinction between datives and obliques just like Peninsular Spanish.

31 As noted by a reviewer, the difference could lie in a distincton between ‘empty vs. semantic’ prepositions.

232

Contact and change

(268) Brazilian Portuguese (Costa and Kula 2003: 297) a. O João deu para Maria um CD. DET. MSG João give-PAST-3SG for Maria a CD ‘João gave Maria a CD.’ European Portuguese b. O João deu à Maria um CD. DET. MSG João give-PAST-3SG DOM Maria a CD ‘João gave Maria a CD.’ Alternation between the only two overt dependent-case markers in Standard Spanish is shown for the genitive preposition de in (259a), and for dative case in the clitic doubling example in (269b). Tener miedo de ‘be afraid of’ in (269a) is a general statement about the relationship of an Experiencer subject portrayed as a group and an intransitive Theme. The dative construction in (269b) might be interpreted as expressing a tighter relationship between subject and indirect object, but native speakers from several Spanish speaking countries do not perceive any notable difference between both versions. (269) a. Los gatos no tienen miedo del agua. PREP water the cats not have-3PL fear ‘Cats don’t fear water.’ b. Los gatos no le tienen miedo the cats not CL 3SG hace-3PL fear al

agua. water.MSG ‘The cats are not afraid of the water.’ DAT- DET. MSG

The alternation of the preposition de (270) for the dative a of Limeño Spanish contact varieties does entail a difference. The casemarked version would imply the expectation that the aunt would be there and answer the door. The version with de lacks any implication. Examples (269) and (270) could also be linked to genitive clitic doubling as proposed by Camacho and Sánchez (1995) for a specific trait of Andean Spanish. (270) Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Mayer FW- LSCV) Ya va llegar ahorita, tocale knock-IMP.CL 3SG already is-3SG arrive-INF now la

puerta de la tía. DET. FSG door.FSG of DET. FSG aunt.FSG ‘(S)he’ll be here any minute, knock on the aunt’s door.’

Double object constructions

233

These examples from three Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French) show contact-induced structural convergence which such contact varieties experience with the distinction between syntactic and semantic argument marking. In contact varieties extended dependent-marking with differential object marking and clitics as head-markers obliterate the differences between both internal arguments. It is possible that this confusion carries over to obliques. As a final point, the increased appearance of ethical datives in clitic clusters seems to indicate a process of change in that direction and corroborates the change from accusative-dative to primary and secondary object marking.

6.5.3 Ethical datives Ethical datives not only violate clitic cluster constraints (Bonet 1995; Ormazabal and Romero 2007; Perlmutter 1971), they are also problematic with regard to their syntactic categorization for two main reasons: (i) they cannot be classified as one single group, and (ii) they differ from other object clitics in having no direct referential relation with an argument. However, according to Franco and Huidobro (2008) they have one property in common, which is the fact that deletion of an ethical dative clitic does not trigger change in grammaticality, semantic meaning or aspectual interpretation. In their theory, based on Basque Spanish, ethical datives are analyzed as adjuncts but cannot be replaced by a full noun phrase adjunct. The authors also remark that frequency of occurrence of ethical datives seems to increase in contact varieties. Mexican Spanish exhibits a peculiar case of leísmo shown in (261) which Torres Cacoullos (2002) analyzes as verbal intensifier. (271) Mexican Spanish (Torres Cacoullos 2002: 285) ¡Córrele! run-3SG .CL 3SG ‘Come on, run!’ These clitics (Cardinaletti and Starke 1996: 281) are part of non-referential dative clitics commonly used as “emotional particles” in Romance and Slavic languages. They are also considered non-argumental datives and the interesting part is that they also occur in monotransitive constructions. German ethical datives in (262a) are dubbed “free datives” (Butt 2005: 190) as they are not subcategorized for by the verb. Wierzbicka argues here against agency of the subject and for the non-argumental dative below as a typical experiencer. In contrast the argumental dative in the ditransitive (262b) is not optional but obligatory.

234

Contact and change

(262) German (Wierzbicka 1981: 48) a. Sei (mir) nur brav! be-IMP CL 1SG only good ‘Be good!’ b. Tu mir das nicht an. do-IMP CL 1SG DEM -ACC not to ‘Don’t do this to me.’ The increase of ethical datives in contact varieties can be linked to double actant marking in the sense of Bossong which is a strategy used in oral language to ensure felicitous communication between two speech participants and active involvement in the event.

6.5.4 Ethical datives in passivization Non-argument functions such as ethical datives can also be expressed as object markers in passivization. Andrews and Manning (1993: 41) show the behaviour of ethical datives in complex predicate sentences in active form in (263a).32 In the (long) passive construction in (263b) only the direct object can be promoted to subject triggering agreement of the participial verb. The clitic doubling indirect object remains unchanged. (263) Andrews and Manning (1993: 41) a. Los obreros les están terminando de pintar the workers CL 3PL are-3PL finish-GERUND of paint-INF estas DEM . FPL

paredes a los dueños. walls.FPL DAT the landlords

‘The workers are finishing painting these walls for the landlords.’ b. Estas DEM . FPL

paredes les están siendo walls.FPL CL 3PL are-AUX .3PL finish-GERUND

terminadas de pintar a los dueños. paint-PARTIC PREP paint-INF DAT the landlords ‘These walls are finished to paint for the landlords.’

32 I have modified the active form slightly to incorporate the indirect object.

Summary

235

The long passive example establishes an important linking mechanism related to the direct object and the verb, which is a shared thematic role. This also manifests itself in the ability of both objects to form a clitic cluster as shown in (264). This example is considered ungrammatical by speakers of Standard Spanish. (264) Se les están siendo terminadas de pintar. SE CL 3PL are-3PL are-GERUND finish-PARTIC - FPL of paint- INF ‘They are being finished to paint for them.’ Spurious se represents the direct object promoted to subject and therefore obligatorily must take first place in the clitic cluster. The ethical dative takes second place which is, under unmarked word order, taken by the direct object. The ethical dative here behaves like a typical dative object, again another parallel to Warlpiri as mentioned in Simpson (1991: 420).

6.6 Summary The description of the relationship between contact-induced changes and languageinherent processes, by separating both and revealing their complex interactions, has been at the center of this chapter. In referring to language inherent processes, the diachronically attested inherent variability of the third person paradigm reflects a well documented reanalysis process from syntactically relatively independent words to less independent ones, evolving in some dialect varieties into transitivity and topicality markers in monotransitive clauses in the form of invariant lo and also, to some extent le. The variability also shows that clitics as head-markers in clitic doubling display a much more radical historical change than anaphoric clitics. This is important because it shows that the range of variability we encounter in Limeño Spanish contact data cannot be adjudged a general breakdown of order, or a process affecting unstressed little words only, but a phenomenon affecting specific kinds of clitic related grammatical structures under certain circumstances. In relation to the contact languages, given the typological differences, and due to the inherent characteristics of pragmatic object marking in both languages, prolonged and intense contact has prompted innovative structures through lexical and semantic borrowings, yielding a specialized pragmatic strategy appropriate for communication in a multilingual environment. This allows a speculative linking of non-standardized clitic doubling structures and extended differential object marking to a virtual template for morpho-syntactic transfer and structural convergence.

236

Contact and change

Coincidence of these internally and externally motivated changes lead to a split between objective case marking in monotransitives and ditransitives. Consequently, the direct object is acquiring more and more indirect object properties, specifically in the logical overlap of inanimate Theme/Goal and animate Patient/Recipient due to the inherent locative meaning of the syncretic casemarker a. These facts also constitute the basis for the competition for primary object status. Both internal arguments, the direct and the indirect object, possess all three primary object properties with limitations in Standard Spanish and fully in Limeño Spanish contact varieties and under extensive leísmo. Passivization – which is not unproblematic for the indirect object – falls under a single case clitic system as for example extended leísmo in some Ecuadorian and Paraguayan varieties. The ‘struggle’ for primary object status is obvious in monotransitive clauses, though the direct object maintains primary objecthood possibly only due to the ability to passivize and the syntactic consequences. Ditransitives are the best evidence for the plus-minus dative theory with the indirect object as primary object and the direct object taking secondary object status. Here the secondary object retains its ability to promote to subject, and the primary object retains the object marker in direct object clitics. However, object marking is obligatory with animate and inanimate Recipients/Beneficiaries, with Theme/Goal and Locative marking optional – possibly due to close affinity to a typical direct object. Word order restructuring, as in the dative alternation, is pragmatically motivated and triggers obligatory object marking of the primary object. Both objects can be replaced by a clitic cluster which is normally constrained to the same word order: indirect object, direct object. However, in the case of the combination of a direct object promoted to subject and an ethical dative as secondary object, clitic cluster order results in marking the discourse functions subject and non-argumental datives, in this case an ethical dative. Recall from chapter two that non-argumental and non-referential datives can participate in clitic clusters. They show floating agreement and are not regulated by the Person-Case constraint, but reflect primary and secondary object marking. The evidence from the observed nonstandard variation data presented and discussed here suggests that it is highly likely that we are looking through a time window at a stage of language change ‘in flagrante’.

Chapter 7

Conclusion My goal in this book has been to show that variability in grammatical argument marking in Limeño Spanish contact varieties is the outcome of evolutionary processes and human communicative needs rather than random variation or the result of imperfect language acquisition. I have shown that co-evolution of clitics and casemarking, reinforced by contact, are indicative of strong competition of the two internal object arguments for primary object status. Supported by field data, I have argued that syntactically marked objects in local systems depart from canonical patterns of semantic marking, instead marking the informationstructural role of secondary topic, while foreshadowing a typological change from dative/accusative to primary and secondary object marking. The non-standardized varieties examined in this book are the logical product of a scalar lack of standardization and to be understood as competing dialect grammars. Moreover, the observed variability and changes in the argument marking system are not subject to geographical restrictions but occur under similar conditions in a broader typological context and across the Spanish-speaking world. This has been widely reported across Latin American countries where Spanish is in contact with Amerindian languages, for example Mexican Spanish (Company 2003), Andean Spanish (Cerrón Palomino 1992, 2003; Escobar 1990; Luján 1987; Pérez 1997), and in Honduras, Nicaragua, Argentina and Bolivia as described by Lipski (1994). The variability has also been reported for nonstandardized River Plate Spanish, where not contact but educational issues are involved. The extensive intra- and interspeaker variability can also be found to some extent in Peninsular Spanish, for example in the Basque region (Landa 1995), caused by contact situations similar to those affecting Lima Spanish. Moving to a wider typological context, such variability is also found in Ibizan Catalan (2007) and in Hindi-Urdu (Butt 2008) among others. The wider distribution of very similar forms of variability – such as the Latin American Spanish leísmo strategy which finds its counterpart in Peninsular Spanish in leísmo by adstratum (Fernández Ordóñez 1993, 1999) – links the variability to more general typological concerns and strongly supports the reanalysis hypothesis for the third-person paradigm indicating a change from syntactically relatively independent words to less independent ones. Individual variability, as found in the extensive inter and intra-speaker variability in the corpus data, reflects dialect variability, representing samples of possible grammars within the same typological space (Bresnan, Deo and Sharma 2007: 302). The variability in the contact data also confirms that grammaticalization is an irreversible process DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-007

238

Conclusion

that does not extend to the whole paradigm at once, but is a gradient process which affects whole structures over a long period of time (Croft 2000; Harris and Campbell 1995). Additionally, contact languages favour partially parallel structures present in all of them and, therefore, co-existence of old and new structures produces mismatches and incompatibility, generally misjudged as ungrammaticality. Depending on environmental factors, inherent variability may be constrained by categorical (prescriptive) grammar, or lead through variable grammars to language change.1 Co-evolution of differential object marking and ongoing grammaticalization processes affecting clitics depend on a very complex interaction of semantic and pragmatic factors. In having undergone reanalysis from a syntactically relatively independent to a less independent element, clitics as head-markers in grammatical agreement display a more radical historical change than anaphoric clitics. The complexity of the overall ‘clitic situation’ is increased by the inherent variability of the third person clitic paradigm. Another element contributing to the clitic situation is the fundamental differences exhibited by the indirect object clitic le and the direct object clitic lo in relation to grammaticalization stages and markedness. The indirect object clitic le is at a far more advanced stage than the direct object clitics lo/la which exhibit mixed properties, specifically determiner-like properties in relation to (a) gender marking, (b) genesis from demonstratives, and (c) projectivity, as argued in chapter two. Particularly relevant is the fact that lo combines both masculine and neuter gender, it is the default and as such assumes the elsewhere position. This is the genesis of invariant lo, which can be characterized as an impoverished, reduced, underspecified and featureless form in the sense of Greenberg (1966). As such it is the unmarked member of the direct object clitic paradigm, while feminine gender and dative case are the marked members. As object markers, they lose all referential features and individuation, and can assume the double function of sentence-level verbal markers and discourse markers. The capacity of invariant lo to project full phrases singles it out as the prime candidate to act as a propositional anaphor, and allows for syntactic transfer of locative doubling. In the middle stages of grammaticalization processes, the entire paradigm attempts to manifest one single grammatical relation which eventually leads to a single person/object marking system, as has happened for example in Quiteño Spanish, where lo is in fact restricted to a propositional anaphor (Suñer 1989; Suñer and Yepéz 1988; Vincent 2001).

1 An example of completed change would be the single dative case system due to extensive leísmo in Ecuador and Paraguay.

Conclusion

239

The clitic le under extensive leísmo could become constrained to grammatical agreement, triggering purely clitic doubling constructions in that particular dialect, as argued by Fernández Soriano (1999). For Limeño Spanish contact varieties this could mean that optionality in the case of stage III co-evolution of clitics and differential object marking as discussed in the first part of chapter four, the latter will lose its viability and give way to objective marking, by either extending the dative or by creating a new accusative. Over time, Kayne’s Generalization would no longer apply as differential object marking could be replaced by the featureless clitic taking over as objective marker. This constitutes a significant move from dependent-marking to head-marking. It also shows that clitic doubling and differential object marking are two separate object marking strategies. The question whether syncretism of the form for the differential object marker and the dative is accidental is an important one and could help settle the argument about whether the dative “is invading” the space of the accusative (Company 2001; Fernández Ordóñez 1993, 1999) or is rather the result of the creation of a new accusative marker (Bossong 1991, 2003). The development of a new differential object marker due to dative-accusative syncretism seems to be part of a crosslinguistic trend, notably in Hindi-Urdu ko, Ibizan Catalan, Persian râ, and many other languages (Bossong 2003). Reanalysis of the locative preposition as a grammatical marker for human and personified objects is extended to topical specific inanimates, triggered by free variation of clitics, apparent leísmo, loísmo, and loss of gender as the last trace of a distinction between the dative and accusative disappears. It may well be that the marked form with inherent meaning competes with the unmarked form, showing a secondary meaning. The shrinking (or simplified) paradigm seems to be a dynamic process with covariation or free variation making optionality, the marked case, as noted in Andrews (1990: 530 n24). This development can be compared to a study on variation of Irish verb forms, where Andrews linked optionality to specific registers having different but closely related grammars. Grammatically marked forms as in feature specifying clitics would be available only in grammars of higher/prescriptive registers, and unmarked forms would be restricted to non-standardized dialects. This link between typological, sociolinguistic and generative theories has been illustrated in this book through the variability of the Spanish third person pronominal paradigm across time and space, and the emergence of variable clitic systems. Free variation of the agreement markers lo/le that evolved into objective markers is not an accident, but a natural consequence of a very complex constellation of co-occurring historical, language-internal processes, partially influenced by contact and by extralinguistic factors. The long-term evolution, seen

240

Conclusion

within the scope of the evolution of differential object marking and the concurrent grammaticalization processes affecting object clitics, shows a clear picture of a move away from co-reference to grammatical objective marking, producing ‘accidental’ mismatches and noisy data on the way. Local systems of object marking, as we find in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, for example, do not follow canonical patterns of semantic motivation but are determined by information-structure. Topicality is expressed by grammatical marking of a sentence element. In Spanish, grammatical marking by casemarking and agreement are expressions of topicality on objects. The evidence presented in this book motivates the analysis of invariant lo including la, in a laísmo strategy specific to Limeño Spanish contact varieties, acting as topicality and transitivity marker. As topic marker, lo marks secondary topic. Furthermore, based on crosslinguistic similarities such as Hindi/Urdu ko and Persian râ, and the development in neighbouring Latin American countries with similar contact situations, I argue that there are sufficient grounds to assume that both doubling strategies, the loísta and the leísta, are in principle the same and present a unique opportunity to catch a glimpse of language change in action. This is a possible explanation of invariant lo as topic and transitivity marker and can be linked to contact mediated through Andean Spanish.2 Contact in the case of the Limeño Spanish contact varieties data is not stable contact in situ, but a multilayered contact involving a considerable variety of socio-ethnic, multilingual and educational backgrounds. Despite these complications, the data show a surprisingly coherent picture in terms of a linguistic analysis of grammatical phenomena and inherent variability embedded in a range of external and internal triggers. Andean Spanish may have acted as a mediating contact language. The variability in object marking found in the Limeño Spanish contact dialects is very similar to Andean Spanish; in some cases, it may even be seen as an extension of Andean Spanish into an urban setting, or as a specific point on the Andean Spanish continuum. It is very likely that the existence of similar structures and pragmatic strategies in the genetically unrelated contact languages may have percolated through Andean Spanish into Limeño Spanish contact varieties and other contact varieties. In Ecuador and Paraguay, where Spanish has been in direct contact respectively with Quechua and Guaraní, language contact resulted in extensive leísmo and the use of neuter lo as a propositional anaphor. Limeño Spanish contact varieties make use of the leísta doubling strategy for grammatical agreement, and almost exclusive use of the indirect object clitic 2 Nonstandard or ungrammatical clitic usage has often been linked to influence from Quechua or other indigenous languages, though detailed studies to clarify the facts are scarce (Adelaar and Muysken 2004).

Conclusion

241

le for anaphoric agreement. The correlation of grammatical marking with information-structural encoding is linked to a split object marking system where both core arguments compete for primary object status. One may ask, what advantages does an in-depth study of one specific language variety with respect to a specific phenomenon have, and how representative and ‘generalizable’ can its results be? One of the aims of this book has been to demonstrate that the combination of formal approaches to grammar with typological facts can provide us with new answers to old questions, new insights and results for both fields, and can also help identify new issues for future research. The study presented in this book also offers insights for Second Language Acquisition research and Language planning, specifically in relation to contact situations or bilingual societies, as it shows that in such situations language inherent instability and processes should be considered and cannot be ignored. Inherent variability is often almost hidden or misinterpreted as non-perfect learning outcomes and may lead, reinforced by transfer and structural convergence through contact, to language change, as shown for example by studies on how bilingual children deal with the two different casemarking strategies (Sánchez 2003, 2004, 2006, 2012). A process that is inevitable, however, is that a deeper understanding of synchronic variability through diachronic knowledge is useful for better language learning programs and social acceptance of variation speakers. This is especially important in the context of strong migratory pressure on standard varieties in capital cities like Lima. It is difficult to predict the outcome of the clitic (r)evolution and whether the featureless form lo will survive in the same, or a different form (become restricted, for example, to a propositional anaphor). As Charles Darwin (Cambridge 1828–1831) said “It is not the strongest of the species that survives. It is the one most adaptable to change”. If we apply this concept, then the most probable candidate will be the dative le. The single-case dative clitic paradigm, known as extensive leísmo in Ecuador and Paraguay, corroborates this to a considerable extent. This outcome does not contradict the information structural approach by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011), but only stresses the importance of including information structure. What I hope this study has shown is that rules of syntax can be governed by information structure, thus expressing communicative needs and strategies (Falk 2001: 197). Focusing on pragmatic strategies and allowing to link grammatically marked direct objects to secondary topic marking opens a window in time. Evidence from non-standardized variation data has led me to conclude that the above-mentioned combination of approaches is not mutually exclusive but in fact closely linked and that we are probably witnessing language change in action.

References Abbott, Barbara. 2002. Definiteness and proper names: some bad news for the description theory. Journal of Semantics 19. 191–201. Ackermann, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding. Stanford monographs in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. Adelaar, Willem & Pieter Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37. Adger, David. 2015. Mythical myths: comments on Vyvyan Evans ’The Language Myth’ Lingua. 76–80. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68. 43–80. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconocity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. Aitchison, Jean. 2001. Language change: Progress or decay?: Cambridge approaches to linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Alarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1994. Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, Real Academia Española. Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized person-case constraint. In A. Mendikoetxea & M. UribeEtxebarria (eds.), Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface. Supplements of the international journal of Basque linguistics and philology (ASJU XL), 1–33. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia/EHU. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2000. Clitic-doubling and (non)configurationality. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall & J. H. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS) 30. Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case-marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Allen, Cynthia. 2000. On the development of a friend of mine. In T. Fanego, M. J. López-Couso & J. Pérez Guerra (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology. Seleted Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 23–41. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alsina, Alex. 1993. Predicate composition: a theory of syntactic function alternations. Stanford University PhD dissertation. Alsina, Alex. 1996a. Passive types and the theory of object assymmetries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 673–723. Alsina, Alex. 1996b. The role of argument structure in grammar. Evidence from Romance. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Alsina, Alex. 2001. On the nonsemantic nature of argument structure. Language Sciences 23. 355–389. Amable, Hugo. 1975. Las figuras del habla misionera. Santa Fe: Librería y Editorial Colmenga. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In Martin Everaert & Hendrik C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Clitics in the languages of Eurpoe, 761–798. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI 10.1515/9781614514213-008

References

243

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Hendrik C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 519–581. Oxford: Blackwell. Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andrews, Avery. 1982. The represetation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(4). 507–557. Andrews, Avery. 1994. Syntax textbook. The Australian National University manuscript. Andrews, Avery. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 132–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrews, Avery & Chris Manning. 1993. Information spreading and levels of representation in LFG. Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford, CA CSLI. Andrews, Avery & Chris Manning. 1999. Complex predicates and information spreading in LFG. Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Appel, René & Pieter Muysken. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. Arnold Publishers. Arellano, Ronaldo. 2002a. Las Limas. www.arellanoim.com/laslimas.htm: Arellano Marketing. Arellano, Ronaldo. 2002b. Psicografía del nuevo consumidor limeño: Lima tradicional y los conos. http://cdiserver.mba-sil.edu.pe/. . ./consumidor_cononorte.pdf: Arellano Marketing. Bello, Andrés. 1984. Gramática de la Lengua Castellana. Madrid: EDAF, Ediciones-Distribuciones, S.A. Belloro, Valeria. 2007. Spanish clitic doubling: a study of the syntax-pragmatics interface. State University of New York PhD dissertation. Benvenutto Murrieta, Pedro Manuel. 1936. El Lenguaje Peruano vol. I. Lima: Talleres de Sanmartí y Cía. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & John Payne. 2011. There are no special clitics. In Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 57–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bhat, Shankara D N. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bleam, Tonia. 1999. Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling. University of Delaware PhD dissertation. Bleam, Tonia. 2003. Properties of the double object construction in Spanish. In Rafael NúñezCedeño, Richard Cameron & Luís López (eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science.), 233– 252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bögel, Tina. 2010. Pashto (endo-)clitics in a parallel architecture. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 85–105. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt & Sebastian Sulger. 2008. Urdu ezafe and the morphology-syntax interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 129–149. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King & John T. Maxwell III. 2009. Prosodic phonology in LFG: A new proposal. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, 146–166. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King & John T. Maxwell III. 2010. Second position and the prosody-syntax interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 106–126. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

244

References

Bonet, Eulália. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT PhD dissertation. Bonet, Eulália. 1995. Feature structure of romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 607–647. Borer, Hagit. 1983. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: FORIS. Borer, Hagit (ed.). 1986. Syntax and semantics 19. The syntax of pronominal clitics. New York: Academic Press. Börjas, Kersti & Nigel Vincent. 2004. Introduction to LFG. Slides from the winter school in LFG and computational linguistics. University of Canterbury. Bosque, Ignacio & Juan Carlos Moreno. 1990. Las construcciones con lo y la denotación del neutro. Lingüística 2. 5–50. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Bossong, Georg. 1989. Morphemic marking of topic and focus. In Michel Kefer & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4: Universals of Language, 27–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bossong, Georg. 2003. Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.) Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages, 17–49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brandner, Ellen. 2006. Patterns of doubling in Alemannic. Edysin Workshop Amsterdam: Meertens Institute. Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan & George A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 1–59. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. (Series on Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan. 1997. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun: Chicheŵa pronominals in Optimality Theory. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. 26–46. Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 59–92. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press & MIT Working Papers. Bresnan, Joan. 2001a. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In Géraldine Legendre, Sten Vikner & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 113–142. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan. 2001b. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan. 2001c. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 297–306. Bresnan, Joan & Sam Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63. 741–782. Bresnan, Joan & Jonni M. Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1). 1–50. Bresnan, Joan & Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147–186.

References

245

Bresnan, Joan & Ashwini Deo. 2000. “Be” in the Survey of English Dialects: A stochastic OT account. Paper presented at The Symposium on Optimality Theory, Kobe, English Linguistic Society of Japan. Bresnan, Joan & Judith Aissen. 2002. Optimality and functionality: objections and refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(1). 81–95. Bresnan, Joan, Ashwini Deo & Devyani Sharma. 2007. Typology in variation: A probabilistic approach to ‘be’ and ‘n’t’ in the Survey of English Dialects. English Language and Linguistics 11(2). 301–346. Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler. 2016. Lexical-functional syntax. vol. 16. John Wiley & Sons. Brugè, Laura & Gerhard Brugger. 1996. On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus 8. 1–51. Butt, John & Carmen Benjamin. 2004. A new reference grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Arnold. Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. In K. Beals & G. Cooke (eds.), Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–104. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Butt, Miriam. 2005. Theories in case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, Miriam. 2008. From spatial expression to core case marker: Ergative and dative/accusative. ANU, Canberra: Seminar handout. Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 1996. Structural topic and focus without movement. In Proceedings of the first LFG Conference, (eds.) Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King: Grenoble: Rank Xerox. Calvo, Pérez Julio. 1996–1997. Pronominalización en Español e influencia del Quechua y del Aimara: Homenaje al Dr Germán de Granda. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 12–13(2). 521–544. Calvo, Pérez Julio. 2000. Partículas en castellano andino. In Pérez Julio Calvo (ed.) Teoría y práctica del contacto: El español de América en el candelero, 73–112. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Calvo Pérez, Julio. 2008. Perú. In Alcaine Azucena Palacios (ed.) El español en América, 189– 212. Barcelona: Ariel S.A. Camacho, José. 1999. From SOV to SVO: the grammar of interlanguage word order. Second Language Research 15. 115–132. Camacho, José & Liliana Sánchez. 2002. Explaining clitic variation in Spanish. In Mengistu Amberber & Peter Collins (eds.), Formal approaches to language universals and language variation, 21–41. Norwood: Ablex. Camacho, José, Liliana Paredes & Liliana Sánchez. 1995. The genitive clitic and the genitive construction in Andean Spanish. Probus 7. 133–147. Campbell, Lyle. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12(2). 157–200. Campos, Héctor. 1991a. Silent objects and subjects in Spanish. In Héctor Campos & Fernando Martínez-Gil (eds.), Current studies in Spanish linguistics, 117–141. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Campos, M. A. 1991b. El uso de los pronombres de objeto en el español de Moyobamba. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú PhD thesis. Caravedo, Rocio. 1990. Sociolingüística del Español de Lima. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú: Fondo Editorial.

