In:Amazonian Spanish: Language Contact and Evolution
Edited by Stephen Fafulas
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 23] 2020
► pp. 127–154
Chapter 6Clitics and argument marking in Shipibo-Spanish and Ashéninka-Perené-Spanish bilingual speech
Published online: 15 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.23.06san
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.23.06san
Abstract
Direct object clitics in Spanish are morphological markers at the interface of syntax and phonology, morphology, semantics and information structure. We explore variability in direct object clitic doubling and argument marking in bilingual speakers of Shipibo-Spanish and Ashéninka-Perené-Spanish (Mayer & Sánchez, in press). We focus on the production of the dative versus the accusative forms of the clitic and on the expression of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Aissen, 2003; Bossong, 1985, 1991; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011), in particular, on the extension of DOM to definite inanimate DPs and the lack of DOM with animate direct objects required in other varieties of Spanish. We analyze this variability as the coexistence of two different argument-marking systems in these contact varieties of Amazonian Spanish.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Argument marking in Spanish, Shipibo and Ashéninka
- 2.1Spanish case and object agreement system
- 2.2Shipibo case and agreement system
- 2.3Ashéninka-Perené argument marking
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Shipibo Spanish bilingual data
- 3.2Ashéninka-Perené-Spanish bilingual data
- 4.Data sets and results
- 4.1Shipibo Spanish
- 4.2Ashéninka-Perené Spanish
- 5.Discussion of comparative results
- 6.Proposal
- 6.1Ergativity in Shipibo and its consequences for Shipibo Spanish
- 6.2Mixed properties and their effect on Ashéninka-Perené bilingual Spanish
- 7.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements Notes Glossary References
References (68)
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.
Belloro, V. (2007). Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). SUNY.
Bleam, T. (1999). Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware.
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung, Differentielle Objekt–markierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
(1991). Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 143–185). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
(2003). Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 17–49). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A. (1987). Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language, 63, 741–782.
Caravedo, R. (1999). Lingüística del corpus: Cuestiones teórico-metodológicas aplicadas al Español. Gramática Española: Enseñanza e investigación (Vol. 6). Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Cuza, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Sánchez, L. (2013). The role of semantic transfer in clitic drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese-Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 93–125.
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Di Tullio, A., & Zdrojewski, P. (2006). Notas sobre el doblado de clíticos en el español rioplatense. Asimetrías entre objetos humanos y no humanos. Filología, 1, 2006–2007, 13–44.
Escobar, A. M. (2011). Spanish in contact with Quechua. In M. Diaz Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 323–352). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(2012). Spanish in contact with Amerindian languages. In J. I. Hualde, A. I. Olarrea, & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 65–88). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Faust, N. (1990). Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma shipibo-conibo (2nd ed.). Lima, Perú: Ministerio de Educación. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
(2008). Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma shipibo-conibo (Documento de Trabajo No 1). Lima, Perú: Instituto de Lingüístico de Verano.
Guijarro Fuentes, P. (2011). Feature composition in Differential Object Marking. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti, & C. Bettoni (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 11 (pp. 138–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
(2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720.
Jaeggli, O. (1986). Three issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, doubled NPs and extraction. In H. Borer (Ed.). Syntax and Semantics 19 (pp. 63–88). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Lardiere, D. (2005). On morphological competence. In L. Dekydspotter, R. A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 178–192). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
(2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and object marking: The case of Spanish a. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.
(2007). Clitics do not encode specificity. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 122, 111–139. Konstanz Germany: Universität Konstanz.
(2010). Spanish and Portuguese in contact. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 550–580). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Loriot, J., Lauriault, E., & Day, D. (1993). Diccionario shipibo-castellano. Yarinacocha, Perú: Ministerio de Educación and Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Luján, M. (1987). Clitic-doubling in Andean Spanish and the Theory of Case Absorption. In T. Morgan, J. Lee, & B. VanPatten, (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 109–121). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Matras, Y. (2010). Contact, convergence and typology. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 66–85). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mayer, E. (2008). Clitics on the move: From dependent marking to split marking. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference (pp. 352–372). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
(2010). Syntactic variation of object arguments in Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Australian National University.
