Cover not available
Article published In:
Spanish in Context
Vol. 20:3 (2023) ► pp.438–463

Los puertorriqueños se les está cayendo la “a”

Variably marked datives in Puerto Rican Spanish

ORCID logo | Penn State University
This study addresses a gap in the extensive literature on Spanish indirect objects by offering a study of unmarked datives (i.e., Ø eso le pones un papel de aluminio ‘to that you put an aluminum foil’; PRESEEA 2001). Analyzed are the linguistic constraints on the variable absence of dative marker a ‘to’ in corpora of spoken Puerto Rican Spanish, in which the rate of marker absence is 33% (n = 380). Results of logistic regression analysis reveal that unmarked datives occurred with low frequency, non-prototypical dative verbs. Inanimate referents favored the absence of the dative marker, as did complex DPs, where the dative phrase and the clitic pronoun+verb are not adjacent. The findings are discussed from the twin perspectives of analogy as a mechanism of change and frequency effects: unmarked datives seem to most affect items at the margins of the dative category, in terms of both verbs and referents.
Keywords: dative structure, unmarked datives, language variation, corpora
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Variability in dative constructions
    • 2.1Unmarked datives in (Puerto Rican) Spanish
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Extraction and coding procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.20045.vel
References (50)
References
Alarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1994. Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aponte Alequín, Héctor. 2016. “‘El traje le colocaron lentejuelas’: Argument structure in Puerto Rican unmarked datives.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Aranovich, Roberto. 2013. Optional agreement and grammatical functions: A corpus study of dative clitic doubling in Spanish. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ausín, Adolfo, and Francisco J. Fernández-Rubiera. 2021. “Decomposing Spanish dative clitics”. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10(2): 265–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogard, Sergio. 1992. “El estatus del clítico de complemento indirecto en español [The status of the indirect object clitic pronoun]”. In Reflexiones lingüísticas y literarias, ed. by Rebeca Barriga, and Josefina García, 171–186. México D.F.: El Colegio de México. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio, and Violeta Demonte. 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Tomo 2. Madrid: Espasa-CalpeGoogle Scholar
Brown, Esther L., and Javier Rivas. 2012. “Grammatical relation probability: How usage patterns shape analogy.” Language Variation and Change 24(3): 317–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bullock, Barbara. E., and Jacqueline A. Toribio. 2009. “Reconsidering Dominican Spanish: Data from the rural Cibao.” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 7 (2): 49–73.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campos, Héctor, and Mary Zampini. 1991. “Focalization strategies in Spanish.” Probus 2(1): 47–64.Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G., and Rory Turnbull. 2018. “Exploring variation in phonetic reduction: Linguistic, social, and cognitive factors.” In Rethinking reduction: Interdisciplinary perspectives on conditions, mechanisms, and domains, ed. by Fracesco Cangemi, Meghan Clayards, Oliver Niebuhr, Barbara Schuppler, and Margaret Zellers, 25–72. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, María C. 1999. “Quirky but not eccentric: Dative subjects in Spanish.” In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 341, ed. by V. Lin, C. Krause, B. Bruening, and K. Arregi, 213–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003. Datives at Large. (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
2008. “La alternancia causativa y su interacción con argumentos dativos [The causative alternation and its interaction with dative arguments].” Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 46(1): 55–79.Google Scholar
2010a. “Against ditransitivity.” Probus 221: 151–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). “Some dative subjects are born, some are made.” In Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Claudia Borgonovo, 26–37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 1998. “The interplay between form and meaning in language change. Grammaticalization of cannibalistic datives in Spanish.” Studies in Language 22(3): 529–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company, Concepción. 2001. “Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization. Spanish as a special kind of primary object language.” Studies in Language 25(1): 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 2002. “Reanálisis en cadena y gramaticalización. Dativos problemáticos en la historia del español.” Verba 291: 31–69.Google Scholar
Cortés-Torres, Mayra E. 2005. La perífrasis estar + -ndo en el español puertorriqueño: ¿variación dialectal o contacto lingüístico? (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Delbecque, Nicole, and Béatrice Lamiroy. 1992. “The Spanish “dative”: a problem of delimitation.” Leuvense Bijdragen: Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 81(1–3): 113–161.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Towards a typology of the Spanish dative.” In Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages: The Dative, ed. by Willian van Belle, and Willy van Langendonck, 73–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative alternation in Spanish.” Probus 71: 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufter, Andreas, and Álvaro Octavio de Toledo. 2014. Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and comparative perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2013. “Differential object marking in Spanish: State of the art.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2): 1–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio, Angel Jimenez-Fernandez, and Mercedes Turbino. 2017. “What’s up with dative experiencers?” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12 1, ed. by Ruth E. V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar, and Sonia M. L. Cyrino, 29–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999. “Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and dative subjects.” Syntax 2(2): 101–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga, and Amaya Mendikoetxea. 2013. “Non selected dative arguments in Spanish anticausative constructions: Exploring subjecthood.” In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects, ed. by Ilja A. Serzant, and Leonic Kulikov, 3–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folgar, Carlos. 1993. Diacronía de los objectos directo e indirecto. Del latín al castellano medieval. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, José M. 2015. “Variable coding and object alignment in Spanish: A corpus-based approach”. Folia Lingüística 49(1): 205–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Miguel, José. M., and Victoria Vázquez. 1994. “Lingüística de corpus y lingüística descriptiva: el caso de ‘la duplicación de objetos’.” Procesamiento del lenguaje natural 141: 47–62.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Bravo, Rodrigo. 2006. “A reinterpretation of quirky subjects and related phenomena in Spanish”. In New Perspectives in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Chiyo Nishida, and Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil, 127–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2018. “Acceptability and frequency in Spanish focus marking.” In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, ed. by Marco García, and Melanie Uth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klein-Andreu, Flora. 1995. “Conversational focus.” Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, ed. by Ellen Contini-Morava, and Barbara S. Goldberg, 405–422. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 1. Stanford: Sanford University Press.Google Scholar
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. “Quirky datives in Spanish and the non-nominative subject parameter.” In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 161, ed. by Andreas Kathol, and Jill Beckman, 213–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz Pérez, Carlos. 2020. “A further argument for a syncretic analysis of DOM and dative in Spanish”. Topics in Linguistics 21(1):62–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishida, Chiyo. 2012. “A corpus study of Mexican Spanish three-participant constructions with and without clitic doubling.” Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 208–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortiz Ciscomani, Rosa. M. 2005. “Los objetos concurrentes y la bitransitividad en el español en perspectiva diacrónica.” In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by David Eddington, 192–202. Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2001. “Variability, frequency, and productivity in the irrealis domain in French.” In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Joan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, 405–428. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PRESEEA: Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. 2001. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. [[URL]]
Pujalte, Mercedes. 2009. Condiciones sobre la introducción de argumentos: el caso de la alternancia dativa en español [Conditions on the introduction of arguments: the case of the dative alternation in Spanish]. (Master’s Thesis). Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Neuquén, Argentina.
Reali, Florencia. 2017. “Acceptability of dative argument structure in Spanish: Assessing semantic and usage-based factors.” Cognitive Science 411: 2170–2190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David, Sali A. Tagliamonte, and Eric Smith. 2005. “Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows.” Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Suárez-Palma, Imanol. 2020. “Applied arguments in Spanish inchoative middle constructions.” Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 5(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toribio, Almeida J., and Carlos Nye. 2006. “Restructuring of reverse psychological predicates.” In New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, ed. by Chiyo Nishida, and Jean-Pierre Y. Monteuil, 263–277. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Catherine E. Travis. 2018. Bilingualism in the Community: Code-switching and Grammars in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar