Cover not available
Part of
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 375–406

Pronominal verbs across European languages

What Spanish alternating pronominal verbs reveal

This work studies pronominal verbs in different European Languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, German, Polish, and Rumanian. It proposes a classification of such verbs on the ground of distributional terms. More specifically, the classification pivots on whether the pronominal particle is compulsory or not for the predicate to be grammatical. Besides, other subtypes are defined by taking into account other factors like whether the verb enters any transitive-intransitive alternation such as the causative-inchoative or the transitive-reflexive, and if so, what thematic role the external subject of the transitive alternate bears (cause, instrument, or agent). Cross-linguistic variation is found across the covered languages as to which verb classes fit into the proposed classification of pronominal verbs in different languages. We focus on Spanish alternating pronominal verbs and put forward a theoretical analysis that contributes to accounting for the cross-linguistic variation in pronominal verbs attested in different languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Pronominal verbs across European languages
  • 2.Non-alternating pronominal verbs
  • 3.Alternating pronominal verbs: Spanish consumption and non-anticausative intransitive verbs
  • 4.Conclusions and lines for further research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.12teo
References (69)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2013. In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anticausativization. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 131: 199–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1982. 'Morphological passive' and pro-drop: The impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Research 2(4): 1–34.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. In Name Only. Structuring Sense (1). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campanini, Cinzia & Schäfer, Florian. 2011. Optional Se-constructions in Romance: Syntactic encoding of conceptual information. Talk given at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 34.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1993. The Reanalysis of Reflexives: A Diachronic Perspective. Liguori MO: Liguori Publications.Google Scholar
. 1999. Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis. Transactions of The Philological Society 97(1):103–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Unexpressed objects and the semantics of predicates in Italian. Talk given at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On Si constructions and the Theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19(4): 521–581.Google Scholar
De Miguel, Elena & Fernández Lagunilla, Marina. 2000. El operador aspectual “se”. Revista Española de Lingüística 30(1): 13–44.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29(3): 399–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The SE-anaphor and its role in argument realization. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 1–67.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
García Fernández, Luis. 2011. Algunas observaciones sobre “se” aspectual. In Estudios sobre perífrasis y aspecto, Juan Cuartero Otal, Luis García Fernández & Carsten Sinner (eds), 43–71. Madrid: Peniope.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie & Kayne, Richard S. 2012. Having Need and needing Have . Linguist Inquiry 43: 120–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Arbeitspapiere 4.Google Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2012. Spontaneity, relative frequency and the encoding of anticausatives: A contrastive analysis of French and Spanish. Talk given at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2011. Causatives across components. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3): 657–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Anticausatives have no cause(r): A rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 131: 217–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3): 369–411.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1988. Romance se/si. GLOW Newsletter 20.Google Scholar
1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguist Inquiry 22: 647–686.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 833–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In Proceedings from CLS 35. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 2000. Aspect, lexical semantic representation and argument expression. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkely CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2012. Costruzioni verbo-pronominali “intensive” in italiano. In Linguaggio e Cervello / Semantica [Proceedings of the XLII Convegno della Società di Linguistica Italiana], Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bambini & Irene Ricci (eds). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita. 1986. On Italian si. In Syntax and Semantics, 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Hagit Borer (ed.), 241–262. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 130: 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín, Rafael & McNally, Louise. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 267–502. Retrieved from Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, Maria Antonia. 1979. Las construcciones pronominales en Español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Masullo, Pascual José. 1999. La interfaz léxico-sintaxis: Presencia y ausencia del clítico se en construcciones inacusativas. Trabajo inédito. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional del Comahue & Seattle WA: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya 1992. On the Nature of Agreement: The Syntax of ARB SE in Spanish. PhD dissertation, York University.Google Scholar
. 1997. Clitics as AGR, and PRO in Finite Clauses. In Proceedings of the IV Colloquim of Generative Grammar, Tarragona, 15-18 March 1994, Nàtalia Català & Maria Bargalló (eds), 84–121. Tarragona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
. 1999a. Construcciones con se. Medias, pasivas e impersonales. In Gramática de la lengua española, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
. 1999b. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Gramática de la lengua española, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
. 2008. Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation. In Transactions of the Philological Society, Paul Rowlett & Anna Siewierska (eds), 290–336. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos Peregrín. 1986. Arbitrary subjects in finite clauses. In Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Ivonne Bordelois, Helen Contreras & Karen Zagona (eds), 81–109. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1999. Pronombres reflexivos y recíprocos. In Gramática de la lengua española, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 1428–1517. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1996. Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. In Lexical and Conceptual Structure, Beth Levin & Steven Pinker (eds), 47–81. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2007. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo & Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 749–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. In Syntax and Semantics, 21: Thematic Relations, Wendy Wilkins (ed.), 7–36. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 00,01/TL. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3): 229–290.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Long-Distance Anaphora, Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 283–321. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 657–720.Google Scholar
. 1995. Pronouns, anaphors and case. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, & Sten Vikner (Eds), 241–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2004. Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Studies on the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 439–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Logophoricity. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigau, Gemma. 1994. Les propietats dels verbs pronominals. Els Marges 50: 29–39.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2002. On impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation. In Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 216], Jaoquim Camps & Caroline R. Wiltshire (eds), 169–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sanz, Montserrat. 1995. Telic clitics in Spanish. Ms, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 126]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teomiro García, Ismael Iván 2010. Anaphors at the Interfaces. A Comparative Study of the Variation of the Anaphoric Systems of English, Dutch and Spanish. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
. 2011. Reflexivity and adjustment strategies at the interfaces. Tromsø Nordlyd Working Papers in Linguistics 37: 119–149.Google Scholar
. 2013. Low applicatives and optional “se” in Spanish non-anticausative intransitive verbs. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8: 248–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teomiro García, Ismael Iván & Romero Pascual, Cristina. 2012. Theta meets aspect: The Spanish aspectual “se” with consumption verbs. Topics in Linguistics 10: 20–27.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1996. Compositionality of aspect: Evidence from Spanish aspectual se. In Aspects of Romance Linguistics, Claudia Parodi (ed.), 475–488. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar