Los puertorriqueños se les está cayendo la “a”

References

1. Alarcos Llorach, Emilio
   1994 Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Adger, David
   2003 Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
3. Adger, David
   2013 A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Aponte Alequín, Héctor
   2016 “‘El traje le colocaron lentejuelas’: Argument structure in Puerto Rican unmarked datives.” Unpublished manuscript.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Aranovich, Roberto
   2013 Optional agreement and grammatical functions: A corpus study of dative clitic doubling in Spanish. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Ausín, Adolfo, and Francisco J. Fernández-Rubiera
   2021 “Decomposing Spanish dative clitics”. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics10(2): 265–311. 10.7557/1.10.2.6217
   https://doi.org/10.7557/1.10.2.6217 [Google Scholar]
7. Bogard, Sergio
   1992 “El estatus del clítico de complemento indirecto en español [The status of the indirect object clitic pronoun]”. InReflexiones lingüísticas y literarias, ed. byRebeca Barriga, and Josefina García, 171–186. México D.F.: El Colegio de México. 10.2307/j.ctv47w8p8.13
   https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv47w8p8.13 [Google Scholar]
8. Bosque, Ignacio, and Violeta Demonte
   1999 Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Tomo 2. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brown, Esther L., and Javier Rivas
   2012 “Grammatical relation probability: How usage patterns shape analogy.” Language Variation and Change24(3): 317–341. 10.1017/S0954394512000154
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000154 [Google Scholar]
10. Bullock, Barbara. E., and Jacqueline A. Toribio
    2009 “Reconsidering Dominican Spanish: Data from the rural Cibao.” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana7 (2): 49–73.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bybee, Joan
    2010 Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Campos, Héctor, and Mary Zampini
    1991 “Focalization strategies in Spanish.” Probus2(1): 47–64.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Clopper, Cynthia G., and Rory Turnbull
    2018 “Exploring variation in phonetic reduction: Linguistic, social, and cognitive factors.” InRethinking reduction: Interdisciplinary perspectives on conditions, mechanisms, and domains, ed. byFracesco Cangemi, Meghan Clayards, Oliver Niebuhr, Barbara Schuppler, and Margaret Zellers, 25–72. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110524178‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110524178-002 [Google Scholar]
14. Cuervo, María C.
    1999 “Quirky but not eccentric: Dative subjects in Spanish.” InMIT Working Papers in Linguistics341, ed. byV. Lin, C. Krause, B. Bruening, and K. Arregi, 213–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cuervo, María C.
    2003 Datives at Large. (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
16. Cuervo, María C.
    2008 “La alternancia causativa y su interacción con argumentos dativos [The causative alternation and its interaction with dative arguments].” Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada46(1): 55–79.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Cuervo, María C.
    2010a “Against ditransitivity.” Probus221: 151–180. 10.1515/prbs.2010.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.006 [Google Scholar]
18. Cuervo, María C.
    (2010b) “Some dative subjects are born, some are made.” InSelected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. byClaudia Borgonovo, 26–37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Company Company, Concepción
    1998 “The interplay between form and meaning in language change. Grammaticalization of cannibalistic datives in Spanish.” Studies in Language22(3): 529–565. 10.1075/sl.22.3.02com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22.3.02com [Google Scholar]
20. Company, Concepción
    2001 “Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language.” Studies in Language25(1): 1–47. 10.1075/sl.25.1.02com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.1.02com [Google Scholar]
21. Company Company, Concepción
    2002 “Reanálisis en cadena y gramaticalización. Dativos problemáticos en la historia del español.” Verba291: 31–69.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Cortés-Torres, Mayra E.
    2005 La perífrasis estar + -ndo en el español puertorriqueño: ¿variación dialectal o contacto lingüístico? (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
23. Delbecque, Nicole, and Béatrice Lamiroy
    1992 “The Spanish “dative”: a problem of delimitation.” Leuvense Bijdragen: Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology81(1–3): 113–161.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Delbecque, Nicole, and Béatrice Lamiroy
    1996 “Towards a typology of the Spanish dative.” InCase and Grammatical Relations across Languages: The Dative, ed. byWillian van Belle, and Willy van Langendonck, 73–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.2.06del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.06del [Google Scholar]
25. Demonte, Violeta
    1995 “Dative alternation in Spanish.” Probus71: 5–30. 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 [Google Scholar]
26. Dufter, Andreas, and Álvaro Octavio de Toledo
    2014 Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and comparative perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.214
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.214 [Google Scholar]
27. Fábregas, Antonio
    2013 “Differential object marking in Spanish: State of the art.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics2(2): 1–80. 10.7557/1.2.2.2603
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603 [Google Scholar]
28. Fábregas, Antonio, Angel Jimenez-Fernandez, and Mercedes Turbino
    2017 “What’s up with dative experiencers?” InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory121, ed. byRuth E. V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar, and Sonia M. L. Cyrino, 29–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.12.03fab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.03fab [Google Scholar]
29. Fernández-Soriano, Olga
    1999 “Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and dative subjects.” Syntax2(2): 101–140. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00017
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017 [Google Scholar]
30. Fernández-Soriano, Olga, and Amaya Mendikoetxea
    2013 “Non selected dative arguments in Spanish anticausative constructions: Exploring subjecthood.” InThe Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects, ed. byIlja A. Serzant, and Leonic Kulikov, 3–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.140.01fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.140.01fer [Google Scholar]
31. Folgar, Carlos
    1993 Diacronía de los objectos directo e indirecto. Del latín al castellano medieval. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
    [Google Scholar]
32. García-Miguel, José M.
    2015 “Variable coding and object alignment in Spanish: A corpus-based approach”. Folia Lingüística49(1): 205–246. 10.1515/flin‑2015‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0007 [Google Scholar]
33. García-Miguel, José. M., and Victoria Vázquez
    1994 “Lingüística de corpus y lingüística descriptiva: el caso de ‘la duplicación de objetos’.” Procesamiento del lenguaje natural141: 47–62.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Gutiérrez Bravo, Rodrigo
    2006 “A reinterpretation of quirky subjects and related phenomena in Spanish”. InNew Perspectives in Romance Linguistics, ed. byChiyo Nishida, and Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil, 127–142. 10.1075/cilt.275.11gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.275.11gut [Google Scholar]
35. Heidinger, Steffen
    2018 “Acceptability and frequency in Spanish focus marking.” InFocus Realization in Romance and Beyond, ed. byMarco García, and Melanie Uth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Klein-Andreu, Flora
    1995 “Conversational focus.” Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, ed. byEllen Contini-Morava, and Barbara S. Goldberg, 405–422. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110907575.405
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907575.405 [Google Scholar]
37. Labov, William
    1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Langacker, Ronald. W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 1. Stanford: Sanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Masullo, Pascual
    1992 “Quirky datives in Spanish and the non-nominative subject parameter.” InMIT Working Papers in Linguistics161, ed. byAndreas Kathol, and Jill Beckman, 213–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Muñoz Pérez, Carlos
    2020 “A further argument for a syncretic analysis of DOM and dative in Spanish”. Topics in Linguistics21(1):62–73. 10.2478/topling‑2020‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2020-0004 [Google Scholar]
41. Nishida, Chiyo
    2012 “A corpus study of Mexican Spanish three-participant constructions with and without clitic doubling.” Linguistic Discovery10(3): 208–240. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.422
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.422 [Google Scholar]
42. Ortiz Ciscomani, Rosa. M.
    2005 “Los objetos concurrentes y la bitransitividad en el español en perspectiva diacrónica.” InSelected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. byDavid Eddington, 192–202. Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Poplack, Shana
    2001 “Variability, frequency, and productivity in the irrealis domain in French.” InFrequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. byJoan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, 405–428. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.20pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.20pop [Google Scholar]
44. PRESEEA: Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América
    PRESEEA: Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América 2001 Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. [preseea.linguas.net]
45. Pujalte, Mercedes
    2009 Condiciones sobre la introducción de argumentos: el caso de la alternancia dativa en español [Conditions on the introduction of arguments: the case of the dative alternation in Spanish]. (Master’s Thesis). Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Neuquén, Argentina.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Reali, Florencia
    2017 “Acceptability of dative argument structure in Spanish: Assessing semantic and usage-based factors.” Cognitive Science411: 2170–2190. 10.1111/cogs.12459
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12459 [Google Scholar]
47. Sankoff, David, Sali A. Tagliamonte, and Eric Smith
    2005 “Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows.” Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Suárez-Palma, Imanol
    2020 “Applied arguments in Spanish inchoative middle constructions.” Glossa: A journal of general linguistics5(1): 1–37. 10.5334/gjgl.827
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.827 [Google Scholar]
49. Toribio, Almeida J., and Carlos Nye
    2006 “Restructuring of reverse psychological predicates.” InNew Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, ed. byChiyo Nishida, and Jean-Pierre Y. Monteuil, 263–277. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.275.20tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.275.20tor [Google Scholar]
50. Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Catherine E. Travis
    2018 Bilingualism in the Community: Code-switching and Grammars in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108235259
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235259 [Google Scholar]