Chapter published in:
Amazonian Spanish: Language Contact and Evolution
Edited by Stephen Fafulas
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 23] 2020
► pp. 128–154

Clitics and argument marking in Shipibo-Spanish and Ashéninka-Perené-Spanish bilingual speech

| University of Illinois at Chicago
| The Australian National University
Direct object clitics in Spanish are morphological markers at the interface of syntax and phonology, morphology, semantics and information structure. We explore variability in direct object clitic doubling and argument marking in bilingual speakers of Shipibo-Spanish and Ashéninka-Perené-Spanish (Mayer & Sánchez, in press). We focus on the production of the dative versus the accusative forms of the clitic and on the expression of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Aissen, 2003; Bossong, 1985, 1991; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011), in particular, on the extension of DOM to definite inanimate DPs and the lack of DOM with animate direct objects required in other varieties of Spanish. We analyze this variability as the coexistence of two different argument-marking systems in these contact varieties of Amazonian Spanish.
Keywords: clitic doubling, differential object marking, argument systems, bilingual acquisition, typological differences, Amazonian Spanish
Published online: 15 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.23.06san
References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21 , 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belloro, V.
(2007) Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). SUNY.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S.
(2004) Pronouns. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bleam, T.
(1999) Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung, Differentielle Objekt–markierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1991) Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. A. Kibbee (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 143–185). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 17–49). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A.
(1987) Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language, 63 , 741–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caravedo, R.
(1999) Lingüística del corpus: Cuestiones teórico-metodológicas aplicadas al Español. Gramática Española: Enseñanza e investigación (Vol. 6 ). Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Sánchez, L.
(2013) The role of semantic transfer in clitic drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese-Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (1), 93–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I.
(2011) Objects and information structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Tullio, A., & Zdrojewski, P.
(2006) Notas sobre el doblado de clíticos en el español rioplatense. Asimetrías entre objetos humanos y no humanos. Filología, 1 2006–2007, 13–44.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. M.
(2011) Spanish in contact with Quechua. In M. Diaz Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 323–352). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Spanish in contact with Amerindian languages. In J. I. Hualde, A. I. Olarrea, & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 65–88). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faust, N.
(1990) Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma shipibo-conibo (2nd ed.). Lima, Perú: Ministerio de Educación. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
(2008) Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma shipibo-conibo (Documento de Trabajo No 1). Lima, Perú: Instituto de Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Guijarro Fuentes, P.
(2011) Feature composition in Differential Object Marking. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti, & C. Bettoni (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 11 (pp. 138–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15 (4), 701–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O.
(1986) Three issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, doubled NPs and extraction. In H. Borer (Ed.). Syntax and Semantics 19 (pp. 63–88). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1975) French syntax. The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 , 647–686.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É.
(Ed.) (1995) Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2005) On morphological competence. In L. Dekydspotter, R. A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 178–192). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2008) Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2004) Specificity and object marking: The case of Spanish a. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3 , 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Clitics do not encode specificity. In G. A. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 122 , 111–139. Konstanz Germany: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2008) Specificity in clitic doubling and in Differential Object Marking. Probus, 20 , 33–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipski, J.
(1994) Latin American Spanish. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(2010) Spanish and Portuguese in contact. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 550–580). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loriot, J., Lauriault, E., & Day, D.
(1993) Diccionario shipibo-castellano. Yarinacocha, Perú: Ministerio de Educación and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Luján, M.
(1987) Clitic-doubling in Andean Spanish and the Theory of Case Absorption. In T. Morgan, J. Lee, & B. VanPatten, (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 109–121). Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2010) Contact, convergence and typology. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 66–85). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, E.
(2008) Clitics on the move: From dependent marking to split marking. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference (pp. 352–372). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2010) Syntactic variation of object arguments in Limeño Spanish contact varieties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Australian National University.Google Scholar
(2017) Spanish clitics on the move, variation in time and space. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, E., & Delicado Cantero, M.
