THREE TYPES OF PREPOSITIONS IN SPANISH SE …

Dialectologia17(2016),51-70.ISSN:2013-2247

51

Received1December2014.

Accepted10March2015.

THREETYPESOFPREPOSITIONSINSPANISHSESENTENCES.

CONSEQUENCESFORCROSS-DIALECTALSTUDIES

ÁngelJ.GALLEGO

UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona*∗

[email protected]

Abstract

This paper discusses agreement patterns of SE sentences in different Spanish dialects. Special

attention ispaid to situationswhere theverbagreeswithCase-marked internalarguments (cf.Torrego

1998, López 2012) bypassing the preposition (e.g., Se ayudaron a los banqueros, Eng. ‘Bankers were

helped’), and to a previously unnoticed case in which agreement occurs across a non-clitic related

preposition (e.g.,Se sabendediversos factores, Eng. ‘Different factorsareknown’).Amicro-parametric

approachisputforwardwherebytwofunctionalelementsholdthekeytoaccountingforthefacts:onthe

onehand,thefeaturespecificationofvandT(thelocusofstructuralCase)mayvary,and,ontheother,

the precise nature ofwhatwe label “P”may range over three possiblemanifestations: (i) abona fide

preposition,(ii)anapplicativeelement(potentiallyassociatedtoaclitic),and(iii)thespell-outofafeature

withinagivenfunctionalcategory.

Keywords

Spanish,impersonal/passivese,syntax,agreement,prepositions

∗*DepartamentdeFilologiaEspanyola.FacultatdeFilosofia i Lletres.EdificiB.UniversitatAutònomade

Barcelona.08193Bellaterra(Barcelona),Spain.

©Universitat de Barcelona

Á.J.GALLEGO

52

TRESTIPOSDEPREPOSICIONESENORACIONESCONSEDELESPAÑOL.

CONSECUENCIASPARAESTUDIOSDIALECTALES

Resumen

Este artículo discute los patrones de concordancia de oraciones con SE en diferentes dialectos del

español.Seprestaespecialatenciónasituacionesenlasqueelverboconcuerdaconargumentosinternos

quehanrecibidocaso(cf.Torrego1998,López2012),ignorandolapreposiciónquelosintroduce(e.g.,Se

ayudaronalosbanqueros),yaunavariantenodescritapreviamenteenlaquelaconcordanciatienelugar

atravésdeunapreposiciónnorelacionadaconclíticos (e.g.,Sesabendediversos factores).Elpresente

trabajoofreceunplanteamientomicro-paramétricoenelquedoselementosfuncionalessonclavepara

darcuentadeloshechos:porunlado,laespecificaciónmorfológicadevyT(ellocusdelcasoestructural)

puede variar, y, por el otro, la naturaleza específica de lo que llamamos “P” puede adoptar tres

manifestaciones:(i)unapreposiciónbonafide,(ii)unelementoaplicativo(potencialmenteasociadoaun

clítico),y(iii)lamanifestacióndeunrasgodeunacategoríafuncional.

Palabrasclave

español,impersonal/pasivaconSE,sintaxis,concordancia,preposiciones

1.Introduction

It is well-known that preposition stranding is a cross-linguistically restricted

phenomenon (cf. Law 2006 and references therein for discussion). Thus, Romance

languages such as Spanish prevent instances of A-bar movement stranding a

preposition,asnotedbyCampos(1991):

(1) *Quiéncontaron todos con? (Spanish)

whocounted all with

Whodideverybodycounton?

[fromCampos1991:741]

Whatever the factor responsible for (1) (cf. Abels 2003, Hornstein &Weinberg

1981, Kayne1984, and Truswell 2009 for different accounts), it plausibly holds in the

caseofpseudopassives,whichareruledouttoo:



53

(2) *José es contado con portodos(Spanish)

José be counted with byeverybody

Joséiscountedonbyeverybody

[fromCampos1991:741]

The literature on these phenomena has emphasized the empirical observation

that pseudopassivization is more restricted than P-stranding (cf. Abels 2003 and

Truswell2009).Thegoalofthisshortpaperistodiscusspreviouslyunnoticeddatafrom

non-standard Spanish that indicate that this language can display a pseudopassive

patterninthecontextof“SEpassives.”Interestingly,pseudopassivizationisbarredwith

“BE (or periphrastic) passives,” which we take to reinforce the structural and

morphological differences of the vP of SE and BE passives (cf. Mendikoetxea 1992,

1999).

The paper is divided as follows. Section 2 provides overview of the agreement

optionsofSEsentences.Sections3and4discussthepropertiesofwhatiscalled“hybrid

pattern” and what I call “residual pseudopassives” respectively; section 3 further

outlines an account of the facts that capitalizes on the properties of functional

categories,thusadoptingamicro-parametricapproach.Section5summarizesthemain

conclusions.