246

References

Caravedo, Rocio. 1996–1997. Pronombres objeto en el español andino. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 12–13(2). 545–568. Caravedo, Rocio. 1999. Lingüística del Corpus: Cuestiones Teórico-Metodológicas Aplicadas al Español. vol. 6: Gramática Española: Enseñanza e Investigación. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Cardinaletti, Anna & Michael Starke. 1996. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. In Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel D. Epstein & Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in comparative germanic syntax, 21–65. The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cardinaletti, Anna & Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.) Clitics and the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 1987. Lingüística quechua. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos ‘Bartolomé de las Casas’. Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 1992. La forja del castellano andino o el penoso camino de la ladinización. In Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino (ed.) Historia y presente del Español de América. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 1994. Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas Quechua y Aimara. La Paz, Bolivia: Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado. Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 1995. Guamán Poma redivivo o el castellano rural andino. In Klaus Zimmermann (ed.) Lenguas en contacto en Hispanoamérica, 161–172. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 2003. Castellano Andino. Aspectos Sociolingüísticos, Pedagógicos y Gramaticales. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú: Fondo Editorial. Chatsiou, Aikaterini. 2006. On the status of resumptive pronouns in Modern Greek restrictive clauses. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Hollaway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, 71–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Chaudron, Craig. 2003. Data collection in second language acquisition research. In Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Chirinos Rivera, Andrés. 2001. Atllas Lingüístico del Perú. Cuzco & Lima: Centro Bartolomé de las Casas. Choi, Jinny K. 2000. [Person]-direct object drop: the genetic cause of a syntactic feature in Paraguayan Spanish. Hispania 83. 531–543. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 521– 582. Cole, Peter. 1985. Imbabura Quechua. Croom Helm descriptive grammars. London: Croom Helm. Company, Concepción. 1998. The interplay between language and meaning. Studies in Language 22(3). 529–565. Company, Concepción. 2000. El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In Alberto Bernabé & José Antonio Berenguer (eds.), Presente y Futuro de la Lingüística en España. La Sociedad de Lingüística, 30 Años después, 146– 154. Madrid: Infoprint, S.L. Company, Concepción. 2001. Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language 25(1). 1–47. Company, Concepción. 2003. Transitivity and grammaticalization of object, the struggle of direct and indirect object in Spanish. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology), 217–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References

247

Comrie, Bernard. 1997. The typology of predicate case marking. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 39–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Comrie, Bernard. 2003. When agreement gets trigger-happy. Transactions of the Philological Society 23. 50–61. Contreras, Heles & Jorge Rojas. 1972. Some remarks on Spanish clitics. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 385–392. Coronel-Molina, Serafín & Miguel Rodríguez-Mondoñedo. 2012. Introduction: Language contact in the Andes and universal grammar. Lingua 122(5). 447–460. Costa, João & Nancy C. Kula. 2003. Focus at the interface. Evidence from Romance and Bantu. In Cécile de Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Michael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural languages, 159–179. Stanford: CSLI. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman. Cuervo, Rufino José. 1895. Los casos enclíticos y proclíticos del pronombre de tercera persona en castellano. Romania 24. 95–113; 219–263. Cusihuamán, Antonio. 1976. Gramática Quechua. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Dal Negro, Silvia. 1998. Spracherhaltung in der Beiz – das Überleben von der Walsersprache zu Pomatt/Formazza. Wir Walser 36. 13–16. Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar. vol. 34: Syntax and semantics. San Diego & London: Academic Press Elsevier Science. Dalrymple, Mary. 2009. Lexical functional grammar. Comparing frameworks. Centre for Linguistics and Philology, Oxford University manuscript. Dalrymple, Mary & Louise Mycock. 2011. The prosody-semantics interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of LFG11 Conference, 173–193. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Granda, Germán. 1988. Sociedad, Historia y Lengua en el Paraguay. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. de Granda, Germán. 2001. Estudios de Lingüística Andina. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Deal, Amy. 2007. Property-type objects and modal embedding. Brandeis University mansucript. Demonte Barreto, Violeta. 1994a. Datives in Spanish. In L. Bruge & R. Dolci (eds.), University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics. Venezia: University of Venice. Demonte, Violeta. 1994b. On certain asymmetries between DOs and IOs. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honour of Richard S. Kayne, 111–120. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dinnsen, Daniel. 1972. Additional constraints on clitic order in Spanish. In Bohdan Saciuk & Jean Casagrande (eds.), Generative studies in Romance languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

248

References

Dione, Cheikh M. Bamba. 2013. Handling Wolof clitics in LFG. In Christine Mecklenborg Salvesen & Hans Petter Helland (eds.), Challenging clitics, 87–118. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dorian, Nancy C. 2001. Surprises in Sutherland: Linguistic variability amidst social uniformity. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratcliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 133–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–845. Duranti, Alessandro & Charles Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egerland, Werner. 2005. Diachronic change and pronoun status: Italian dative loro. Linguistics 43(6). 1105–1130. Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enc, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–26. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2007. Topics from Ibiza: Differential object marking and clitic dislocation. In Georg A. Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages. Universität Konstanz. Escobar, Alberto. 1978. Variaciones sociolingüísticas del castellano en el Perú. vol. 18: Peru Problema. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Anna María. 1988. Hacia una Tipología del Bilingüismo en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Anna María. 1990. Los Bilingües y el Castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Anna María. 1994. Andean Spanish and bilingual Spanish: linguistic characteristics. In Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & Martín Mario (eds.), Language in the Andes (Latin American Studies), 51–73: University of Delaware. Escobar, Anna María. 2000. Contacto Social y Lingüístico. El Español en Contacto con el Quechua en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Estigarribia, Bruno. 2005. Why clitic doubling? A functional analysis for Rioplatense Spanish. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, 116–135: Stanford, CA: CSLI. Estigarribia, Bruno. 2006. Rioplatense Spanish clitic doubling and ’tripling’ in lexical-functional grammar. In Chad Howe, Sarah E. Blackwell & Margaret Lubbers Quesada (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 297–309. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Everett, Daniel. 1996. Why there are no clitics: An alternative perspective on pronominal allomorphy. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington. Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-functional grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 213–245. Farrell, Patrick. 1990. Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3). 325–346. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1993. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo: estado de la cuestión. In Olga Fernández Soriano (ed.), Los pronombre átonos, 63–96. Madrid: Taurus. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1994. Isoglosas internas del castellano. El sistema referencial del pronombre átono de tercera personal. Revista de Filología Española 74. 71–125.

References

249

Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, Laísmo y Loísmo. In Ignacio Bosque Muñoz & Violeta Demonte Barreto (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 1317–1397. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 2007. El ‘neutro de materia’ en Asturias y Cantabria. Análisis gramatical y nuevos datos. In Inmaculada Delgado Cobos & Alicia Ocal Puigvert (eds.), Ex admiratione et amiciticia, 395–434. Madrid: Ediciones del Orto. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 2009. Dialect grammar of Spanish from the perspective of the Audible Corpus of Spoken Rural Spanish (or Corpus Oral y Sonoro del español Rural (COSER). Dialectología 3. 23–51. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 2012. Dialectal areas and linguistic change. In Gunther de Vogelaer & Guido Seiler (eds.), The dialect laboratory. Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change, 73–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1999. El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos. In Violeta Demonte Barreto & Ignacio Bosque (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emond Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Rinehart & Winston. Fodor, Janet & Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 355–398. Francis Soriano, Susana. 1960. Habla y Literatura Popular en la Antigua Capital Chiapaneca. México: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Franco, Jon & Alazne Landa. 2003. Null objects revisited. In Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luís López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use. Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science), 311–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franco, Jon & Alazne Landa. 2006. Preverbal n-words and anti-agreement effects. In Nuria Sagarra & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 34–42. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Franco, Jon & Susana Huidobro. 2008. Ethical datives, clitic doubling and the theory of pro. In Joyce Bruhn de Garavito & Elena Valenzuela (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 215–224. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Franks, Steven & Tracy Holloway King. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gabaldón, Manuel Amorós, Javier Bercial Sanz, María de los Ángeles Rubio Haro, Francisco Moreno Fernández & Francisco Corrales Fernández. 1988. Anotaciones sobre el leísmo, el laísmo y el loísmo en la provincia de Madrid. Epos: Revista de filología(4). 101–122. Garatea Grau, Carlos. 2009. Español de América, español del Perú. Sobre normas y tradiciones discursivas. Lexis 28(1–2). 397–428. García, Erica. 1990. Bilingüismo e interferencia sintáctica. Lexis XIV. 151–195. Gerlach, Birgit & Janet Grijzenhout (eds.). 2000. Clitics in phonology, morphology and syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. Perspectives in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.

250

References

Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. vol. 3. (Typological Studies in Language (TSL)). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1988. The pragmatics of word-order: predictability, importance and attention In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 244– 284. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1997. Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective. vol. 35. (Typological Studies in Language (TSL)). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Glaser, Elvira. 1993. Syntaktische Strategien zum Ausdruck von Indefinitheit und Partitivität im Deutschen (Standardsprache und Dialekt). In Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds.), Dialektsyntax, 99–116. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Godenzzi, Juan Carlos. 1986. Pronombre del objeto directo e indirecto del castellano en Puno. Lexis 10. 187–201. Green, John. 1988. Spanish. In Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent (eds.), The Romance languages (Croom Helm Romance Linguistics Series), 79–130. London: Croom Helm. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals. With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Grimshaw, Jane. 1982a. On the lexical representation of romance reflexive clitics. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation), 87–148. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1982b. Subcategorization and grammatical relations. In Annie Zaenen (ed.) Subjects and other subjects, 35–57. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997a. The best clitic: Constraint interaction in morphosyntax. In Liliane Haegemann (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 169– 196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997b. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 373–422. Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic position and the lexicon in Romance clitics systems. In Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw & Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 205–240. London: Routledge. Gutierrez Ordoñez, Salvador. 1999. Los dativos. In Ignacio Bosque Muñoz & Violeta Demonte Barreto (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua esapñola, 1855–1930. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Haboud, Marleen. 1996. Quechua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Andes: The effects of prolonged contact. University of Oregon PhD dissertation. Haboud, Marleen. 1997. Grammaticalization, clause union and grammatical relations in Ecuadorian Highland Spanish. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective (Typological Studies In Language (TSL)). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Warlpiri. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 308–344. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Halpern, Aaron L. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford: CSLI PhD dissertation. Halpern, Aaron L. & Arnold Zwicky (eds.). 1996. Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. (CSLI Lecture notes number 61). Stanford: CSLI.

