Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 52:2 (2017) ► pp.190–206
Linguistic article

La duplicación de clíticos en español como estrategia de marcación inversa

| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
Clitic doubling is the phenomenon in which, in a clause, a NP or a stressed pronoun and a clitic pronoun refer to the same entity and have the same syntactic function. Previous studies on this phenomenon in Spanish observe that it takes place when the elements involved have features such as +preposition and +definiteness that make them prone to topicalization, such as with stressed pronouns (Silva-Corvalán, 1984; Melis and Flores, 2009; Vázquez Rozas and García Salido, 2012). However, we have found that in 19th and 20th Century Spanish, doubling often occurs with elements that are not typically topical, such as indefinite NPs. On the basis of a sample of the Argentinian variety from the CORDE and CREA corpora we found that doubling in ditransitive clauses has two functions: it can mark topical indirect objects, but it can also flag inverse distributions which have unexpected promotion of the direct object and demotion of the indirect object in the accessibility scale.
Article outline
  • 0.Introducción
  • 1.La duplicación de clíticos
  • 2.Metodología
    • 2.1Corpus y extracción de datos
    • 2.2Variables
      • 2.2.1Accesibilidad
      • 2.2.2Importancia referencial
  • 3.Análisis
  • 4.Discusión
  • Reconocimiento
  • Notas
  • Referencias


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.52.2.04per
References (32)
Referencias
Aoun, J. (1981): The formal nature of Anaphoric Relations. MIT, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1988): Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24, 1, pp. 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991): The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 5, pp. 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barraza Carbajal, G. (2006): Duplicación del objeto directo en orden no marcado en español. Un estudio de dialectología comparada. Tesis para obtener el grado de Máster en Lingüística Hispánica. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F.Google Scholar
Barrenechea, A. M. y T. Orecchia. (1970): La duplicación de objetos directos e indirectos en el español hablado en Buenos Aires. Romance Philology, 24,1, pp 58–83Google Scholar
Becerra, S. (2007): Estudio diacrónico y sincrónico del objeto indirecto en el español peninsular y de América. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhague.Google Scholar
Belloro, V. (2007): Spanish clitic doubling: A Study of the Syntax-Pragmatics interface. Tesis de doctorado. University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.Google Scholar
Company Company, C. (2001): Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in language 25,1, pp. 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008): Gramaticalización, género discursivo y otras variables en la difusión del cambio sintáctico, in: J. Kabatek (ed.), Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas. Lingüística Iberoamericana, Madrid, pp. 16–51.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989): Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cross, E. (1947): Exposed Subject and Object in Spanish and Other Romance Languages. Language, 23, 4, pp. 430–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. (1987): The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 4, pp. 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003): Argument Structure. Grammar in use, in Du Bois, J., L. Kumpf y W. Ashby, Preferred Argument Structure, grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enrique-Arias, A. (2003): From clitics to inflections: diachronic y typological evidence for affixal object agreement marking in Spanish, in: B. Fradin (ed), Forum de Morphologie (3e. rencontres), Université de Lille, Lille, pp. 67–75.Google Scholar
Fernández Ordóñez, I. (1999): Leísmo, laísmo, loísmo, in: Bosque, I., V. Demonte (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Real Academia Española / Espasa Calpe, Madrid, vol. I1, pp. 1319–1390: § 21.1 - 21.6.Google Scholar
Fish, G. (1968): The indirect object and the redundant construction. Hispania, 51, 4, pp. 862–866. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Miguel, J. y V. Vázquez Rozas. (1994): Lingüística de corpus y lingüística descriptiva: el caso de la duplicación de objetos. Procesamiento del lenguaje natural 141, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
Gessner, E. (1885): Zur Lehre vom französischen Pronomen. Mayer and Müller, Berlin.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1976): Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement, in Li, C. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 149–188.Google Scholar
(1990): Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). El lenguaje como semiótica social. Bogotó, Fondo de Cultura economicá.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2004): Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role constraint: A usage based approach. Constructions 21.Google Scholar
(2007): Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14,1, pp. 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melis, Ch. y M. Flores. (2004): La variación diatópica en el uso del objeto indirecto duplicado. Revista de Filología Hispánica, 52, 2, pp. 329–354 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009): On the interplay between forces of erosion and forces of repair in language. A case study. Folia Linguistica historica, 30,1, pp. 271–310.Google Scholar
Melis, Ch, M. Flores y S. Bogard. (2003): La historia del español. Propuesta de un tercer período evolutivo. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica LI-0011, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Poston, L. jr. (1953): The redundant object pronoun in Contemporary Spanish, Hispania 31, pp. 263–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española (2005): Diccionario panhispánico de dudas. Santillana, Madrid.Google Scholar
Rini, J. (1990): Dating the Grammaticalization of the Spanish Clitic Pronoun. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 1061, pp. 354–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1984): Semantic and pragmatic factors in syntactic change, in: J. Fisiak (ed), Historical syntax,. Mouton, Berlin etc., pp. 555–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014): ‘Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks’, in: R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 141–179.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V. y M. García Salido. (2012): A Discourse-Based Analysis of Object Clitic doubling in Spanish, in: K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems y T. Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language change: New reflections, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 269–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar