Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario
Edited by Silvia Perpiñán, David Heap, Itziri Moreno-Villamar and Adriana Soto-Corominas
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11] 2017
► pp. 101–125

Chapter 5
Laísmo and “le-for-les”

To agree or not to agree

| Michigan State University
| University of Central Florida
This paper discusses and analyzes the syntactic correlation between three different phenomena in Spanish: The presence of the accusative clitic, the presence/absence of number agreement in the dative clitic (a phenomenon called “le-for-les”), and the presence/absence of gender agreement in the dative clitic in laísta dialects. Assuming that accusative clitics manifest exclusively an agreement morpheme and that dative clitics can be decomposed into an applicative morpheme and an optional agreement morpheme, we argue for a unified account of these structures as follows: The presence of the accusative clitic and obligatory agreement in the dative are reflexes of the realization of an agreement morpheme in the structure. The analysis we propose also accounts uniformly for the unavailability of “la-for-las” or partial agreement in laísta dialects.
Keywords: Spanish clitics, applicative morpheme, agreement, “le-for-les”, laísmo
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.“Le-for-les” and the presence of accusative clitics: A common core
    • 2.1Background on “le-for-les” constructions
    • 2.2“Le-for-les” and the presence of accusative clitics: Evidence for a uniform treatment
    • 2.3Main assumptions and proposal
    • 2.4Accounting for “le-for-les” and the presence of accusative clitics
  • 3.Lack of agreement in laísta dative clitics
  • 4.A uniform account of “le-for-les” and “le-for-la”
    • 4.1Parallelism between “le-for-les” and “le-for-la”
    • 4.2A further prediction: Lack of “la-for-las”
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.05aus
References
Alexiadou, Artemis
2006 “Left dislocation (including CLLD).” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 668–699. Malden: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia
1999 Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. University of Delaware, doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Youngmi Jeong
2004 “The fine structure of intervention in syntax.” In Chungja Kwon and Wonbin Lee (eds), Issues in Current Linguistic Theory: A Festschrift for Hong Bae Lee, 83–116.Google Scholar
Casares, Julio
1918 Crítica efímera. Madrid: Saturnino Calleja S.A.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina
2003 Datives at Large, Ph.D. Thesis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
2010 “Against Ditransitivity.” Probus 22 (2): 151–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, Rufino José
1907/1955 Apuntaciones críticas sobre el lenguaje bogotano, con frecuente referencia al de los países de Hispano-América (9th ed.). Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
DeMello, George
1992 “ ‘Le’ for ‘les’ in the spoken educated Spanish of eleven cities,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (4): 407–430.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta
1995 “Dative alternation in Spanish.” Probus 7 (1): 5–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés
1994 “Isoglosas internas del castellano: El sistema referencial del pronombre átono de tercera persona.” Revista de Filología Española LXXIV (1): 71–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga
1999 “El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1209–1274. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Huerta Flores, Norohella
2005 “Gramaticalización y concordancia objetiva en el español: Despronominalización del clítico dativo plural.” Verba 32: 165–190.Google Scholar
Martín, Francisco Jesús
2012 Deconstructing Catalan Objects, Ph.D. Thesis. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero
2013 “Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation.” Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25 (2): 301–344.Google Scholar
RAE
1885 Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: G. Hernando.Google Scholar
RAE & AALE
2009 Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
Rinni, Joel
1988 “A New Perspective on the Origin of le for les.” Journal of Hispanic Philology 12 (3): 207–219.Google Scholar
Romero, Juan
2012 “Accusative Feminine Datives in Spanish.” In Variation in Datives: A Microcomparative Perspective, ed. by Beatriz Fernández and Ricardo Etxepare, 283–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique
1996 “Clitic Constructions.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, Cony
1927 “Uso de le por les.” Hispania 10 (4): 251–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita
1988 “The Role of Agreement in Clitic Doubled Constructions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6 (3): 391–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1988 On Government. University of Connecticut, doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pineda, Anna
2020. Double‐Object Constructions in Romance: The Common Denominator. Syntax 23:3 ► pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.