Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 57:2 (2022) ► pp.288–310
Articles linguistiques

Anáforas reflexivas y doblado de clíticos en lenguas romances

| IIF-SADAF-CONICET / University of Buenos Aires

In this paper I analyze the distribution of the reflexive construction se + a sí mismo in Romance (e.g., ‘Juan se peinó a sí mismo’). I propose that these structures are transitive. Concretely, I argue that in these cases the reflexive anaphor is the internal argument of the predicate, and that the obligatory presence of the clitic se is due to the general phenomenon of clitic doubling with pronominal objects. I show that this approach can account for some asymmetries between these constructions and simple se-reflexives regarding expletive insertion in French, proxy readings, comparative constructions, association with focus, and case distribution in causatives.

Keywords: reflexivity, reflexive anaphors, clitic doubling, transitivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2. Se + a sí mismo como doblado de clíticos
    • 2.1Propuesta central
    • 2.2Roles temáticos y caso
  • 3.Ventajas del análisis
    • 3.1Inserción del expletivo il en francés
    • 3.2Lecturas proxy
    • 3.3Comparativas de objeto
    • 3.4Asociación con foco
    • 3.5Causativas y caso
  • 4.La hipótesis inacusativa
    • 4.1Concordancia con el participio
    • 4.2Selección del auxiliar
  • 5.Conclusiones
  • Notas
  • Referencias

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 9 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.20018.ver
References

Referencias

Alboiu, G., M. Barrie y C. Frigeni
(2004): SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox. Antwerp papers in linguistics. Universiteit Antwerp, pp. 109–39.Google Scholar
Benincà, P., M. Parry y D. Pescarini
(2016): The dialects of northern Italian, en: Ledgeway, A., y M. Maiden. (eds.): The Oxford guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I.
(2018): La reflexividad paso a paso, en: Rangponsumrit, N., D. Gutiérrez Menéndez, A. Aguilella Asensi, J. M. Blanco Pena y E. Moreno Salazar. (eds.): Actas del ix congreso internacional de la asociación asiática de hispanistas, pp. 15–58.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D.
(1984): On the content of empty categories. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1994): Weak anaphora, en: Cinque, G., J. Koster, L. Rizzi y R. Zanauttini (eds.): Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard Kayne. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I., F. Adani, y N. Hyams
(2009) The online processing of French reflexives: Experimental evidence for an unaccusative analysis, en: Yokio, O.. (ed.): Proceedings of 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hitsuji Shobo, Tokio.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981): Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Doron, E. y M. Rappaport Hovav
(2009): A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 75–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
(2004): Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations, en: Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, y M. Everaert. (eds.): The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A.
(2007): On the nature of long-distance anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2), pp. 321–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1990): Argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I.
(1992): Catalan. Routledge, Londres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1992): Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(1), pp. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P.
(1999): Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 221, pp. 117–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaminszczik, S. y A. Saab
(2016): Patrones de reflexivización en oraciones ditransitivas: consecuencias para la teoría temática. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 431, pp. 149–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1975): French syntax: The transformational cycle, vol. 301. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(1993): Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia linguistica. 47(1), pp. 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000): A note on clitic doubling in French, en: Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1996): Severing the external argument from its verb, en: J. Rooryck y L. Zaring. (eds.): Phrase structure and the lexicon. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M.
(2008): The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4), pp. 833–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G.
(2017): Auxiliaries, en: Dufter, A., y E. Stark. (eds.): Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. De Gruyter, Berlín/Boston, pp. 272–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. y L. Savoia
(2011): Grammatical categories: Variation in Romance languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1984): On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marelj, M. y E. Reuland
(2016): Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the lexicon-syntax parameter, en: Everaert, M., M. Marelj y E. Reuland. (eds.): Concepts, syntax, and their interface: The theta system, pp. 175–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J. y J. Romero
(2013): Object clitics, agreement, and dialectal variation. Probus 251, pp. 301–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pujalte, M. y A. Saab
(2012): Syncretism as PF-repair: The case of SE-insertion in Spanish, en: M. C. Cuervo y Y. Roberge. (eds.): The end of argument structure?. Brill, Bradford, pp. 229–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. y E. Reuland
(1993): Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, pp. 657–720.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. y T. Siloni
(2005): The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic inquiry 36(3), pp. 389–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E.
(2018): Reflexives and reflexivity. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1), pp. 81–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. y Y. Winter
(2009): Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors, en: Devi, S., A. Branco y R. Mitkov. (eds.): Discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium. Springer, Berlín, pp. 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigau, G.
(1988): Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3), pp. 503–511.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. y G. Vanden Wyngaerd
(1999): Simplex and complex reflexives in French and Dutch, en: Coene, M., W. De Mulder, P. Dendale y Y. D’Hulst. (eds.): Traiani augusti vestigia pressa sequamur. studia lingvistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski. Unipress, Padua, pp. 617–639.Google Scholar
Saab, A.
(2020): Deconstructing Voice. The syntax and semantics of u-syncretrism in Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
(2014): Assessing unaccusativity and reflexivity: using focus alternatives to decide what gets which θ-role. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2), pp. 305–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1995): On the nature of clitic doubling, en: Campos, H., y P. Kempchinsky. (eds.): Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 399–418.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1995): Some Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 261, pp. 79–123.Google Scholar
Zdrojewski, P.
(2008): ¿Por quién doblan los clíticos?. Tesis de maestría inédita, Universidad Nacional del Comahue.Google Scholar
Zec, D.
(1985): Objects in Serbo-Croatian, en: Niepokuj, M., M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou, y D. Feder. (eds.): Annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society, pp. 358–371.Google Scholar