References

251

Hanssen, Federico. 1945. Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana. Buenos Aires: Librería y Editorial “El Ateneo”. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell (eds.). 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, James. 1994. The syntax-phonology mapping in Catalan and Spanish clitics. In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers on morphology and phonology, 321–353. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Harris, James. 1995. The morphology of Spanish clitics. In Hector Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory 168–197. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based account. Constructions (free online journal, University of Düsseldorf ) 2. 1–71. Heap, David. 1998. Optimalizing iberian clitic sequences. In José Lema & Estelha Treviño (eds.), Theoretical analyses on Romance languages: Selected papers from the 26th Linguistic Symposium on Romance languages (LSRL XXVI) (Series IV- Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), 227–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heath, Jeffrey. 1984. Functional grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Henn-Memmesheimer, Beate. 1997. Non-standard syntax in German. In Jenny Cheshire & Dieter Stein (eds.), Taming the vernacular: From dialect to written standard language, 232–249. London & New York: Longmann. Hoekstra, Teun & Rint Sybesma. 2004. Arguments and stucture. Studies on the architecture of the sentence. Berlin: De Gruyter. Holloway King, Tracy. 2005. Clitics in LFG. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, 226–237. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Hopper, Paul J & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second Edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jaegger, Florian & Veronica Gerassimova. 2002. Bulgarian word order and the role of the direct object clitic in LFG. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Hollaway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 197–219. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. vol. 12: Studies in Generative Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Jendraschek, Gerd. 2007. Basque in contact with Romance languages. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact, 143–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell. Kany, Charles E. 1967. American Spanish syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaplan, Ron & Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

252

References

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. The transformational cycle. Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Null subject and clitic climbing. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), 239–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kayne, Richard. 1990. Romance clitics and PRO. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society Conference: University of Massachusetts, Amherst; The Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Wilhelm Geuder & Miriam Butt (eds.), The projection of arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI. Kiss, Katalina E. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74(2). 245– 273. Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences 242. 1907– 1130. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Optional marking of arguments. Language Sciences 27. 483–514. Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61. 95–120. Klee, Carol. 1989. The acquisition of clitic pronouns in the Spanish interlanguage of Peruvian Spanish Quechua speakers. Hispania 72. 402–408. Klee, Carol. 1990. Spanish-Quechua language contact: The clitic pronoun system in Andean Spanish. Word 41(1). 35–46. Klee, Carol & Rocio Caravedo. 2005. Contact-induced language change in Lima. In David Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 12–21. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Project. Klee, Carol & Rocio Caravedo. 2006. Andean Spanish and the Spanish of Lima: Linguistic variation and change in a contact situation. In Claire Mar-Molinero & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Globalization and language in the Spanish-speaking world: Macro and micro perspectives, 94–113. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Klein-Andreu, Flora. 1981. Distintos sistemas de empleo le, la, lo. Perspectiva sincrónica, diacrónica y sociolingüísta. Thesaurus 36. 1–21. Klein-Andreu, Flora. 1992. “Understanding Standards”. In Garry W. Davis & Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Explanation in historical linguistics, 169–178. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kornfeld, Laura & Ines Kuguel. 2006. Morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic properties of re in Argentinian Spanish. In Romania Nova II: Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Brazil. Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In K. Beals et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 180–201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laca, Brenda. 2002. Gramaticalización y variabilidad: propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español. In Andreas Wensch, Waltraud Weidenbusch, Rolf Kailuweit & Brenda Laca (eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte. Historia de las variedades lingüísticas, 195–206. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Laca, Brenda. 2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Concepción Company (ed.) Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española, 421–475. México DF: Universidad Autónoma de México.

References

253

Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1998. Comparative studies in word order variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lafitte, Pierre. 1944/2001. Grammaire Basque. Navarro-Labourdin littéraire. Donostia/Baiona: Elkarlanean. Lakämper, Renate & Dieter Wunderlich. 1998. Person marking in Quechua – a constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105. 113–148. Lakoff, George. 1968. Pronouns and reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental tepresentations of fiscourse referents. vol. 71: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Landa, Miren Alazne. 1995. Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to leísmo and clitic doubling. University of Southern California PhD dissertation. Landerman, Peter Nelson. 1991. Quechua dialects and their classification. University of California PhD dissertation. Lapesa, Rafael. 1964. El Andaluz y el Español de América. Madrid. Lapesa, Rafael. 1968. Sobre los orígenes y evolución del leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Kurt Baldinger (ed.) Festschrift Walther von Wartburg zum 80. Geburtstag, 523–551. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Lapesa, Rafael. 2000. Estudios de Morfosintaxis Histórica del Español. Madrid: Gredos. Laughren, Mary & Susana Eisenchlas. 2006. The role of animacy and definiteness in the cliticDP nexus. In Keith Allen (ed.), Selected Papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Australian Linguistic Society. Lazard, Gilbert. 2003. What is an object in a crosslinguistic perspective. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.) Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages, 1–16. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lefebvre, Claire & Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories. Nominalizations in Quechua. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. El artículo. In Ignacio Bosque Muñoz & Violeta Demonte Barreto (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Real Academia Española. Colección Nebrija y Bello), 787–890. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3. 75–114. Leonetti, Manuel. 2007. Clitics do not encode specificity. In Georg Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in IberoRomance Languages”, 111–139. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft (Arbeitspapier 122). Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 20. 33–66. Lipski, John M. 1994. Latin American Spanish. London & New York: Longman. Lipski, John M. 2007a. Castile and the hydra: The diversification of Spanish in Latin America. Paper presented at Iberian Imperialism and Language Evolution in Latin America. Lipski, John M. 2007b. El español en el América en contacto con otras lenguas. In Manuel Lacorte (ed.) Lingüística aplicada del español, 309–345. Madrid: Arcos Libros.

254

References

Lipski, John M. 2014. The many faces of Spanish dialect diversification in Latin America. In Salikoko S. Mufwene (ed.), Iberian imperialism and language evolution in Latin America, 38–75. Georgetown: The Georgetown University Press. Lope Blanch, Juan Miguel. 1971. La influencia del sustrato en la grámatica del español mexicano Homenaje a Daniel Cosío Villegas, 181–190. México: El Colegio de México. Lorenzino, Gerardo Augusto. 2003. Bilingüismo y migración urbana: El Quechua Santiagueño. In Lofti Sayahi (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 53–60. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lowe, John J. 2011. Rgvedic clitics and ’prosodic’ movement. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 360–380. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Lowe, John J. 2014. Accented clitics in the Rgveda. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1). 5–43. Lowe, John J. 2015. Separating syntax and prosody. Journal of Linguistics. 1–45. Luís, Ana R. & Louisa Sadler. 2003. Object clitic and marked morphology. In Claire Beyssade, Oliver Bonami, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Francis Corblin (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 4, 133–154. Paris: Presses, de l’ Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Luís, Ana R. & Ryo Otoguro. 2005. Morphologial and syntactic well-formedness: The case of European Portuguese proclitics. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Hollaway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, 253–270. Standford, CA: CSLI. Luján, Marta. 1987. Clitic-doubling in Andean Spanish and the theory of case absorption. In Terrell A. Morgan, James F. Lee & Bill Vanpatten (eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish, 109–121. Washington: University Press of America. Luján, Marta & Teresa Parodi. 1996. Clitic doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. In Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Luis Silva-Villar (eds.), Perspectives on Spanish linguistics, 119–138. Los Angeles: UCLA. Lyons, Christopher. 1990. An agreement approach to clitic doubling. Transactions of the Philological Society 88(1). 1–57. Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. Discourse variation. In Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 283–306. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell. Mannheim, Bruce. 1984. Una nación acorralada. Southern Peruvian Quechua Language planning and politics in historical perspective. Language in Society 12. 221–309. Manning, Christopher D. 1992. Romance is so complex. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Bod Rens, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289–341. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. Martinet, André. 1960. Éléments de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Armand Colin. Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36(1). 281–331. Matras, Yaron. 2013. Languages in contact in a world marked by change and mobility. Revue française de linguistique appliquée XVIII( 2). 7–13. Mayer, Elisabeth. 2003. Clitic doubling in Limeño. A case study in LFG, Australian National University MLing thesis. Mayer, Elisabeth. 2006. Optional direct object clitic doubling in Limeño Spanish. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, 310–327. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Mayer, Elisabeth. 2008. Clitics on the move: From Dependent Marking to Split Marking. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 352– 372: Stanford, CA: CSLI.