2.SEsentences:basicproperties

The literature on SE sentences has discussed the morphological and syntactic

intricacies associated to this clitic (cf. Raposo&Uriagereka 1996; D’Alessandro 2007;

Mendikoetxea1992,1999;andLópez2007,amongothers).InthecaseofSpanish,itis

knownthatSEcanparticipateinbothpassive(agreeing)andimpersonal(non-agreeing)

sentences:

(3) a.Sevendieron loscoches PASSIVESE (Spanish)

SEsold-3.pl thecars

Thecarsweresold


Á.J.GALLEGO

54

b.Seayudó alosestudiantes IMPERSONALSE (Spanish)

SEhelped-3.sg tothestudents

Thestudentswerehelped

(3b)isatransivitivesentence,whichinasystemlikeChomsky’s(2001)meansthat

v is φ-complete and assigns accusative Case to the DP object los estudiantes, SE

plausibly occupying the position of the external argument (as argued by Raposo &

Uriagereka1996andLópez2007).(3a),ontheotherhand,isapassivestructure,where

visφ-defective,andtheinternalargumentreceivesnominativeCasefromT.LikeinBE

(or periphrastic) passives, the subject can remain in its base-generation position or

moveto[Spec,TP]:

(4) a.Sevendieronloscoches(Spanish)

SEsold-3.plthecars

Thecarsweresold

b.Loscoches sevendieron(Spanish)

thecarsSEsold-3.pl

Thecarsweresold

ThesetwooptionsforSEsentenceshavebeendocumentedintraditionalatlases,

likeTomásNavarroTomás’ill-fatedALPI(AtlasLingüísticodelaPenínsulaIbérica):



55

(5) a.Secortarontreintapinos(Eng.‘Thirtypineswerecut’)

b.Secastigóalosladrones(Eng.‘Thieveswerepunished’)

[fromdeBenito2010:8,14]

One other well-known fact is that SE passives align with BE passives in many

respects. Interestinglyenough,Mendikoetxea(1999:§26.3.2.2.)notesthatSEpassives

canmanifesteitherfull(person,number)orpartial(defective)agreement,atraditional

observation that goes back to Bello (1847) (cf.Martín Zorraquino 1979 for additional

discussion):


Á.J.GALLEGO

56

(6) a.Sevendenbotellas PASSIVE1(fullagreement) (Spanish)

SEsell-3.plbottles

Bottlesweresold

b.Sevendebotellas PASSIVE2(defectiveagreement)(Spanish)

SEsell-3.plbottles

Bottlesweresold

The second pattern of SE passives (non-agreeing passives, sometimes collapsed

with impersonalpassives) canbe foundalready inOld Spanish, but it is also found in

present-day non-European Spanish, as pointed out inMendikoetxea (1999) and RAE-

ASALE (2009). There are different factors that seem to conspire to yield the second

patternin(6)(cf.RAE-ASALE2009).Ilistthembelow:

(7) a.Thecategoryoftheinternalargument(DPorNP)

b.Thepreverbalorpostverbalpositionoftheinternalargument

c.Thegrammaticalaspectoftheverb(perfectivevs.imperfective)

d.Thepresenceofdativearguments

e.Thespecificproximityoftheinternalargument(localityconditions)

Intheexamplesbelow,wecanseehowthejustlistedfactorshaveanimpacton

agreementprocessesinSEpassives(cf.RAE-ASALE2009:§41.12candff.):

(8) a.Senecesitaaprendices a’.*?Senecesitalosaprendices

SEneed-3.sglearners SEneed-3.sgthelearners

Learnersareneeded Learnersareneeded

b.Aquísenecesitaaprendices b’.*?Aprendicessenecesitaaquí

hereSEneed-3.sglearners learnersSEneed-3.sghere

Learnersareneededhere Learnersareneededhere

c.Sevendelibros c’.?Sevendiólibros

SEsell-3.sgbooks SEsell-3.sgbooks

Booksaresold Booksweresold



57

d.Selesda caramelosalosniños

SEcl.datgive-3.sg candiestothechildren

Childrenaregivencandies

e.Seveíaaunladoyaotrodelcaminolasmansiones...

