Abstract

In Spanish causative constructions with dejar ‘let’ and hacer ‘make’ the subject of the embedded infinitive verb can appear in the accusative or the dative case. This case alternation has been accounted for by resorting to the notion of direct vs. indirect causation. Under this account, the accusative clitic with a transitive verb denotes direct causation while the dative clitic with an intransitive verb expresses indirect causation. The problem with this account is that we lack an independent definition of (in)direct causation in this context and so this approach suffers from circularity: the case of the clitic is used to determine causation type and causation type implies use of one or the other grammatical case. Therefore, a more objective way to account for clitic case alternation is needed. In this paper, I offer one possible solution in this direction by investigating clitic case alternation against Hopper and Thompson’s Transitivity parameters and a small number of other linguistic variables. The novelty of this approach is that I operationalise Transitivity as a weighted continuous measure (which I call the Transitivity Index) and use it to predict the case of the clitic. The results indicate that the transitivity of the infinitive verb, the animacy of the object and the agentivity of the subject are strong predictors of clitic case. Moreover, the Transitivity Index clearly shows that higher levels of Transitivity are associated with the dative clitic contrary to other contexts in which accusative is said to be more transitive. The findings in this paper allow us to arrive at a finer-grained characterization of the contexts in which each clitic case is more likely to occur and provide further evidence of the pervasiveness of Transitivity in natural language.

Highlights

  • Spanish lacks overt case marking on noun phrases (NPs), but the pronominal system still shows some vestiges of case marking

  • For an effect to offer at least moderate evidence for its importance, the Bayes factor should at least be 3. This means that none of the predictors that do not participate in interactions (i.e., AFFIRMATION, AFFECTEDNESS, TELICITY, TENSE, PUNCTUALITY, PERSON, NUMBOBJ, MOOD, KINESIS and NUMBERSUBJ) make a significant contribution to explaining the case of the clitic

  • In this paper I have proposed the Transitivity Index, a weighted continuous measure based on the seminal work by Hopper and Thomson [12]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Spanish lacks overt case marking on noun phrases (NPs), but the pronominal system still shows some vestiges of case marking. This is clearly the case with third-person pronominal elements, which distinguish between nominative (1a), accusative (1b) and dative cases (1c). I refer to these elements as pronominals (as opposed to pronouns) because, technically speaking, the nominative set comprises strong pronouns whereas the accusative and dative sets are made. Spanish clitics differ from strong pronouns in that they cannot be conjoined, stressed or used contrastively (for an extensive review of Spanish clitics see [1]). Note that examples without reference to their source are my own

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call