Cover not available
Part of
Inquiries in Hispanic Linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence
Edited by Alejandro Cuza, Lori Czerwionka and Daniel Olson
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12] 2016
► pp. 21–38

Towards a theory of pronominal verb constructions in Spanish

| University of Wisconsin-Madison

This paper proposes a unified account of three types of constructions in which the se clitic appears, which are dubbed pronominal verb constructions (PVCs) . unaccusatives like acatarrar-se (get sick), unergatives like quejar-se (complain) and transitives like zampar-se algo (to wolf something down). The main claims are (i) that the verbs in question represent classes that are specified to select a “defective” head (= a head that does not introduce a theta role and/or assign case) in their predicate-argument argument structure and (ii) Spanish marks such defective heads as [ϕ], a diacritic that triggers insertion of se post-syntactically at T. The different classes of PVCs are derived from the type of defective head that is selected, Voice[ϕ] in the case of intransitives and P[ϕ] in the case of transitives.

Keywords: Agreement, Argument structure, Pronominal verbs
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.12.02arm
References
Abels, K
(2003) Successive cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Basilico, D
(2010) The se clitic and its relationship to paths. Probus, 22, 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J
(2010) Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L
(1986) Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campanini, C., & Schäfer, F
(2011) Optional se-constructions in Romance: Syntactic encoding of conceptual information. Handout from talk given at GLOW 34 , Universität Wien.
Campos, H., & Kempchinsky, P
(1991) Case absorption, theta structure and pronominal verbs. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 171–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coon, J
(2013) Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, M.C
(2003) Datives at large. Unpublished PhD dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
De Miguel, E., & Fernández Lagunilla, M
(2000) El operador aspectual se . Revista Española de Lingüística, 30, 13–41.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C
(2006) The se anaphor and its role in argument realization. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. 4; pp. 118–179). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S.J
(2002) Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R
(2000) Parameters and universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J.E
(2004) Spanish reflexive pronouns: A null preposition hypothesis. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 23 Proceedings (pp. 528–540). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns and leísta PCC repair. To appear in Probus. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P.J
(1992a) Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: A cross linguistic perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Washington.Google Scholar
(1992b) Antipassive constructions in Spanish. In P. Hirschbühler & K. Koerner (Eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, (pp. 175–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A
(2008) Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation. Transactions of the philological society, 106(2), 290–336 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pujalte, M., & Saab, A
(2012) Syncretism as PF-repair: The case of se-insertion in Spanish. In M.C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure? (pp. 229–260) Bingley: Emerald Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, M
(2008) Phi-agree and theta-related case. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Bejar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across the interfaces and modules (pp. 83–129). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F
(2008) The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.A
(2012) Minimalist C/Case. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 191–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P
(2007) Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar