1887
image of Anáforas reflexivas y doblado de clíticos en lenguas romances
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper I analyze the distribution of the reflexive construction + in Romance ( ‘Juan se peinó a sí mismo’). I propose that these structures are transitive. Concretely, I argue that in these cases the reflexive anaphor is the internal argument of the predicate, and that the obligatory presence of the clitic is due to the general phenomenon of clitic doubling with pronominal objects. I show that this approach can account for some asymmetries between these constructions and simple -reflexives regarding expletive insertion in French, proxy readings, comparative constructions, association with focus, and case distribution in causatives.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rro.20018.ver
2021-11-09
2021-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alboiu, G., M. Barrie y C. Frigeni
    (2004): SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox. Antwerp papers in linguistics. Universiteit Antwerp, pp.109–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benincà, P., M. Parry y D. Pescarini
    (2016): The dialects of northern Italian, en: Ledgeway, A., y M. Maiden. (eds.): The Oxford guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.185–205. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bosque, I.
    (2018): La reflexividad paso a paso, en: Rangponsumrit, N., D. Gutiérrez Menéndez, A. Aguilella Asensi, J. M. Blanco Pena y E. Moreno Salazar. (eds.): Actas del ix congreso internacional de la asociación asiática de hispanistas, pp.15–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouchard, D.
    (1984): On the content of empty categories. Foris, Dordrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Burzio, L.
    (1994): Weak anaphora, en: Cinque, G., J. Koster, L. Rizzi y R. Zanauttini (eds.): Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard Kayne. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp.59–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Charnavel, I., F. Adani, y N. Hyams
    (2009) The online processing of French reflexives: Experimental evidence for an unaccusative analysis, en: Yokio, O.. (ed.): Proceedings of 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hitsuji Shobo, Tokio.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1981): Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Doron, E. y M. Rappaport Hovav
    (2009): A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1(1), pp.75–105. 10.1163/187666309X12491131130503
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130503 [Google Scholar]
  9. Embick, D.
    (2004): Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations, en: Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, y M. Everaert. (eds.): The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.137–158. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Giorgi, A.
    (2007): On the nature of long-distance anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry38(2), pp.321–342. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.321
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.321 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grimshaw, J.
    (1990): Argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hualde, J. I.
    (1992): Catalan. Routledge, Londres. 10.4324/9780203411766
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203411766 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jackendoff, R.
    (1992): Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory10(1), pp.1–31. 10.1007/BF00135357
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135357 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobson, P.
    (1999): Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, pp.117–184. 10.1023/A:1005464228727
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005464228727 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaminszczik, S. y A. Saab
    (2016): Patrones de reflexivización en oraciones ditransitivas: consecuencias para la teoría temática. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 43, pp.149–200. 10.15304/verba.43.2216
    https://doi.org/10.15304/verba.43.2216 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kayne, R.
    (1975): French syntax: The transformational cycle, vol.30. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1993): Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia linguistica. 47(1), pp.3–31. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1993.tb00837.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1993.tb00837.x [Google Scholar]
  18. (2000): A note on clitic doubling in French, en: Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kratzer, A.
    (1996): Severing the external argument from its verb, en: J. Rooryck y L. Zaring. (eds.): Phrase structure and the lexicon. Springer, Dordrecht, pp.109–137. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  20. Labelle, M.
    (2008): The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory26(4), pp.833–876. 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9053‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9053-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Legendre, G.
    (2017): Auxiliaries, en: Dufter, A., y E. Stark. (eds.): Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. De Gruyter, Berlín/Boston, pp.272–298. 10.1515/9783110377088‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Manzini, R. y L. Savoia
    (2011): Grammatical categories: Variation in Romance languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511974489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489 [Google Scholar]
  23. Marantz, A.
    (1984): On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Marelj, M. y E. Reuland
    (2016): Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the lexicon-syntax parameter, en: Everaert, M., M. Marelj y E. Reuland. (eds.): Concepts, syntax, and their interface: The theta system, pp.175–252. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034135.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034135.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ormazabal, J. y J. Romero
    (2013): Object clitics, agreement, and dialectal variation. Probus25, pp.301–354. 10.1515/probus‑2013‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pujalte, M. y A. Saab
    (2012): Syncretism as PF-repair: The case of SE-insertion in Spanish, en: M. C. Cuervo y Y. Roberge. (eds.): The end of argument structure?. Brill, Bradford, pp.229–260. 10.1108/S0092‑4563(2012)0000038012
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S0092-4563(2012)0000038012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Reinhart, T. y E. Reuland
    (1993): Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.657–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Reinhart, T. y T. Siloni
    (2005): The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic inquiry36(3), pp.389–436. 10.1162/0024389054396881
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396881 [Google Scholar]
  29. Reuland, E.
    (2018): Reflexives and reflexivity. Annual Review of Linguistics4(1), pp.81–107. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011817‑045500
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500 [Google Scholar]
  30. Reuland, E. y Y. Winter
    (2009): Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors, en: Devi, S., A. Branco y R. Mitkov. (eds.): Discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium. Springer, Berlín, pp.69–79. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑04975‑0_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04975-0_6 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rigau, G.
    (1988): Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry19(3), pp.503–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rooryck, J. y G. Vanden Wyngaerd
    (1999): Simplex and complex reflexives in French and Dutch, en: Coene, M., W. De Mulder, P. Dendale y Y. D’Hulst. (eds.): Traiani augusti vestigia pressa sequamur. studia lingvistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski. Unipress, Padua, pp.617–639.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Saab, A.
    (2020): Deconstructing Voice. The syntax and semantics of u-syncretrism in Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 127. 10.5334/gjgl.704
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.704 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sportiche, D.
    (2014): Assessing unaccusativity and reflexivity: using focus alternatives to decide what gets which θ-role. Linguistic Inquiry45(2), pp.305–321. 10.1162/LING_a_00156
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00156 [Google Scholar]
  35. Torrego, E.
    (1995): On the nature of clitic doubling, en: Campos, H., y P. Kempchinsky. (eds.): Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp.399–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Uriagereka, J.
    (1995): Some Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, pp.79–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zdrojewski, P.
    (2008): ¿Por quién doblan los clíticos?. Tesis de maestría inédita, Universidad Nacional del Comahue.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Zec, D.
    (1985): Objects in Serbo-Croatian, en: Niepokuj, M., M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou, y D. Feder. (eds.): Annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society, pp.358–371.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rro.20018.ver
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: transitivity ; reflexive anaphors ; reflexivity ; clitic doubling
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