Cover not available

In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, Nijmegen
Edited by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs and Dominique Nouveau
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13] 2018
► pp. 5–20

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

The spurious vs. dative problem

 | University of the Basque Country
Published online: 13 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.13.02alc
In this paper I bring new arguments against the morphological analysis of the Spurious Se Rule in Spanish (Bonet 1991, Nevins 2007, 2012, among others). I show that both the dative clitic le and the spurious clitic se differ syntactically. These facts strongly argue against the existence of a morphological rule (i.e. impoverishment) mapping the dative clitic into the spurious one, leaving its syntax unaffected.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphological SpuSe rule (Nevins 2007, 2012)
  • 3.The spurious vs. dative problem
    • 3.1Bare plurals
    • 3.2The non-existence of ethical spurious se clitics
      • 3.2.1The double object construction hypothesis
    • 3.3Spurious ≠ dative
      • 3.3.1Weak cross-over repairs
      • 3.3.2Principle C effects with post-verbal subjects
    • 3.4Binominal sendos in Spanish (Bosque 1992)
  • 4.Spurious-se is just reflexive-se
    • 4.1Vehicle change (Fiengo & May 1994)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Alcaraz, Alejo. 2016. “The Obviation Agreement Effect”. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, ed. by Ernestina Carilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonet, M. Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 1992. “Anáforas distributivas: La gramática de sendos”. Miscellanea antverpiensia: Homenaje al vigesimo aniversario del Instituto de Estudios Hispanicos de la Universidad de Amberes: 59–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. “Categories and Transformations”. The Minimalist Program, 219–394.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative Alternation in Spanish”. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 7 (1): 5–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. “Binding, Expletives and Levels”. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2001. “Movement Operations after Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (4): 555–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface”. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”, In The View from Building 20, ed. by Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1989. “Strong Pronouns in Null-subject Languages and the Avoid Pronoun Principle”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 228–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. “On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement”. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 197–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa (Vol. 1). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. “The Representation of Third-person and its Consequences for Person-case Effects”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Haplological Dissimilation at Distinct Stages of Exponence”. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, ed. by Jochen Trommer, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noyer, R. 2001. “Clitic Sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF Convergence”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19 (4): 751–826. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2000. The Clausal Structure of Spanish: a Comparative Perspective. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2013. “Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation”. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25 (2): 301–344.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335–391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos, and Stavroula Tsiplakou. 2006. “An A-binding Asymmetry in Null Subject Languages and its Significance for Universal Grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 167–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1968. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by their Failures”. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (4): 619–666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1995. “From Argumental to Non-argumental Pronouns: Spanish doubled reflexives”. Probus 7 (2): 221–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Rezac, Milan
2024. The rise and fall of a person-case constraint in Breton. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42:3 ► pp. 1233 ff. DOI logo
Faust, Noam
2023. Avoidance of Unintended Repetition. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fábregas, Antonio
2021. SE in Spanish. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue