Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this paper, we model the left-bounded state reading and the true reflexive reading of the clitic in the Spanish psychological domain. We argue that a lexical analysis of provides us with a more accurate description of the different classes of psychological verbs that occur with the clitic. We provide a unified analysis where the use of the two readings of are modeled by means of lexical rules. We take the morphologically simple but semantically more complex basic items (e.g. ‘frighten’) as input of the lexical rules, getting as the output a morphologically more complex but semantically simpler verb (e.g ‘get frightened’). The analysis for psych verbs correctly allows only those verbs assigning accusative to the experiencer or the stimulus to combine with , hence preventing dative verbs from entering the lexical rules. The analysis also demonstrates how to account for and readings of psych verbs with incorporating ‘boundaries’ into the type hierarchy of eventualities.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abeillé, A. & Godard, D.
    2002 The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–452. 10.1353/lan.2002.0145
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0145 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé, A., Bonami, O., Godard, D. & Tseng, J.
    2004 The syntax of French de-N′ phrases. InS. Müller, Ed., The 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), p.6–26, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006 The syntax of French à and de: an HPSG analysis. InP. Saint-Dizier, Ed., Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3873‑9_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3873-9_10 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, A. & Iordăchioaia, G.
    2014 The psych causative alternation. Lingua, 148, 53–79. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F.
    2013 Towards a non-uniform analysis of naturally reflexive verbs. InR. Santana-LaBarge, Ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, p.1–10, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anagnostopoulou, E.
    1999 On experiencers. InA. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks & M. Stavrou, Eds., Studies in Greek Syntax, p.67–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9177‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9177-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arad, M.
    1998a Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1998b VP structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. PhD thesis, UCL.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bach, E.
    1986 The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(9), 5–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bach, E. & Partee, B. H.
    1980 Anaphora and semantic structure. InJ. Kreiman & A. Ojede, Eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, volume10, p.1–28. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Badia, T.
    1998 Prepositions in Catalan. InS. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p.109–149. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bar-el, L.
    2005 Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L.
    1988 Psych-verbs and θ -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291–352. 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bildhauer, F.
    2007 Representing Information Structure in an HPSG Grammar of Spanish. Dissertation, Universität Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2014 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. InA. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi, Eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, p.526–555. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Borsley, R. D.
    1989 An HPSG approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 333–354. 10.1017/S0022226700014134
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014134 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bossong, G.
    1982 Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 33, 17–51. 10.1515/9783110244908.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244908.17 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I.
    2001 Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65. 10.1023/A:1006473306778
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006473306778 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.
    1995 The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 184–254. 10.1007/BF00992782
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992782 [Google Scholar]
  20. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I.
    2005 Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3(4), 281–332. 10.1007/s11168‑006‑6327‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Crysmann, B.
    2003 Constraint-based Coanalysis. Dissertation, DFKI, Saarbrücken.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis, A. & Koenig, J.-P.
    2000 Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76(1), 56–91. 10.1353/lan.2000.0068
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0068 [Google Scholar]
  23. De Miguel, E. & Fernández, M.
    2000 El operador aspectual se. Revista Española de Lingüística, 30, 13–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dowty, D.
    1991a Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1991bWord Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fábregas, A., Jiménez-Fernández, A. & Tubino, M.
    2017 What’s up with dative experiencers. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected Papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Campinas, Brazil, p.30–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Flickinger, D., Bender, E. M. & Oepen, S.
    2003 MRS in the LinGO Grammar Matrix: A practical user’s guide.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Franco, J.
    1990 Towards a typology of psych verbs, evidence from Spanish. InT. Green & S. Usziel, Eds., Proceedings of 2nd meeting of SCIL, MITWPL, number 12 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, p.46–62, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fábregas, A. & Marín, R.
    2015 Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32(2), 227–275. 10.1515/tlr‑2014‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0022 [Google Scholar]
  30. Grimshaw, J.
    1990Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gómez Soler, I.
    2013 Aspectual differences with syntactic consequences: Argument structure alternations in L2 Spanish. InJ. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy & D. Pascual y Cabo, Eds., 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 12) Conference, p.50–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haspelmath, M.
    1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. InB. Comrie & M. Polinsky, Eds., Causatives and Transitivity, p.87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.23.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has [Google Scholar]
  33. Keenan, E. & Comrie, B.
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiss, T.
    1995Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110934670
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110934670 [Google Scholar]
  35. Koenig, J.-P.
    1999Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Landau, I.
    2010The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Levin, B.
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Machicao y Priemer, A.
    2010 Die differentielle Objektmarkierung im Spanischen. Magister thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014 Differentielle Objektmarkierung: Spezifizität und Akkusativ im Spanischen. InA. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda & A. Sioupi, Eds., Zwischen Kern und Peripherie, p.103–130. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1524/9783050065335.103
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065335.103 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2017 NP-Arguments in NPs: An Analysis of German and Spanish Noun Phrases in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2019 Argumentstruktur. InS. Schierholz & P. Uzonyi, Eds., Grammatik: Syntax, number 1.2 in Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (Online). Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Machicao y Priemer, A. & Fritz-Huechante, P.
    2018 Korean and Spanish psych-verbs: Interaction of case, theta-roles, linearization, and event structure in HPSG. InS. Müller & F. Richter, Eds., The 25th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.155–175, University of Tokyo: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2020 Reflexivizing Spanish psych-verbs: Ambiguities across classes. InJ. Audring, N. Koutsoukos & C. Manouilidou, Eds., The 12th Mediterranean Morphology Meetings (MMM), p.42–53, University of Ljubljana: Pasithee.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Manning, C. & Sag, I.