References

255

Mayer, Elisabeth. 2010. Syntactic variation of object arguments in Limeño Spanish contact varieties, Australian National University PhD dissertation. Mayer, Elisabeth. 2013. Floating agreement in American Spanish leísta dialects. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 152–169. Mayer, Elisabeth & Manuel Delicado Cantero. 2015. Continuity and contact-induced change in Peruvian Spanish contact varieties: The case of prepositional differential object marking. In Melvin González-Rivera & Sandro Sessarego (eds.), New perspectives on hispanic contact linguistics in the Americas (Language and Society in the Hispanic World), 99– 120. Madrid & Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Iberoamericana. Mayer, Elisabeth & Liliana Sánchez. 2017a. Variability at the interfaces: Clitics in bilingual and monolingual Andean Spanish. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Special Issue). accepted. Mayer, Elisabeth & Liliana Sánchez. 2016. Object agreement marking and information structure in monolingual and bilingual Andean Spanish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 29:2, 544–581. doi 10.1075/resla.29.2.07may Mayer, Elisabeth & Liliana Sánchez. 2017b. Clitics and argument marking in Shipibo Spanish and Ashaninka-Spanish Bilingual speech. In Stephen Fafulas (ed.), Amazonian Spanish: language contact and evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ms. Mayer, Elisabeth & Liliana Sánchez. 2017c. Feature selection in clitic expression in Amazonian Spanish. In Ana María Escobar & Roberto Zariquiey (ed.), Special volume of Amazonian Spanish. ms. McCarthy, Corrine. 2008. Morphological availabiity in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research 24(4). 459– 486. Meklenborg Salvesen, Christine & Hans Peter Helland (eds.). 2013. Challenging clitics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Melis, Chantal. 1995. El objeto directo personal en el Cantar del Mío Cid: estudio sintácticopragmático. In Carmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, 133–163. Madrid: Visor. Merma Molina, Gladys. 2004. Lenguas en contacto: peculiaridades del español andino peruano. Tres casos de interferencia morfosintáctica. Estudios de Lingüística Univerisdad de Alicante (ELUA) 18. 191–211. Miller, Philip & Paola Monachesi. 2003. Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In Danièle Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes, problèmes de la phrase simple. Paris: CNRS éditions. Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. Université de Bruxelles Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A lexical approach to UItlian cliticization. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Monachesi, Paola. 2005. The verbal complex in Romance: A case study in grammatical interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Montrul, Silvina, Rebecca Foote, Silvia Perpiñán, Dan Thornhill & Susana Vidal. 2006. Full access and age effects in adult bilingualism: An investigation of Spanish accusative clitics and word order. In Nuria Sagarra & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, 217–228. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

256

References

Montrul, Silvina A. 2006. Incomplete acquisition as a feature of bilingual and L2 grammars. In Roumyana Slabakova, Silvina A. Montrul & Philippe Prévost (eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development. In honour of Lydia White, 335–361. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2002. Competition and selection in language evolution. Selection 3(1). 45–56. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muysken, Pieter. 1984. The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as normgoverned behaviour. In Roger W Andersen (ed.), Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective, 101–119. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Muysken, Pieter. 1989. Media Lengua and linguistic theory. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33(4). 409–422. Muysken, Pieter. 2013. Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism 16(4). 709. Myers, Sarah K. 1973. Language shift among migrants to Lima, Peru. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography. Naess, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: the markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114. 1186–1212. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313. Nevis, Joel A., Brian D. Joseph, Dieter Wanner & Arnold Zwicky. 1994. Clitics: A comprehensive bibliography 1892–1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56– 119. Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 23. 331–376. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39. 1– 49. Niño Murcia, Mercedes. 1995. The gerund in the Spanish of the North-Andean region. In Carmen Silva-Corvalan (ed.), Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism, 83–100. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. O’Connor, Rob. 2002. Clitics and phrasal affixation in constructive morphology. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, 315–332. Stanford, CA: CSLI. O’Connor, Rob. 2004. Information structure in lexical-functional grammar. The discourseprosody correspondence in English and Serbo-Croation. University of Manchester PhD dissertation. O’Rourke, Erin. 2004. Peak placement in two regional varieties of Peruvian Spanish intonation. In Julie Auger, J. Clancy Clements & Barbara Vance (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics. Selected Papers from the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Bloomington, Indiana, April 2003 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science), 321–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. O’Rourke, Erin. 2005. Intonation and language contact: A case study of two varieties of Peruvian Spanish. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PhD dissertation. O’Rourke, Erin. 2009. Phonetics and phonology of Cuzco Quechua declarative intonation: an instrumental analysis. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39(3). 291–312.

References

257

Ordóñez, Francisco. 2002. Some clitic combinations in the syntax. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1. 201–224. Ordóñez, Francisco. 2012. Clitics in Spanish. In J. Hualde, A. Olarrea & Erin O’Rouke (eds.), Handbook of hispanic linguistics, 423–453. Cambridge: Blackwell. Ordóñez, Francisco & Lori Repetti. 2006. Stressed enclitics. In Jean Pierre Montreuil (ed.), New analyses in romance linguistics: Phonetics, phonology and dialectology, 167–181. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the personcase constraint. Anuario del Seminario Julio de Urquijo XXXII(2). 415–434. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement restrictions. Ms. University of the Basque Country and University of Alcalá de Henares. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2004. Clitics and agreement. Paper presented at Journées d’Études Linguistiques 2004 (JEL’ 2004), 5–7 Mai, Nantes, France. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 315–347. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2010. Object clitics and agreement. Ms. University of the Basque Country/HiTT & University de Extremadura/HiTT. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus 25. 301–344. Otero, Carlos. 1972. Accetable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 233– 242. Palacios, Alcaine Azucena. 1998. Santacruz Pachacuti y la falsa pronominalización del español andino. Lexis 22(2). 119–146. Palacios, Alcaine Azucena. 2000. El sistema pronominal del español Paraguayo: un caso de contacto de lenguas. In Julio Calvo Pérez (ed.), Teoría y práctica de contacto: El español de América en el candelero, 123–143. Madrid: Iberoramericana. Palacios, Alcaine Azucena. 2002. Leísmo y loísmo en el español ecuatoriano: el sistema pronominal del español andino. Homenaje al Dr. Cisneros. 389–408. Palacios, Alcaine Azucena. 2005. Aspectos teóricos y metodológicos del contacto de lenguas: El sistema pronominal del español en áreas de contacto con lenguas amerindias. In Volker Noll, Klaus Zimmermann & Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh (eds.), El Español en América: aspectos teóricos, particularidades, contactos (Lengua y Sociedad en el Mundo Hispánico/Language and Society in the Hispanic World), 63–94. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert Iberoamericana. Palacios, Alcaine Azucena. 2013. Contact-induced change and internal evolution. In Isabelle Léglise & Claudine Chamoreau (eds.), The interplay of variation and change in contact settings, 165–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Paredes, Liliana. 1996. The Spanish continuum in Peruvian bilingual speakers. A case study of verbal clitics. University of Southern California PhD dissertation. Payne, Doris & Thomas E. Payne. 1990. Yagua. In Derbyshire D. C. & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, 249–474. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pensado, Carmen. 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor Libros. Pensalfini, Rob. 1999. The rise of case suffixes as discourse markers in Jingulu – a case study of innovation in an obsolescent language Australian Journal of Linguistics 19(2). 225–240. Pérez, Jorge. 1997. The psycholinguistic basis of Andean Spanish morpho-syntax. Lima: Pontifícia Universidad Católica de Perú.

258

References

Pérez, Jorge. 2000. Distribución y estructura interna de los clíticos del español: análisis de cuatro fenómenos desde la Morfología Distribuida. Lexis 24(2). 259–281. Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax.: Transatlantic Series in Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pescarini, Diego. 2005. Clitic clusters and morphological repairs. Evidence from Italian, Spanish and Barceloní. Ms. Pescarini, Diego. 2007. Elsewhere in Romance: Counter-levelling, syncretism, and clitic clusters. Ms. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. J. Reulard & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pollard, Carl & Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago & Stanford: University of Chicago Press & CSLI. Pozzi-Escot, Inés. 1972. El castellano en el Perú: norma culta nacional versus norma culta regional. In Alberto Escobar (ed.), El reto del multilingüismo en el Perú, 125–142. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Pozzi-Escot, Inés. 1975. Norma culta y normas regionales del castellano en relación con la enseñanza. In R. Ávalos de Matos & R. Ravines (eds.), Lingüística e indigenismo moderno en América. Trabajos presentados al XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, 321– 330. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, Center for Cognitive Science. Quilis, Antonio, Margarita Cantarero, María José Albalá & Guerra. Rafael (eds.). 1985. Los pronombres le, le, lo y sus plurales en la lengua española hablada en Madrid. Madrid: CSIC. Real Academia Española. 1985. Esbozo de una Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Reed, Judy & David L. Payne. 1986. Asheninka (Campa) pronominals. In Ursula Wiesemann (ed.), Pronominal systems, 323–331. Tübingen: Günther Narr Verlag. Ritter, Elizabeth & Sara Thomas Rosen. 2001. The interpretive value of object splits. Language Sciences 23. 425–451. Rivarola, José Luís. 1992. Aproximación histórica al Español del Perú. In Alonso C. Hernández (ed.), Historia y presente del español de América, 697–717: Junta de Castilla y León. Rivero, María-Luisa. 1975. Referential properties of Spanish noun phrases. Language 51. 32– 48. Rivero, María-Luisa. 1986. Parameters in the typology of clitics in Romance and Old Spanish. Language 62. 774–807. Roca, Ana & John B. Jensen (eds.). 1996. Spanish in contact. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Rodriguez de Montes, María Luisa. 1981. Muestra de Literatura Oral en Leticia, Amazonas. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Rojas, Elena. 1980. Aspectos del habla en San Miguel de Tucumán. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Rudin, Catherine. 1997. Agr-O and Bulgarian pronominal clitics. In M. Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana meeting 1996, 224–252. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Saltarelli, Mario. 1988. Basque. London: Croom Helm. Sánchez, Liliana. 2003. Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism: Interference and Convergence in Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References

