Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T23:19:22.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Properties of the Verb Phrase: Argument Structure, Ellipsis, and Negation

from Part III - Spanish Morphosyntax and Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

By
Iván Ortega-Santos
Edited by
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the on-going debates concerning the study of the verb phrase in Spanish with an emphasis on (i.) verb classes, (ii.) clausal ellipsis, and (iii.) sentential negation. With regard to (i.), particular attention is paid to the linguistic properties of the various verb classes in Spanish and to the lexicon-syntax interface. Study cases such as the syntax of ditransitive verbs, the encoding of path and motion in the verb, the locality properties of the dependents of the verb, and so-called Differential Object Marking help illustrate the discussion. As far as (ii.) is concerned, this chapter will emphasize current theorizing on the content of the ellipsis site and the mechanism involved in the interpretation of the ellipsis. Finally, the chapter focuses on recent approaches to clausal negation, including but not limited to so-called negative concord and its relevance for our understanding of clausal structure.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics , pp. 307 - 328
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aelbrecht, L. (2016). What Ellipsis Can Do for Phases and What it Can’t, but not How. The Linguistic Review, 33 (2), 453–482.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21 (3), 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2007). Post-Verbal Nominatives: An Unaccusativity Diagnostic under Scrutiny. Talk at On Linguistic Interfaces (OnLI) Workshop, University of Ulster.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP Checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16 (3), 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, G. (2016). Spanish Unspecified Objects as Null Incorporated Nouns. Probus, 28 (2), 165–229.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1997). Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassa Vanrell, M. del M. and Romeu, J. (2014). A Minimal Cartography of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Iberia, 6, 75–104.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. and Nishida, C. (2010). The Spanish Dative Alternation Revisited. In Colina, S., Olarrea, A., and Carvalho, A. M. (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych Verbs and a-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6 (3), 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, E. (1998). Verb Movement and its Effects on Determinerless Plural Subjects. In Schwegler, A., Tranel, B., and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, T. (2003). Properties of the Double Object Construction in Spanish. In Núñez-Cedeño, R., López, L., and Cameron, R. (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–252.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Wurmbrand, S. (2013). Suspension across Domains. In Matushansky, O. and Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today – Morphemes for Morris Halle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 185–198.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2012). Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2014). Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 45 (1), 27–89.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (1980). Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (1994). La negación y el principio de las categorías vacías. In Demonte, V. (ed.), Gramática del español. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, pp. 167–199.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. and Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Casielles-Suárez, E. (2004). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, H. (1986). Spanish Bare NPs and the ECP. In Bordelois, I. and Zagona, K. (eds.), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at Large (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1995). Dative Alternation in Spanish. Probus, 7, 5–30.Google Scholar
Depiante, M. A. (2000). The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null Complement Anaphora and Stripping/Bare Argument Ellipsis (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1978). The Verbal Complex V’–V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9 (2), 151–175.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. (2000). On the Semantic Status of N-Words in Catalan and Spanish. Lingua, 110 (8), 557–580.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the Art. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2 (2), 1–80.Google Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, O. (1999). Two Types of Impersonal Sentences in Spanish: Locative and Dative Subjects. Syntax, 2 (2), 101–140.Google Scholar
Folli, R. (2001). Constructing Telicity in English and Italian (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Franco, J. (1992). Towards a Typology of Psych Verbs: Evidence from Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”, 27, 119–134.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2007). Phase Theory and Parametric Variation (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2009). Ellipsis by Phase. Talk at the XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Available from http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/membres/professors/gallego/pdf/GAL_vitoria.pdf (last access November 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2015). Subjunctive Dependents in Iberian Romance: A Reprojection Account. Sintagma, 27, 25–42.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. and Uriagereka, J. (2007). Conditions on Sub-Extraction. In Eguren, L. and Fernández Soriano, O. (eds.), Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–70.Google Scholar
González López, V. (2008). Spanish Clitic Climbing (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2001). The EPP in Spanish. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), Objects and Other Subjects: Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 193–223.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. and Lipták, A. (2014). Contrast and Island Sensitivity in Clausal Ellipsis. Syntax, 17 (3), 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2006). A Reinterpretation of Quirky Subjects and Related Phenomena in Spanish. In Montreuil, J. P. and Nishida, C. (eds.), New Perspectives in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and Zanuttini, R. (1991). Negative Heads and the Neg Criterion. The Linguistic Review, 8 (2–4), 233–251.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. and Sag, I. (1976). Deep and Surface Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7 (3), 391–426.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2003). Possession and the Double Object Construction. In Pica, P. and Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistics Variation Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 231–270.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2011). A Minimalist Approach to Argument Structure. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 427–448.Google Scholar
Herburger, E. (2001). The Negative Concord Puzzle Revisited. Natural Language Semantics, 9 (3), 289–333.Google Scholar