(2015) Continuity and contact-induced Change in Peruvian Spanish contact varieties: The case of prepositional Differential Object Marking. In M. González Rivera & S. Sessarego (Eds.), New perspectives on Hispanic contact linguistics in the Americas. (pp. 99–120). Madrid, Spain/Frankfurt, Germany: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, E., & Sánchez, L.
(2016) Object agreement marking and information structure in monolingual and bilingual Andean Spanish. Special Issue: The acquisition and processing of Spanish and Portuguese morphosyntax: Theoretical and experimental issues. Spanish Journal of Applied . Linguistics /RESLA, 29 (2), 544–581.Google Scholar
(2017) Feature variability in the bilingual-monolingual continuum: Clitics in bilingual Quechua-Spanish, bilingual Shipibo-Spanish and in monolingual Limeño Spanish contact varieties. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, E. & Sánchez, L.
(in press) Forthcoming. Feature selection in clitic expression in Amazonian Spanish. In R. Zariquiey, P. Valenzuela, A. Escobar, & M. Jara (Eds), Spanish diversity in the Amazon: Dialect and language contact perspectives. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Mayer, M., & Mayer, M.
(1976/2003) One frog too many. New York, NY: Puffin.Google Scholar
McCarthy, C.
(2008) Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: an argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24 (4), 459–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mihas, E.
(2010) Essentials of Ashéninka Perené grammar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
(2014) Expression of information source meanings in Ashéninca Perené (Arawak). In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 209–226). Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montes, M. E.
(2004) Lengua ticuna: Resultados de fonologia y morfosintaxis. Forma y Función, 17 , 145–178.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 , 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31 (1), 167–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S.
(2001) The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F., & L. Repetti
(2006) Stressed enclitics. In J.-P. Montreuil (Ed.), New perspectives on Romance linguistics, Vol. II: Phonetics, phonology and dialectology (pp. 167–181). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J.
(2013) Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 25 , 301–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, D.
(1981) Phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa (SIL Publications in Linguistics 66). Dallas, TX: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Payne, D. L., Payne, J., & Sánchez, J.
(1982) Morfología, fonología y fonética del asheninka del Apurucayali (Serie Lingüística Peruana 18). Lima, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Ramírez-Cruz, H.
(2018) Yo no le conocía a mi abuela: The use of clitics le, lo, and la in Amazonian Colombian-Spanish. In J. King & S. Sessarego (Eds.), The dynamics of language variation and change: Varieties of Spanish across space and time (pp. 175–198). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reed, J., & Payne, D. L.
(1986) Asheninka (Campa) pronominals. In U. Wiesemann (Ed), Pronominal systems (pp. 323–331). Tübingen: Günther Narr.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(1991) Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 , 209–218.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2008) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20 , 111–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J.
(2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Saab, A., & Zdrojewski, P.
(2010) Syntactically inert clitics: A paradox involving clitic doubling and its resolution. Paper presented at Romania Nova IV, Campos de Jordão, São Paulo, November 8.
Sánchez, L.
(2003) Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) La aparente opcionalidad del doblado de clíticos en el español limeño. Cuadernos de la ALFAL 1 (nueva serie), 94–105.Google Scholar
Sánchez, L., & P. Zdrojewski
(2013) Restricciones semánticas y pragmáticas al doblado de clíticos en el español de Buenos Aires y de Lima. La variación en la gramática del español actual. Special volume of Lingüística, 29 (2), 271–320.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2009) Features or parameters: Which one makes SLA easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25 (2), 313–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A., & Luis, A.
(2012) Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1988) The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6 (3): 391–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E.
(2015) Differential object marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5 (1), 62–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, P.
(2010) Ergativity in Shipibo-Konibo, a Panoan language of the Ucayali. In S. Gildea & F. Queixalós (Eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia (pp. 65–96). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G.
(2003) The interaction of animacy, definiteness and specificity in Spanish. In K. von Heusinger & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop: Semantic and syntactic aspects of specificity in Romance languages (pp. 41–65). Konstanz, Germany: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Zdrojewski, P.
(2013) Spanish DOM as a case of lacking case. Differential Object marking Workshop, University of Tromsø, 23–24.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.
(1985) Clitics and particles. Language, 1 , 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar