1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature
  4. Volume 52, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 52, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0035-3906
  • E-ISSN: 1600-0811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Clitic doubling is the phenomenon in which, in a clause, a NP or a stressed pronoun and a clitic pronoun refer to the same entity and have the same syntactic function. Previous studies on this phenomenon in Spanish observe that it takes place when the elements involved have features such as +preposition and +definiteness that make them prone to topicalization, such as with stressed pronouns ( Silva-Corvalán, 1984 ; Melis and Flores, 2009 ; Vázquez Rozas and García Salido, 2012 ). However, we have found that in 19th and 20th Century Spanish, doubling often occurs with elements that are not typically topical, such as indefinite NPs. On the basis of a sample of the Argentinian variety from the CORDE and CREA corpora we found that doubling in ditransitive clauses has two functions: it can mark topical indirect objects, but it can also flag which have unexpected promotion of the direct object and demotion of the indirect object in the accessibility scale.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
2017-12-08
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoun, J.
    (1981): The formal nature of Anaphoric Relations. MIT, PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, M.
    (1988): Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics24, 1, pp.65–87. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011567
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1991): The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics16, 5, pp.443–464. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90136‑L
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-L [Google Scholar]
  4. Barraza Carbajal, G.
    (2006): Duplicación del objeto directo en orden no marcado en español. Un estudio de dialectología comparada. Tesis para obtener el grado de Máster en Lingüística Hispánica. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrenechea, A. M. y T. Orecchia
    (1970): La duplicación de objetos directos e indirectos en el español hablado en Buenos Aires. Romance Philology, 24,1, pp58–83
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Becerra, S.
    (2007): Estudio diacrónico y sincrónico del objeto indirecto en el español peninsular y de América. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhague.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Belloro, V.
    (2007): Spanish clitic doubling: A Study of the Syntax-Pragmatics interface. Tesis de doctorado. University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Company Company, C.
    (2001): Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in language25,1, pp.1–47. doi: 10.1075/sl.25.1.02com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.1.02com [Google Scholar]
  9. (2008): Gramaticalización, género discursivo y otras variables en la difusión del cambio sintáctico, in: J. Kabatek (ed.), Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas. Lingüística Iberoamericana, Madrid, pp.16–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, B.
    (1989): Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cross, E.
    (1947): Exposed Subject and Object in Spanish and Other Romance Languages. Language, 23, 4, pp.430–434. doi: 10.2307/410306
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410306 [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, J.
    (1987): The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63, 4, pp.805–855. doi: 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2003): Argument Structure. Grammar in use, in Du Bois, J. , L. Kumpf y W. Ashby , Preferred Argument Structure, grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. doi: 10.1075/sidag.14.04dub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.04dub [Google Scholar]
  14. Enrique-Arias, A.
    (2003): From clitics to inflections: diachronic y typological evidence for affixal object agreement marking in Spanish, in: B. Fradin (ed), Forum de Morphologie (3e. rencontres), Université de Lille, Lille, pp.67–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernández Ordóñez, I.
    (1999): Leísmo, laísmo, loísmo, in: Bosque, I. , V. Demonte (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Real Academia Española / Espasa Calpe, Madrid, vol.I, pp.1319–1390: §21.1 - 21.6.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fish, G.
    (1968): The indirect object and the redundant construction. Hispania, 51, 4, pp.862–866. doi: 10.2307/338650
     https://doi.org/10.2307/338650 [Google Scholar]
  17. García-Miguel, J. y V. Vázquez Rozas
    (1994): Lingüística de corpus y lingüística descriptiva: el caso de la duplicación de objetos. Procesamiento del lenguaje natural14, pp.47–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gessner, E.
    (1885): Zur Lehre vom französischen Pronomen. Mayer and Müller, Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Givón, T.
    (1976): Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement, in Li, C. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp.149–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (1990): Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, M.A.K.
    (1994) El lenguaje como semiótica social. Bogotó, Fondo de Cultura economicá.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Haspelmath, M.
    (2004): Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role constraint: A usage based approach. Constructions2.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2007): Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language14,1, pp.79–102. doi: 10.1075/fol.14.1.06has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.06has [Google Scholar]
  24. Melis, Ch . y M. Flores
    (2004): La variación diatópica en el uso del objeto indirecto duplicado. Revista de Filología Hispánica, 52, 2, pp.329–354 doi: 10.24201/nrfh.v52i2.2239
     https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v52i2.2239 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009): On the interplay between forces of erosion and forces of repair in language. A case study. Folia Linguistica historica, 30,1, pp.271–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Melis, Ch , M. Flores y S. Bogard
    (2003): La historia del español. Propuesta de un tercer período evolutivo. Nueva Revista de Filología HispánicaLI-001, pp.1–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Poston, L. jr.
    (1953): The redundant object pronoun in Contemporary Spanish, Hispania3, pp.263–272. doi: 10.2307/335092
     https://doi.org/10.2307/335092 [Google Scholar]
  28. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2005): Diccionario panhispánico de dudas. Santillana, Madrid.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Rini, J.
    (1990): Dating the Grammaticalization of the Spanish Clitic Pronoun. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 106, pp.354–370. doi: 10.1515/zrph.1990.106.3‑4.354
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zrph.1990.106.3-4.354 [Google Scholar]
  30. Silva-Corvalán, C.
    (1984): Semantic and pragmatic factors in syntactic change, in: J. Fisiak (ed), Historical syntax,. Mouton, Berlinetc., pp.555–573. doi: 10.1515/9783110824032.555
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110824032.555 [Google Scholar]
  31. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014): ‘Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks’, in: R. Boogaart , T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp.141–179.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Vázquez Rozas, V. y M. García Salido
    (2012): A Discourse-Based Analysis of Object Clitic doubling in Spanish, in: K. Davidse , T. Breban , L. Brems y T. Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language change: New reflections, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp.269–296. doi: 10.1075/slcs.130.11vaz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.11vaz [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
Loading
La duplicación de clíticos en español como estrategia de marcación inversa
Revue Romane. Langue et littérature 52, 190 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
/content/journals/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
/content/journals/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

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