(2017). Spanish clitics on the move, variation in time and space. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mayer, E., & Delicado Cantero, M. (2015). Continuity and contact-induced Change in Peruvian Spanish contact varieties: The case of prepositional Differential Object Marking. In M. González Rivera & S. Sessarego (Eds.), New perspectives on Hispanic contact linguistics in the Americas. (pp. 99–120). Madrid, Spain/Frankfurt, Germany: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Mayer, E., & Sánchez, L. (2016). Object agreement marking and information structure in monolingual and bilingual Andean Spanish. Special Issue: The acquisition and processing of Spanish and Portuguese morphosyntax: Theoretical and experimental issues. Spanish Journal of Applied. Linguistics /RESLA, 29(2), 544–581.
(2017). Feature variability in the bilingual-monolingual continuum: Clitics in bilingual Quechua-Spanish, bilingual Shipibo-Spanish and in monolingual Limeño Spanish contact varieties. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14.
Mayer, E. & Sánchez, L. (in press). Forthcoming. Feature selection in clitic expression in Amazonian Spanish. In R. Zariquiey, P. Valenzuela, A. Escobar, & M. Jara (Eds), Spanish diversity in the Amazon: Dialect and language contact perspectives. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
McCarthy, C. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: an argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24(4), 459–486.
Mihas, E. (2010). Essentials of Ashéninka Perené grammar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
(2014). Expression of information source meanings in Ashéninca Perené (Arawak). In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 209–226). Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press.
Montes, M. E. (2004). Lengua ticuna: Resultados de fonologia y morfosintaxis. Forma y Función, 17, 145–178.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.
(2010). How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 167–207.
Ordóñez, F., & L. Repetti. (2006). Stressed enclitics. In J.-P. Montreuil (Ed.), New perspectives on Romance linguistics, Vol. II: Phonetics, phonology and dialectology (pp. 167–181). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J. (2013). Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 25, 301–344.
Payne, D. (1981). Phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa (SIL Publications in Linguistics 66). Dallas, TX: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington.
Payne, D. L., Payne, J., & Sánchez, J. (1982). Morfología, fonología y fonética del asheninka del Apurucayali (Serie Lingüística Peruana 18). Lima, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Ramírez-Cruz, H. (2018). Yo no le conocía a mi abuela: The use of clitics le, lo, and la in Amazonian Colombian-Spanish. In J. King & S. Sessarego (Eds.), The dynamics of language variation and change: Varieties of Spanish across space and time (pp. 175–198). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Reed, J., & Payne, D. L. (1986). Asheninka (Campa) pronominals. In U. Wiesemann (Ed), Pronominal systems (pp. 323–331). Tübingen: Günther Narr.
Rodriguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145.
Rooryck, J. (2000). Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. Routledge: London.
Saab, A., & Zdrojewski, P. (2010). Syntactically inert clitics: A paradox involving clitic doubling and its resolution. Paper presented at Romania Nova IV, Campos de Jordão, São Paulo, November 8.
Sánchez, L. (2003). Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
(2010). La aparente opcionalidad del doblado de clíticos en el español limeño. Cuadernos de la ALFAL 1(nueva serie), 94–105.
Sánchez, L., & P. Zdrojewski. (2013). Restricciones semánticas y pragmáticas al doblado de clíticos en el español de Buenos Aires y de Lima. La variación en la gramática del español actual. Special volume of Lingüística, 29(2), 271–320.
Slabakova, R. (2009). Features or parameters: Which one makes SLA easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25(2), 313–324.
Spencer, A., & Luis, A. (2012). Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3): 391–434.
Ticio, E. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90.
Valenzuela, P. (2010). Ergativity in Shipibo-Konibo, a Panoan language of the Ucayali. In S. Gildea & F. Queixalós (Eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia (pp. 65–96). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. (2003). The interaction of animacy, definiteness and specificity in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop: Semantic and syntactic aspects of specificity in Romance languages (pp. 41–65). Konstanz, Germany: Universität Konstanz.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
