Article published in:
The Acquisition and Processing of Spanish and Portuguese Morphosyntax: Theoretical and experimental issues
Edited by Rachel Klassen, Anahí Alba de la Fuente, Joanne Markle LaMontagne and Almudena Basanta y Romero-Valdespino
[Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 29:2] 2016
► pp. 544–581

Object agreement marking and information structure along the Quechua-Spanish contact continuum

| Australian National University
| Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Direct object clitics in Spanish are morphological markers at the interfaces of syntax, phonology, morphology, and information structure (Zwicky, 1985; Ordóñez & Repetti, 2006; Belloro, 2007; Spencer & Luís, 2012). They play an important part in argument morphology in Spanish and are subject to variability in bilingual acquisition (McCarthy, 2008). In this paper we explore the morphology-syntax-information structure mapping of direct object clitics in clitic structures in a range of speakers that includes Quechua-dominant bilinguals and Spanish monolingual individuals along a continuum of language contact situations. Our findings indicate clear dissociation between syntactic properties and marking of morphological features. They also indicate a progression from default gender marking in clitics to a scalar system of clitic forms based on animacy and informational value along the continuum of speakers. Finally, while clitics in liberal clitic doubling varieties receive a focus interpretation (Sánchez, 2010; Sánchez & Zdrojewski, 2013), our data indicate that in some Spanish contact varieties they denote the primary object and secondary topic (Sánchez, 2003; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011; Mayer, 2008, 2013, forthcoming). The findings of this exploratory study support the view that while clitics exhibit common syntactic properties across a continuum of speakers, they may vary in morphological marking and informational value.
Keywords: monolingual and bilingual contact varieties, syntax, information structure, object agreement markers, direct object clitics
Published online: 02 February 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.29.2.07may
References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, K.
(2003) Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 9(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
Belletti, A.
(2005) Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17, 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belloro, V.
(2007) Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface. PhD. Dissertation, SUNY.Google Scholar
Beukema, F., & den Dikken, M.
(Eds.) (2000) Clitic phenomena in European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, T.
(1999) Leísta Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bonet i Alsina, M.E.
(1995) Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 607–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung, Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2003) Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects: Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 17–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, J., & Sánchez, L.
(2002) Explaining clitic variation in Spanish. In M. Amberber & P. Collins (Eds.), Language universals and variation (pp. 21–41). Westport, CT/London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
(2002) Against optional and null clitics: Right dislocation vs. marginali-zation. Studia Linguistica, 56, 29–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casielles-Suárez, E.
(2004) The syntax-information structure interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C.
(1999) A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studio Linguistica, 53, 40–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus, 12(1), 93–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, R.
(1987) Lingüística quechua. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos ‘Bartolomé de las Casas’.Google Scholar
Cerrón Palomino, R.
(2003) Castellano andino: Aspectos sociolingüísticos, pedagógicos y gramaticales. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
Choi, J.K.
(2000) [-Person] direct object drop: The genetic cause of a syntactic feature in Paraguayan Spanish. Hispania, 83, 531–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
(2003) When agreement gets trigger-happy. Transactions of the Philological Society, 23, 50–61.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M.C.
(2003) Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cusihuamán, A.
(2001) Gramática quechua. 2nd edition. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos ‘Bartolomé de las Casas’.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I.
(2011) Objects and information structure. Cambridge: 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, 13–44.Google Scholar
Escobar, A.
(1978) Variaciones sociolingüísticas del castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Escobar, A.M.
(1990) Los bilingües y el castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
(2000) Contacto social y lingüístico: El español en contacto con el quechua en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, I.
(1994) Isoglosas internas del castellano: El sistema referencialdel pronombre átono de tercera persona. Revista de Filología Española, 74, 71–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franco, J.
(1993) On object agreement in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. [Distributed by GSIL Publications, USC Linguistics].Google Scholar
Franco, J., & Huidobro, S.
(2008) Ethical datives, clitic doubling and the theory of pro. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 10th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 215–224). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
García Tesoro, A.I.
(2010) Español en contacto con el tzutujil en Guatemala: Cambios en el sistema pronominal átono de tercera persona. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 133–156.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1983) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granda, G. de
(1988) Notas sobre retenciones sintácticas en el español de Paraguay. Lexis, 12, 43–67.Google Scholar
Harris, J.
