Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish

This paper focuses on the dative expression in Romance languages, particularly on European Portuguese (EP) and Spanish. Many authors have proposed that clitic(-doubling) constructions and nonclitic(-doubling) constructions in these languages exhibit the same properties of both English double object...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Rita Gonçalves
Format: Article
Language:Catalan
Published: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela 2015-01-01
Series:Estudos de Linguistica Galega
Online Access:http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=305641135004
id doaj-6f25b7af0fbd434fb14acd2a555377f9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6f25b7af0fbd434fb14acd2a555377f92020-11-25T01:49:39ZcatUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaEstudos de Linguistica Galega1889-25661989-578X2015-01-0175367Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and SpanishRita GonçalvesThis paper focuses on the dative expression in Romance languages, particularly on European Portuguese (EP) and Spanish. Many authors have proposed that clitic(-doubling) constructions and nonclitic(-doubling) constructions in these languages exhibit the same properties of both English double object construction (DOC) and ditransitive prepositional construction (DPC) (e.g. Masullo 1992, Demonte 1994, 1995, Romero 1997, Cuervo 2003, Morais 2006, 2012). Others, such as Pineda (2013), argue that the only available strategy in Romance to express the dative is the DOC. We will argue against these two proposals, showing that the same arguments presented in the literature, which aim to prove the occurrence of DOC in Romance languages, namely, binding asymmetries, passivization, clitic-doubling as well as lexical-semantic constraints, can instead be used as arguments to support that EP and Spanish only exhibit a DPC. In addition, we will refuse analyses of the dative as an applied argument, such those following Pylkkänen (2002). Furthermore, we will propose that, if some comparison can be established between Romance and English dative strategies, this should be based on the distinction between a DPC introduced by a functional preposition and a DPC introduced by a directional preposition. In fact, DPC from EP is similar to the one that occurs in English with core dative verbs, such as give: in both languages, the preposition a/to acts as a Case marker (e.g. Larson 1988; Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 2008).http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=305641135004
collection DOAJ
language Catalan
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rita Gonçalves
spellingShingle Rita Gonçalves
Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
Estudos de Linguistica Galega
author_facet Rita Gonçalves
author_sort Rita Gonçalves
title Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
title_short Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
title_full Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
title_fullStr Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
title_full_unstemmed Romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from European Portuguese and Spanish
title_sort romance languages do not have double objects: evidence from european portuguese and spanish
publisher Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
series Estudos de Linguistica Galega
issn 1889-2566
1989-578X
publishDate 2015-01-01
description This paper focuses on the dative expression in Romance languages, particularly on European Portuguese (EP) and Spanish. Many authors have proposed that clitic(-doubling) constructions and nonclitic(-doubling) constructions in these languages exhibit the same properties of both English double object construction (DOC) and ditransitive prepositional construction (DPC) (e.g. Masullo 1992, Demonte 1994, 1995, Romero 1997, Cuervo 2003, Morais 2006, 2012). Others, such as Pineda (2013), argue that the only available strategy in Romance to express the dative is the DOC. We will argue against these two proposals, showing that the same arguments presented in the literature, which aim to prove the occurrence of DOC in Romance languages, namely, binding asymmetries, passivization, clitic-doubling as well as lexical-semantic constraints, can instead be used as arguments to support that EP and Spanish only exhibit a DPC. In addition, we will refuse analyses of the dative as an applied argument, such those following Pylkkänen (2002). Furthermore, we will propose that, if some comparison can be established between Romance and English dative strategies, this should be based on the distinction between a DPC introduced by a functional preposition and a DPC introduced by a directional preposition. In fact, DPC from EP is similar to the one that occurs in English with core dative verbs, such as give: in both languages, the preposition a/to acts as a Case marker (e.g. Larson 1988; Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 2008).
url http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=305641135004
work_keys_str_mv AT ritagoncalves romancelanguagesdonothavedoubleobjectsevidencefromeuropeanportugueseandspanish
_version_ 1725005929246621696