In this paper we look at unaccusative constructions with

Dative subjects in anticausative constructions
Olga Fernández Soriano & Amaya Mendikoetxea
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
As it has been argued the type of argument structure variation that allows additional
noncore arguments is a pervasive property of human language and most languages have
verbs that exhibit this behavior (see e.g. Pylkkänen 2008). In this paper we argue that
Spanish has constructions with dative subjects in anticausative contexts, similar to those
found in languages like Polish, Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc., as discussed by
Rivero (2001, 2004, 2009). We analyse the non-selected dative as a ‘quirky’ subject – a
non-nominative subject in subject position, as that found in languages like Icelandic and
Croatian.
Our hypothesis is that anticausative constructions with dative subjects such as (1) are
the result of adding a dative subject A Juan to a typically unaccusative structure like that
in (2). This added argument is usually interpreted as an accidental causer.
We follow Levin & Rappaport Hovav´s analysis of unaccusative constructions in that
sentences like (2) are derived from transitive structures expressing externally caused
change of state events (3). Mendikoetxea (2000) claims that these structures are very
similar to true reflexives, but express stative causation: the cause is interpreted as a
property of the internal argument, which is understood as both (stative) cause and
theme. Syntactically, these structures contain an empty pronominal subject in the
specifier of the vP, so they are basically dyadic. The clitic se is analysed as 0-person
clitic, along with other person clitics in Romance, like those in reflexive structures, and
heads a functional projection immediately above T(ense) (see Mendikoetxea 2008).
As for (1), Fernández Soriano (1999a) has argued that the dative element A Juan has
properties typical of an external argument, though not interpreted as an agent, so that (1)
and (3) are, in fact, comparable. We offer an analysis of these constructions within the
context of Chomsky’s Minimalist Program in which the two structures differ crucially
in the checking/agreement operations established between functional heads and the
nominal arguments. In (3) an agreement relation is established between Juan and the
functional head involved in checking nominative and subject agreement features
(T(ense)). In (1), however, that head enters checking operations with both the dative
element and the internal argument in the VP, which never externalizes, and it is only in
that sense that it can be claimed that both elements have subject-like properties. Thus
the internal argument can be realized as a bare plural (4a), as opposed to the theme
argument of typical change of state constructions, which must externalize and cannot be
a bare noun (4b). Verbal agreement is the result of the (long distance) agreement
relation established between T/V and the internal argument. The syntactic properties of
these constructions are the result of the complex agreement operations between the
nominal arguments - the dative subject, the internal argument and the empty pronominal
in Spec,v - and the functional heads T, se and v, as well as the features of V.
The behaviour of the structure is thus similar to other (unaccusative) constructions that
have been claimed to have quirky (locative or dative) subjects in languages like
Georgian, Icelandic and many others (see Sigurdsson 1996, Pylkkänen 2008, McGinnis
1998, 2000, among others). The paper discusses also some of the similarities and
differences found between the Spanish construction and parallel constructions in Slavic,
as discussed by Rivero (2003, 2004)
Examples:
(1)
A Juan
se le
ha
roto
el vaso
To Juan-DAT se CL-dat.sg has-3sg broken
the glass
(lit: ‘To Juan the glass has broken = ‘Juan has (unintentionally) broken the
glass.’)
(2)
Se ha
roto
el vaso
se has-3sg broken the glass
‘The glass has broken.’
(3)
Juan ha
roto el vaso
Juan has-3sg broken the glass.
‘Juan has broken the glass.’
(4)
a.
b.
A Juan se le
rompen vasos continuamente,
To Juan se CL-dat.sg break-3pl glasses continuously
‘Juan is always breaking glasses (unintentionally).’
*Se rompen vasos
se break-3pl
glasses
References:
Fernández Soriano, O. (1999a). ‘Datives in constructions with unaccusative se’,
Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 89-105
Fernández Soriano, O. (1999b). ‘Two Types of Impersonal Sentences in Spanish:
Locative and. Dative Subjects’, Syntax, 2, 2:101–140.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport-Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity at the Lexical SemanticsSyntax Interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McGinnis, M. (1998). ‘Case and locality in l-syntax: Evidence from Georgian’. In
Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, ed. Heidi
Harley. MITWPL 32. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 139–158.
McGinnis, M. (2000). ‘Reflexive clitics and the specifiers of vP’. In Papers from the
UPenn/MIT Round Table on the Lexicon, ed. Liina Pylkkänen, Heidi Harley, and
Angeliek van Hout.MITWPL 35. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 137–160.
Mendikoetxea, A. (2000). ‘Relaciones de Interficie: los Verbos de Cambio de Estado’,
Cuadernos de Lingüística VII, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 125-144.
Mendikoetxea, A. (20008). Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic
features and semantic interpretation. In A, Siewierska (ed) Impersonal Constructions in
Grammatical Theory. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society, 106,
2, 290-336. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
RIVERO, M. L. (2001): ‘On impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic
variation’, in J. Camps & C. R. Wiltshire (eds.), Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2
Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th LSRL, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 169–195.
RIVERO, M.L. (2004): “Spanish Quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the PersonCase Constraint.” Linguistic Inquiry 35, 2004, 494-502.
RIVERO, M. L (2009) Intensionality, high applicatives, and aspect: involuntary state
constructions in Bulgarian and Slovenian, NLLT 27: 151–196
Sigurdsson, H. (1996). «Icelandic finite verb agreement». Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1-46