Hernanz, M. L. (1999). El infinitivo. In Bosque, I. and Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 3. Madrid: Espasa, pp. 2197–2356.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1986). Arbitrary Plural Nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4 (1), 43–76.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. (2009). On the Composite Nature of Subject Islands: A Phase-Based Approach. Sky Journal of Linguistics, 22, 91–138.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. (2015). Towards a Typology of Focus: Subject Position and Microvariation at the Discourse–Syntax Interface. Ampersand: An International Journal of General and Applied Linguistics, 2, 49–60.Google Scholar
Jurka, J. (2009). Gradient Acceptability and Subject Islands in German (Qualifying Paper). University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, A. (2009). The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1981). Unambiguous Paths. In May, R. and Koster, J. (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2006). On Parameters and on Principles of Pronunciation. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 289–299.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2009). What Can the Subjunctive Disjoint Reference Effect Tell Us about the Subjunctive? Lingua, 119 (12), 1788–1810.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. (2006). La teoría de pro y el sujeto pre / postverbal. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 246–323.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991). The Position of Subjects. Lingua, 85 (2–3), 211–258.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing Negation. In Barker, C. and Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, pp. 237–259.Google Scholar
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (3), 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1983). On the Nature of Ergativity (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
López, L. (2009). A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite Objects. Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1997). No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 4 (2), 201–225.Google Scholar
Masullo, P. (1992). Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. (2002). Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax–Semantics Interface (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. and Rigau, G. (2002). A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes: Parametric Variation at the Lexicon–Syntax Interface. In Alexiadou, A. (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–236.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A. (1999). Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. Bosque, In I. and Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2. Madrid: Espasa, pp. 1575–1631.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27 (6), 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakao, C. (2009). Island Repair and Non-Repair by PF Strategies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. (1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Olarrea, A. (1996). Pre- and Postverbal Subject Positions in Spanish: A Minimalist Account (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. (2000). The Clausal Structure of Spanish: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ormazábal, J. and Romero, J. (2010). The Derivation of Dative Alternations. In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 203–232.Google Scholar
Ormazábal, J. and Romero, J. (2013). Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 25 (2), 301–344.Google Scholar
Ortega-Santos, I. (2016). On Focus-Related Operation at the Right Edge in Spanish: Subjects and Ellipsis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ott, D. and Struckmeier, V. (2016). Deletion in Clausal Ellipsis: Remnants in the Middle Field. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 22 (1), 225–234.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Jaeger, J. J., Woodbury, A. C., Ackerman, F., Chiarello, C., Gensler, O. D., Kingston, J., Sweetser, E. E., Thompson, H., and Whistler, K. W. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 157–189.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. (2013). Romance Double Object Constructions and Transitivity Alternations. In Boone, E., Kohlberger, M., and Schulpen, M. (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XX. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, pp. 185–211.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (3), 365–424.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovan, M. and Levin, B. (2008). The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44 (1), 129–167.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. and Siloni, T. (2005). The Lexicon–Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other Arity Operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (3), 389–436.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1976). Ristrutturazione. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 1 (1), 1–54.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17 (4), 501–557.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Mondoñedo, M. (2007). The Syntax of Objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Romero, J. (1997). Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Saab, A. (2008). Hacia una teoría de la identidad parcial en la elipsis (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2009). The Causative Alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 (2), 641–681.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An Experimental Investigation of Syntactic Satiation Effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31 (4), 575–582.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the Nature of Syntactic Variation: Evidence from Complex Predicates and Complex Word Formation. Language, 77 (2), 324–342.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A Program for Experimental Syntax: Finding the Relationship between Acceptability and Grammatical Knowledge (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., and Almeida, D. (2013). A Comparison of Informal and Formal Acceptability Judgments using a Random Sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2001). Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1995). Negative Elements, Island Effects and Resumptive no. The Linguistic Review, 12 (3), 233–373.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1989). Unergative Unaccusative Alternations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 253–272.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Tubau, S. (2008). Negative Concord in English and Romance: Syntax–Morphology Interface Conditions on the Expression of Negation (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-Out. In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–282.Google Scholar
Valmala, V. (2008). Topic, Focus and Quantifier Float. In Beaskoetxea, X. Artiagoitia and Andrinua, J. Lakarra (eds.), Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenagaren omenez. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 837–857.Google Scholar
Wilinski-Hodel, M. (2007). Comportamiento semántico-pronominal de los verbos psicológicos que presentan la alternancia dativa/acusativa (MA Thesis). University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Nakao, C., and Ortega-Santos, I. (2014). Ellipsis. In Carnie, A., Sato, Y., and Siddiqi, D. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Syntax. London: Routledge, pp. 192–213.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. and Oh, E. (2007). On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×