259

Sánchez, Liliana. 2004. Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2). 147– 162. Sánchez, Liliana. 2005. Clitic-doubling and the checking of focus. Ms. Rutgers University. Sánchez, Liliana. 2006. Kechwa and Spanish bilignual grammars: Testing hypotheses on functional interference and convergence. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9(5). 535–556. Sánchez, Liliana. 2010. The morphology and syntax of topic and focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. Oxford: John Benjamins. Sánchez, Liliana. 2012. Convergence in syntax/morphology mapping strategies: evidence from Quechua-Spanish code mixing. Lingua 122(5). 511–528. Sánchez, Liliana & Pablo Zdrojewski. 2013. Restricciones semánticas y pragmáticas al doblado de clíticos en el español de Buenos Aires y de Lima. Lingüística 29(2). 271–320. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace. Schwarze, Christoph. 2001. Representation and variation: On the development of romance auxiliary syntax. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Hollaway King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax (Studies in Constraint -Based Lexicalism), 143–172. Stanford: CSLI Schwenter, Scott A. 2006. Null objects acros South America. In Carol Klee & Timothy L. Face (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 23–26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Schwenter, Scott A. & Asela Reig Alamillo. 2007. Null object and neuter lo: A cross-dialectal variationist analysis. In Jonathan Holmquist & et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 113–121. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Sharma, Devyani. 2003. Discourse clitics and constructive morphology in Hindi. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Nominals: inside and out. Stanford, CA: CSLI Silva-Corvalan, Carmen (ed.) 1995. Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism. (Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1989. Sociolingüística: teoría y análisis. Madrid: Alhambra. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 2001. Sociolingüistica y pragmática del español. Georgetown Studies in Spanish Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic. Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2008. Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnmäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity, 67–68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Spaulding, Robert K. 1962. How Spanish grew. Berkeley: University of California Press. Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís. 2012. Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stratford, Billie Dale. 1989. Structure and use of Altiplano Spanish. University of Florida PhD dissertation.

260

References

Suárez, Victor. 1979. El español que se habla en Yucatán. Mérida: Universidad de Yucatán. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 391–434. Suñer, Margarita. 1989. Dialectal variation and clitic-doubled direct objects. In Carl Kirschner & Janet Ann Decesaris (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XVII) (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science), 377–395. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Suñer, Margarita & María Yepéz. 1988. Null definite objects in Quiteño. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 511–519. Symeonidis, Haralambos. 2005. Aspectos sintácticos en el habla popular románica de la zona guaranitica. In Volker Noll, Klaus Zimmermann & Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh (eds.), El español en América: aspectos teóricos, particularidades, contactos (Lengua y Sociedad en el Mundo Hispanico/Language and Society in the Hispanic World), 235–248. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert Iberoamericana. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1998. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ticio, Emma. 2005. Locality and anti-locality in Spanish DPs. Syntax 8(3). 229–286. Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting words. A case study of Swedish verbal particle. Drodrecht: Kluwer. Torrego, Esther. 1987. On empty categories in nominals. Ms. Boston: University of Massachusetts. Torrego, Esther. 1993. On the nature of clitic doubling. In Héctor Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, 299– 418. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Torrego, Esther. 1999. El complemento directo preposicional. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Grámatica descriptiva de la lengua española, 1779–1806. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2002. Le: from pronoun to verbal intensifier. Linguistics 40(2). 285– 318. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 79–123. Usher de Herreros, Beatriz. 1976. Castellano Paraguayo. Notas para una gramática contrastiva castellano-guaraní. Suplemento Antropológico 11. 29–123. vam Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.). 1999. Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van Coetsem, Frans. 1995. Outlining a model of the transmission phenomenon in language contact. Leuvense bijdragen 84(1). 63–85. Vargas Llosa, Mario. 2003. Wittgenstein en Máncora. In Caretas – El País. Vasconcellos Lopes, Ruth & Sonia Cyrino. 2005. Evidence for a cue-based theory of language change and language acquisition. The null object in Brazilian Portuguese. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science), 343–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vincent, Nigel. 2001. LFG as a model of syntactic change. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Hollaway King (eds.), Time over matter: diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. (Studies in ConstraintBased Lexicalism), 1–42. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

References

261

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 245–275. von Heusinger, Klaus. 2007. Referentially anchored indefinites. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 273–292. Dordrecht: Springer. von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg A. Kaiser. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Klaus von Heusinger, Georg Kaiser & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Specificity and the Evolution /Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance.” 33–70. Universität Konstanz: Arbeitspapier 119: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg Kaiser. 2007. Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spansish. In Georg Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificty and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages” Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier 122: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. von Heusinger, Klaus & Edgar Onea. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20. 67–110. Wanner, Dieter. 1974. The evolution of Romance clitic order. In Joseph R. Cambell, Mary Clayton & Mark S. Goldin (eds.), Linguistic studies in Romance languages, 158–177. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Wanner, Dieter. 1997. Dialect variation as a consequence of standardization. In Jenny Cheshire & Dieter Stein (eds.), Taming the vernacular: From dialect to written standard language, 218–232. London & New York: Longman. Weber, David. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. vol. 112: University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weber, David. 1993. The binding properties of Quechua suffixes: University of North Dakota: Work papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Wechsler, Stephen & Larisa Zlatic. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Wescoat, Michael. 2009. Udi person markers and lexical integrity. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of LFG09 Conference, 604–622. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 43–80. Wölck, Wolfgang. 1973. Attitudes towards Spanish and Quechua in bilingual Peru. In Roger W. Shuy & Ralph W. Fasold (eds.), Language attitudes: Current trends and prospects, 129– 147. Washington. Wurm, Stephen A. 1976. Accusative marking in Duudidjawu (Waga-Waga). In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 106–111. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Yépez, María. 1986. Direct object clitics in Quiteño, Cornell University M.A. thesis. Ykaza Tigerino, Julio. 1980. Situación y tendencias actuales del español en Nicaragua. Managua: Ediciones Lengua. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4). 441–483. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Verb phrase syntax: A parametric study of English and Spanish. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zagona, Karen. 2002. The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

262

References

Zdrojewski, Pablo & Liliana Sánchez. 2014. Variation in accusative clitic doubling across three Spanish dialects. Lingua 15. 162–176. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1985. Morphophonology and morphosyntax: The case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 247–289. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 33. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1999. Word order in Spanish and the nature of nominative case. In Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters. Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), 223–251. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zulaika, Iker. 2007. Demonstrative pronouns in Spanish. The Ohio State University PhD dissertation. Zwicky, Arnold. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61. 283–305. Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language Sciences 59. 502–513.

Index accusative 2, also see case, clitic doubling, differential object marking – clitics 2, 6, 8, 23, 33–39, 52, 61, 110, 164 – neuter 8, 37–44, 91, 113, 145, 148, 152– 154, 174, 176, 181, 238, 240 affectedness 57, 122, 135, 215–216, 221, 223, see also animacy – individuation 221, 222 – possessor 229 affix 25–27, 30, 81, 188, 192, 199 – allomorphy 29, 33 – anaphoric agreement 33 – inflectional 25, 27, 30, 110 – phrasal 29, 30 – stem-level 29–30, 33 agreement 2, see also agreement marker – anaphoric 56, 71, 85, 107– 108, 113, 136, 138, 141–146, 162–163, 184, 241 – crossreferencing 2–3, 66, 226 – floating 51, 141, 144, 164, 165, 166, 186, 227 ftn 30, 236 – grammatical 71, 84–89, 107–113, 134, 136, 141–146, 153, 158, 184, 206, 238– 240 – head-marking 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 23, 58, 59, 61, 66, 92, 99, 125, 128, 129, 133, 140, 143, 206, 212, 216, 217, 218, 230, 239 – primary agreement 63, 125 – secondary agreement 63, 125, 127, 129, 131, 136 – subject-verb 125, 196, 207 alignment constraints 31, 44, 48, 51, 52–54 – default alignment 120, 132, 139 – grammatical alignment 57, 120 – harmonic alignment 119 animacy 73, see also affectedness, clitic doubling, differential object marking, semantic features, topicality – agency/disambiguation 219 – animacy hierarchy 73, 196, 199 – animacy marking 10, 51, 61, 70–71, 74–75, 95, 101–102, 123, 154, 186, 189, 195 – animacy scale 5, 51, 68, 72–73, 95 – person 92, 100

argument, see also direct and indirect object, primary object, differential object marking, double object constructions – internal 47, 49, 55–56, 60, 92, 124, 208, 211, 213, 225, 228, 233 – external 55, 99, 124, 211, 213 – theta-role bearing 33, 85, 218 a-(rgument) structure 22, 48, 55, 86, 101, 120, 153, 211– 213, 215–216, 225–226 attribute value matrix 23, 80 case 9, 34, 39, see also differential object marking, Person-Case Constraint – accusative 2, 3, 9, 25, 36, 58–59, 61–62, 101–102, 185 ftn 35, 202, 204 – alternation 221–224, 226–227, 232 – dative 2, 7, 9, 36, 59–62, 82, 87, 93, 101– 102, 215, 217, 231–232, 238 – case hierarchy 46, 120 – case system 100–102, 109, 112–115, 142– 143, 199, 219, 225, 236, 238 ftn 1, 241 – dependent-marking 1,2, 6, 58, 210 – erosion 166, 168, 214 – ethical dative 233–236 – gender 37, 51 – grammatical relations 57–59, 61, 80, 93, 211, 217 – locative (adpositional marking) 9, 59, 61, 71–72, 94, 224 – optional casemarking 3, 222 – structural case 28, 50, 53, 57–58, 104, 107, 219–220 – semantic case 50, 57, 59, 62, 107, 221 – syncretism 29, 34, 36, 37, 51, 59, 61–62, 66, 71–72, 82–83, 92, 102–103, 129, 166, 229, 236 – telicity/boundedness 57, 224 clitic, see also pronoun – agreement marker 26, 33, 39, 51, 78, 83, 85, 89, 92, 100, 111, 113, 131, 145 – anaphoric 33–34, 40, 84–85, 87, 127, 140, 143, 235, 238 – argument clitic 40–41, 49 and ftn 30

264 – – – – – –

Index

clitichood 26, 30–31, 33, 46 deictic element 44 enclitics 1, 26, 29, 31, 33, 46, 178, 195 features 1, 2, 25, 34, 36–40, 51–52 feature unification 91 objective marker (non-agreeing/ featureless) 100, 207, 239 – position 26, 46, 167 – proclitics 1, 26, 29–31, 33, 46 and ftn 30, 81, 178 ftn 27, 195 – special clitics 26–27 and ftn2, 28, 30 – spurious se 28, 36, 37 ftn 15, 46–49, 51– 52, 54–55, 88, 137, 164, 166–167, 171, 235 – topicality/transitivity marker 89, 131, 206, 235 – true clitics 43, 140 – Wackernagel clitics 28 clitic doubling 2, see also differential object marking, information structure, leísmo, loísmo, laísmo – accusative 3, 6, 216 – dative/accusative alternation 185 – direct object 2, 6, 23–24, 62, 64, 67, 79, 82, 89–90, 99, 139, 155–156, 204, 218 – indirect object 62, 70, 78–79, 82, 139– 140, 159, 183, 228, 229 – liberal direct object clitic doubling 19, 64, 90, 140, 145, 157, 184 – optionality of direct object doubling 64– 65, 66–67, 89 ftn 31, 91, 138, 239 – referential categories 23, 68, 73, 77 – topicalization 2, 5 clitic structures, see also clitic doubling, differential object marking, information structure – clitic climbing 26, 30 ftn 8, 31, 81 – clitic cluster 28, 31, 33, 38, 44–47, 47 ftn 31, 48 ftn 33, 87, 151, 164, 169, 172, 185–186, 214, 227 and ftn 30, 228, 233, 236, see also spurious se – clitic placement 23, 27, 30 ftn 8, 43, 47, 122–123 clitic systems 17, 28 – etymological system 8

– hybrid/split/new/variable 3, 139, 184, 239 – scalar system 143, 184, 188 – loísmo, leísmo, laísmo 8–9, 39, 63–64, 101, 113, 142, 152, 156, 161, 169 ftn 21, 185 c-(onstituent)-structure 22–23, 68, 80–83, 87–88, 130–131, 134, 227 convergence 17–19, 144–145, 187–188, 190, 193, 195, 199, 217, 224, 233, 235, 241 determiner cliticization 39, 41, 43, 56, 151 ftn 10, 152 differential object marking 5–9, 11, 58, 61, 73, 76, 93–95, 101 see also accusative, argument, case, clitic doubling, information structure – animacy, definiteness and specificity 4, 70, 73 – extended DOM 106–107, 117 – evolution of DOM and clitic doubling 99, 108 – information structure 119–120 – personal a 60, 72 – prepositional accusative 71 – specificity 4, 70 – topicality 73, 104 – two-dimensional scale 5, 68 – constraining equation 90 discourse structure 2, 28, 113, 141, see also information-structure dislocation 79, see also information structure, topicality – left dislocation 2, 123–124, 134, 217 – preposing 2 and ftn 1, 57, 217 – right dislocation 2, 67 double actant marking 99, 102, 104, 110, 122, 126, 142, 199, 205, 207, 212, 234 double object constructions 37, 41 49 ftn 37, 54 ftn 43, 86, 199, 225–228 Economy Principle/Economy of Expression 62, 84 Extended Coherence Condition 130

Index

Feature Pool 16–19 f-(unctional) structure 22–23, 47, 80–85, 87–89, 120, 130–134, 147, 213, 215– 216, 226–227 Functional Uniqueness 91, 138, 147 grammatical functions 66, 80, 86, 119–120, 124–125, 219, 226 – core grammatical function 66, 86, 92, 119–120, 139 – non-core grammatical function 86 grammaticalization 9 ftn 55, 85, 117, 139– 140, 164, 237–238, 240, see also language change – clitics 40, 99, 110–111, 134, 153, 210 – differential object marking 73, 99, 119, 140, 210 – grammaticized discourse function 130 – grammaticized topicality marker 208 – information structure role 145, 166, 173 information structure roles, see also case, differential object marking, discourse structure, topicality – aboutness topic 123, 179 – focus 57, 86, 102, 119, 120–122, 124–128, 130, 138–139, 141, 189 – external topic 122–123, 138, 147, 44 – floating topic 181 – hanging topic 148 – internal topic 122–123 and ftn 25 – topic 57, 86, 113, 117–118, 120–121, 123,125–131, 133, 136–138, 141, 147, 176, 194 ftn 9 – primary topic 102, 110, 115, 119–120, 122, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 145, 147, 148, 166, 205 – secondary topic 21, 40, 71, 92–93, 99– 113, 115–126, 130–143, 145–147, see also invariant lo – topic-worthiness 46 ftn 29, 99, 199, 121, 126, 135, 166–167, 207 – topichood 119, 121 invariant le 10 ftn8, 11, 158, 159, 164 invariant lo 10 ftn 8, 11, 18, 39, 60, 89, 108– 111, 140–152, 160, 184–185, 219, 238 – ethical dative 152

265

– false pronominalization 149–150, 206, 224 – invariant lo doubling 145, 149, 170, 174 – anaphoric topic marker 40–41, 110–111 – referential/non-referential lo 202 – secondary topic 126, 147, 150, 157, 164, 184, 185, 187, 195, 200, 235, 240 – topicality/transitivity/aspectual marker 195, 200, 206, 224, 235, 240 Kayne’s Generalization 6, 62, 68 ftn 10, 74, 78, 92, 95, 138, 157, 239 language acquisition 11 – adult second language 18 – acquisition hierarchy 112 – bilingual 17, 140 – contact 11, 18 – naturalistic 94 ftn 4 language change 16–18, 20–24, 66, 110, 113, 141, 150, 169, 187–188, 236, 238, 240–241 – gradualness 19 Lexical-Functional Grammar 20–21, 22–23, 26, 30, 80 Lexical Integrity Principle 28, 30, 80–81, 84 Lexicon 22, 80–81, 83–85 – lexical specification 83 markedness constraints 48, 51, 55, 166 Morphological Blocking Principle 64, 81, and ftn 23, 90–91, 138–139 object, see also arguments, informationstructure object alternation 23–24, 97, 225 object/topic drop 136–138, 142, 174–186, 191–192, 206 – primary object 93–94, 99–100, 109–110, 116–120, 125, 132, 136, 156, 166–168, 185, 208–219, 225–229, 236, 240–241 – secondary object 10–11, 93, 100, 119–120, 134, 164, 166, 208–214, 225–226, 228– 229, 233, 236–237 Object Agreement Constraint 49 ftn 37, 50, 56, 167

266

Index

Person-Case Constraint 36, 44–45, 50–51, 92, 166–167, 236 pragmatic marking 10, 60, 63, 106, 112, 114, 124, 140, 187, 197, 206, 214–215, 231 PRED PRO 85, 89 and ftn 31, 90–91 – optional PRED PRO feature 89, 91 Principle of Completeness and Coherence 84 Principle of nonconfigurationality 80 Principle of Semantic Expressivity 84, 88 projection/dependence matrix 43, 81, 1 PRED feature 83 Pronoun (PRO), see also clitic – reflexive pronoun 35–36, 47 – spurious se 28, 36, 37 ftn 15, 46–49, 51– 52, 54–55, 88, 137, 164, 166–167, 171, 235 – theta-role 33, 85,89, 218 referential categories 23, 68, 73 Restricted Argument Parameter 49 ftn 37, 78, 225, 227–228

– grammatical function hierarchy 128 – primary topic 102, 110, 115, 120, 126, 128 – topicality 127 – verbal incorporation 62, 82, 125 syncretism, see also case – dative/accusative case 37, 129, 208 – dative/accusative/locative 9, 71, 72, 229 topicality 100–103, 129, 184, see also differential object marking, information structure and invariant lo – clitics as topicality and transitivity markers 91, 109, 124, 131, 206–208, 235, 240 – grammatical agreement 125, 135, 240 – identifiability 59, 71, 77 ftn 20, 92, 129, 131 – object saliency 64, 121, 131 – specificity 64, 73, 79, 92, 100, 129 – topicality marking hierarchy 103 Uniqueness condition 70, 83, 89

second language acquisition 1, 13, 18, 66, 112, 140 – bilingual acquisition 17 semantic features 64, 76, see also animacy, definiteness, person, specificity, topicworthiness semantic marking 10–11, 60, 237 semantic roles 211–212, see also argument structure – grammatical function 219–230 – Lexical Mapping Theory 212–216 – thematic hierarchy 212 subcategorization frame 80, 83, 198, 211 subject, see also double actant marking – agentivity 122, 124, 127, 130 – case role hierarchy 120 – experiencer subject 58 – external argument 47–48

variability 5–11, 237– 240, see also clitics, clitic systems, differential object marking and language acquisition – bilingual and monolingual 65 – contact induced 200, 202, 229, 237 – cross-dialectal 63–66, 142, 148, 202, 237 – diachronic and synchronic 7, 11, 143 – free variation 21, 238 – inherent 24, 101, 141, 238 – optionality 21 – non-standardized 4, 21, 78–79, 88 ftn 27, 99, 107, 124, 133, 140, 156–157, 185, 235 – individual grammar 19, 21 – innovation 139, 141, 204, – reanalysis 19, 235, 237