    1998 Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21, 107–144. 10.1017/S0332586500004236
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500004236 [Google Scholar]
  45. Marín, R.
    2011 Casi todos los predicados psicológicos son estativos. InA. Carrasco, Ed., Sobre estados y estatividad, p.26–44. München: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015 Los predicados psicológicos: Debate sobre el estado de la cuestión. InR. Marín, Ed., Los predicados psicológicos, p.11–50. Madrid: Visor.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Marín, R. & McNally, L.
    2005 The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs and their English counterparts. InE. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink, Eds., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (Sinn und Bedeutung 9), p.212–225, Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 467–502. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9127‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9127-3 [Google Scholar]
  49. Masullo, P. J.
    1992 Antipassive constructions in Spanish. InP. Hirschbühler & E. F. K. Koerner, Eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, p.175–194. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/cilt.91.13mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.91.13mas [Google Scholar]
  50. Mauner, G. & Koenig, J.-P.
    1999 Lexical encoding of event participant information. Brain and Language, 68, 178–184. 10.1006/brln.1999.2096
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2096 [Google Scholar]
  51. McCready, E. & Nishida, C.
    2008 Reflexive intransitives in Spanish and event semantics. InJ. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Schäfer, Eds., Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, p.223–244. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110925449.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.223 [Google Scholar]
  52. Meurers, W. D.
    1999 Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), 43, 173–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Miller, P. & Monachesi, P.
    2010 Clitic pronouns in the Romance languages. InD. Godard, Ed., Fundamental Issues in the Romance Languages, p.53–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Miller, P. & Sag, I.
    1997 French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. 10.1023/A:1005815413834
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005815413834 [Google Scholar]
  55. Monachesi, P.
    1993 Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. InSixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/976744.976796
    https://doi.org/10.3115/976744.976796 [Google Scholar]
  56. 1998 Decomposing Italian clitics. InS. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p.305–357. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2005The Verbal Complex in Romance: A Case Study in Grammatical Interfaces. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274758.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274758.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Müller, S.
    1999Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110915990
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110915990 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2019Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press, 3 edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Müller, S. & Machicao y Priemer, A.
    2019 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. InA. Kertész, E. Moravcsik & C. Rákosi, Eds., Current Approaches to Syntax – A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110540253‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110540253-012 [Google Scholar]
  61. Müller, S. & Wechsler, S.
    2014 Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1/2), 1–76. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Parsons, T.
    1990Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Perlmutter, D. M.
    1968 Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1970 Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(2), 187–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pesetsky, D.
    1995Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Piñón, C.
    1997 Achievements in an event semantics. InA. Lawson & E. Cho, Eds., Proceedings of SALT7, p.273–296, Ithaca: CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pollard, C. & Sag, I.
    1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pollard, C. J.
    1996 On head non-movement. InH. Bunt & A. V. Horck, Eds., Discontinuous Constituency, p.279–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873467.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873467.279 [Google Scholar]
  69. Postal, P. M.
    1971Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Przepiórkowski, A.
    1999 Case Assignment and the Complement/Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2020 Case. InS. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Pullum, G. & Scholz, B.
    2001 On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks. InP. de Groote, G. Morrill & C. Retoré, Eds., 4th Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), number 2099 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p.17–43, Le Croisic, France: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑48199‑0_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  73. Pylkkänen, L.
    2000 On stativity and causation. InC. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky, Eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, p.417–442. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E.
    1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 657–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Richter, F.
    2000 A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2020 Formal background. InS. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rothstein, S.
    2004Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470759127
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ruwet, N.
    1972Théorie Syntaxique et Syntaxe du Français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sag, I.
    1997 English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 431–483. 10.1017/S002222679700652X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222679700652X [Google Scholar]
  80. Saussure, F. D.
    1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Ed. byCharles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. [Edition from 2016, published asGrundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, byWalter de Gruyter].
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Schäfer, F.
    2008The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.126
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.126 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schäfer, R. & Bildhauer, F.
    2012 Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis, Eds., Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), p.486–493, Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [COW-Corpus: corporafromtheweb.org].
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Seres, D. & Espinal, M. T.
    2018 Psychological verbs and their arguments. Borealis, 7(1), 27–44. 10.7557/
    https://doi.org/10.7557/ [Google Scholar]
  84. Temme, A.
    2018 The peculiar nature of psych verbs and experiencer object structures. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Van Eynde, F.
    2015Predicative Constructions: From the Fregean to a Montagovian Treatment. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Van Valin, R. D. & LaPolla, R. J.
    1997Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Number 10 in Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  87. Vanhoe, H.
    2004 Aspectos de la sintaxis de los verbos psicológicos en español: un análisis léxico funcional. Dissertations in Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Vogel, C. & Villada, B. N.
    1999An HPSG Analysis of Grammatical Relations, Syntactic Valency and Semantic Argument Structure in Spanish Psychological Predicates and other Instances of Quirky Case and Agreement. Technical report, Computational Linguistics Laboratory, Trinity College.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Wechsler, S. M.
    1991 Argument Structure and Linking. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Whitley, M. S.
    1995 Gustar and other psych verbs: A problem in transitivity. Hispania, 78(3), 573–585. 10.2307/345307
    https://doi.org/10.2307/345307 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cliticization; HPSG; left-bounded states; psych verbs; reflexive; Spanish
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error