Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 65–80

Dative possessor in ditransitive Spanish predication, in diachronic perspective

This paper analyses the diachronic behavior (12th to 20th centuries) of the ditransitive predications, with Direct Object (DO) and Indirect Object (IO), coded by Noun Phrases in Spanish. The analysis accounts for the properties of those participants, possessor and possessed respectively, and the verbs in the constructions. The analytic approach assumes that transitivity is a scalar phenomenon, without distinction between actantial and non-actantial dative. The possessive dative is an IO that refers to the possessor of the DO, while the ditransitive construction is an extension of the prototypical ditransitive. Our claim is that the construction i) gives relevance to the possessor over the possessed, and ii) shows that diachronically the DO has lexically diversified from concrete to non-concrete and animate entities, especially from the 16th century onwards.
Keywords: Spanish, possessive dative, ditransitive construction, diachronic perspective, IO
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Possessive Dative in Latin
  • 3.The Ditransitive Construction in Spanish
  • 4.Possessive Dative: Diachronic data
  • 5.Summary/Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.04ort
References (46)
References
a. Corpus
[ geii ] = Alfonso el Sabio (1966). General estoria, segunda parte, II. A. G. Solalinde, L. A. Kasten & V. R. B. Oelschläger (Eds.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Miguel de Cervantes, MCMLXI.Google Scholar
[ crcii ] = F. del Pulgar (Ed.) & J. Mata Carriazo (1943). Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, vol. II, Guerra de Granada. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
[Juan i ] = Rosel, C. (Colection). (1877). Crónica de Juan I. In Crónica de los Reyes de Castilla II, BAE, Madrid: M. Rivadeneyra.Google Scholar
[Hist. Verd.] = Díaz del Castillo, B. (1991). Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, C. Sáenz de Santa María (Edition, index & prologue). Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
[ dlne ] = Company Company, C. (Ed.). (1994). Documentos Lingüísticos de la Nueva España, Altiplano-Central. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
[Infortunios] = De Sigüenza y Góngora, Carlos. (1972). Infortunios de Alonso Ramírez. In M. Romero de Terreros (selection, prologue & notes), Relaciones históricas (pp. 1–71). México: UNAM.Google Scholar
[Trofeo] = De Sigüenza y Góngora, Carlos. (1960). Trofeo de la justicia española en el castigo de la alevosía francesa. In Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, J. Rojas Garcidueñas (selection, prologue & notes), Obras históricas (pp. 109–204). Second Edition. México: Editorial Porrúa.Google Scholar
[Obras iv ] = Gutiérrez Nájera, M. (1984). Obras IV/Crónicas y artículos sobre teatro, II (1881–1882), Y. Bache Cortés & A. E. Díaz Alejo Eds.). México: UNAM.Google Scholar
[Noticias] = Del Paso, Fernando. (1997), Noticias del Imperio, Second Ed., Ninth Reprint. México: Editorial Diana.Google Scholar
b. Bibliography
Alcina Franch, J. & Blecua, J. M.. (2001/1975). Gramática española. 11th edition. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Bassols de Climent, M. (1976). Sintaxis latina. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ch. E. (1895/1927). New Latin Grammar. Boston/ New York/ Chicago/ Atlanta/ San Francisco: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. & Diewald, G. (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, M. (2001). Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sorensen (Eds.), Dimensions of possession (pp. 269–283). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company Company, C. (2001). Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language, Studies in Language, 25, no. 1, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Tullio, Á. (1997). Manual de gramática del español. Buenos Aires: La isla de la luna.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. & Thomas, F. (1951/1964). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol I. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havers, W. (1911). Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (1997). Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language, 60, 703–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kliffer, M. (1987). Los sustantivos intrínsecamente relacionales: un enfoque multinovelístico. RSEL, 17, 283–299.Google Scholar
Kühner, R. & Stegmann, C. (1971/1912). Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Descriptive application. Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Reference point constructions, Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Possession and possessive constructions. In J. Taylor & R. Mac Laury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawers, P. & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and Challenges, Current Approaches, and New Trends. Linguistics 49, 6, 1219–1235.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1967). A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of language, 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, B. (1963). Zum lateinischen possessive Dativ. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 78, 64–83.Google Scholar
Ortiz Ciscomani, R. M. (2006). La Bitransitividad, Chap. 7. In C. Company (Dir.), Sintaxis Histórica de la lengua española, Primera parte: la frase verbal, Vol. I, (pp. 575–668). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México /Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
(2011). Construcciones bitransitivas en la historia del español, México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Oudot, J. (1964). Syntaxe latine. París: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Payne, D. L. & Barshi, I. (1999). External possession. What, where, how, and why. In D. L. Payne & I. Barshi (Eds.), External Possession (pp. 3–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[RAE-Asale]= Real Academia Española-Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Libros.Google Scholar
[RAE-ASALE] = Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2010). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. J. (1983). Possession as an operational dimension of language. Language Universals Series, 2. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. (2013). Predicative Possession. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2018-09-28.)
Timberlake, A. (1977). Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Ch. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–77). Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Van Velle, W. & Van Langendonck, W. (1996). The dative. Descriptive studies. Vol. I. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of internal dative in English. In Anna Wierzbicka The semantics of grammar (pp. 359–387). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, E. Ch. (1959). A new Latin syntax. London: Methuen.Google Scholar