(1995) The morphology of Spanish clitics. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honour of Carlos Otero (pp. 169–197). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O.
(1986) Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (pp. 15–42). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1975) French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1989) Null subject and clitic climbing. In K. Safir & O. Jaeggli (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 239–261). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
Klee, C., & Caravedo, R.
(2005) Contact-induced language change in Lima. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 7th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 12–21). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landa, A., & Franco, J.
(1992) Objetos nulos en el castellano del País Vasco (CV): Dos estatus para dos interpretaciones. ASJU International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, 3, 777–792.Google Scholar
(1999) Converging and diverging grammars. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, 33(2), 569–581.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) On morphological competence. In L. Dekydtspotter, R.A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (Eds.). Proceedings of the 7th generative approaches to second language acquisition (GASLA 2004) (pp. 178–92). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2007) Clitics do not encode specificity. In G. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages” (pp. 111–140). Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Lipski, J.
(1994) Latin American Spanish. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
López, L.
(2001) On the (non)complementarity of θ-theory and checking theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 657–701. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Luján, M., & Parodi, T.
(1996) Clitic doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach & L. Silva-Villar (Eds.), Perspectives on Spanish linguistics (pp. 119–138). Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Mayer, E.
(2006) Optional direct object clitic doubling in Limeño Spanish. In M. Butt & T. King Holloway (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 conference (pp. 310–327). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Clitics on the move: From dependent marking to split marking. In M. Butt & T. King Holloway (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 conference (pp. 352- 372). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2010) Syntactic variation of object arguments in Limeño Spanish Contact Varieties. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
(2013) Floating agreement in American Spanish leísta dialects. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 152–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming). Spanish clitics on the move: Variation in time and space. Mouton de Gruyter.
Mayer, E., & Delicado, 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/Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Mayer, M., & Mayer, M.
(1992) One frog too many. New York: Dial Press.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
Nikolaeva, I.
(2001) Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics, 39, 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F.
(1998) Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 313–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F., & Repetti, L.
(2006) Stressed enclitics? In J.P. Montreuil (Ed.), New analyses on Romance linguistics, Volume II: Phonetics, phonology and dialectology (pp. 167–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J.
(2013) Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(2), 221–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, J.
(2000) Distribución y estructura interna de los clíticos del español: Análisis de cuatro fenómenos desde la Morfología Distribuida. Lexis, 24(2), 259–281.Google Scholar
Rivero, M.L.
(1980) On left-dislocation and topicalization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(2), 363–393.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(1991) Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 209–218.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Mondoñedo. M.
(2007) The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object Marking. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J.
(2000) Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saab, A. & P. Zdrojewski
(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.
(1999) Null objects in contact varieties of Spanish. In J.M. Authier & B. Bullock (Eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Quechua-Spanish bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) La aparente opcionalidad del doblado de clíticos en el español limeño. Cuadernos de la ALFAL, 1, 94–105.Google Scholar
(2015) Right peripheral domains and informational structure in Southern Quechua. In A. Muntendam & M. Manley (Eds.), Quechua expressions of stance and deixis (pp. 287–322). Leiden: Brill Studies in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L., & Zdrojewski, P.
(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. Lingüística, 29(2), 271–320.Google Scholar
Spencer, A., & Luís, A.R.
(2012) Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
(1996) Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 213–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1988) The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 391–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Dialectal variation and clitic-doubled direct objects. In C. Kirscher & J. Decesaris (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 377–395). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M., & Yépez, M.
(1988) Null definite objects in Quiteño. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 511–519.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1995) Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79–123.Google Scholar
Villalba, X.
(2000) The syntax of sentence periphery. PhD Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Weber, D.
(1989) A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zagona, K.
(2002) The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zdrojewski, P.
(2013) Spanish DOM as a case of lacking case. Paper presented at the Differential object marking workshop , University of Tromsø, May 23-24, 2013.
Zdrojewski, P., & Sánchez, L.
(2014) Variation in accusative clitic doubling across three Spanish dialects. Lingua, 151, 162–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.L.
(1998) Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.
(1985) Clitics and particles. Language, 61, 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Sánchez, Liliana & Elisabeth Mayer
2018. Typological Differences in Morphological Patterns, Gender Features, and Thematic Structure in the L2 Acquisition of Ashaninka Spanish. Languages 3:2 ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.