SEsee-3.sgatonesideandtootherof-thetrackthemansions

Mansionswereseenatonesideandtheotherofthetrack

As for non-European varieties, RAE-ASALE (2009: 3094) notes that “The

distributionisnotperfect[…]ithasbeenobservedthatAndean,Chilean,andRiverPlate

Spanishfeatureoverlappingmoreclearly”(mytranslation).Someexamplesaregivenin

(9),takenfromRAE-ASALE(2009):

(9) a.Ensupartidoserespetalaslibertades... (MexicanSpanish)

inhispartySErespectthefreedoms

Freedomsarerespectedinhisparty

b.Seatendióoncesolicitudes... (MexicanSpanish)

SEattendelevenapplications

Elevenapplicationswereattended

Tosumupsofar,SEpassivesentencesdisplayvariousagreementpatternsinthe

different varieties of Spanish. For themost part, such patterns concern either theφ-

complete/φ-defectivestatusofT(thelocusofnominativeCase)orthepossibilitythat

the internal argument (the would-be subject) is within the search domain of T (cf.

Chomsky2001,Legate2014).Inanyevent,thisvariationconcernsSEpassives,whichdo

notfeatureDOM.WewouldliketoconcentrateonSEsentenceswithDOM(so-calledSE

impersonals),forthesamedichotomyisfoundthere.


Á.J.GALLEGO

58

3.SEpassives(1):thehybridpattern

Asnoted at theoutset of this paper, the clitic SE canparticipate in passive and

impersonalstructures.Therelevantminimalpairwasgivenin(3),andisrepeatedhere

as(10)forconvenience:

(10) a.Sevendieronloscoches PASSIVESE (Spanish)

SEsold-3.plthecars

Thecarsweresold

b.Seayudóalosestudiantes IMPERSONALSE (Spanish)

SEhelped-3.sgtothestudents

Thestudentswerehelped

Although the verb typically fails to agree with the internal argument in (10b),

agreementdoesoccurinsomeinstancesofCase-markedinternalarguments.Abstractly,

thispattern,whichisdubbed“hybrid”byRAE-ASALE(2009),canbedepictedasin(11):

(11) [SET[VPV...[aXP]]]

⏐____________↑

Again,we see that agreementmayormaynot occur already in previous stages

andinnon-EuropeanvarietiesofSpanish:

(12) a.Aestosnosepuedenpremiar (Quijote)

tothesenotSEcan-3.plaward

Thesecannotbeawarded

b.Sepremiaronalosmejoresjinetes (SalvadorHoy)

SEaward-3.pltothebestriders

Thebestriderswereawarded

[fromRAE-ASALE2009]



59

If we consider impersonal SE more closely, notice that the v of this structure

shouldbev*,thuscapableofassigningaccusative.However, itseemsthatthisCase is

restrictedtoanimateinternalarguments:

(13) a.*Elarroz,selocomecadadomingo (Spanish)

thericeSEiteat-3.sgeverySunday

Therice,itiseateneverySunday [fromOrdóñez2004:6]

b.Aunhombre,noselojuzgasinpruebas (Spanish)

toamannotSEhimjudgewithoutproof

Amanisnotjudgedwithoutevidence

Thispatternseemsprettyrobust.Soonecouldassumethegeneralizationin(14):

(14) IftheinternalargumentisCase-marked(a-XP),thenSEvisv*(φ-complete)

Thissaid,therearesomeexceptions.Theexamplein(15)indicatesthat,incertain

circumstances,vcanassignaccusativeevenwithinanimate(nonCase-marked)internal

arguments(thesentenceisadaptedfromMarías2008):

(15) Cuandosereproduceloacontecido,sinquererselodeforma(Spanish)

whenSEreproduceithappenedwithoutwantSEitdistort-3.sg

Whenonereproduceswhathashappened,onedistortsitinvoluntarily

ItseemsthatthispatternishighlyrestrictedinthecaseofEuropeanSpanish.Itis

moreactiveinnon-Europeanvarieties.Inparticular,RAE-ASALE(2009:§41.12m)argues

that accusative assigning v* with inanimate internal arguments is licensed in the

Andean,Chilean,andRiverPlateareas.

(16) a.Seplanificanlosescapes,selostecnologiza (Spanish)

SEplan-3.pltheescapesSECLtechnologize

Escapesareplanned,theyaretechnologized


Á.J.GALLEGO

60

b.Fracasansolocuandoselasusamal (Spanish)

fail-3.pljustwhenSECLuse-3.sgbad

Theyfailonlywhentheyareusedinawrongway

c.Selosentiendesinquehayansidoexplicados (Spanish)

SECLunderstand-3.sgwithoutthathavebeenexplained

Theyareunderstoodwithouthavingbeenexplained

[fromRAE-ASALE2009:3098]

Onemoreexamplesofthisexoticpatternis(17),thistimefromEuropeanSpanish

(cf.MartínZorraquino1979,Fernández-Ordóñez1999):

(17) a.Esteúltimo[avión]yaestálistoydebeserretirado,puesporcadadíaquepasa

ynoseloutilizasepierdedineroyademáshayquepagarmulta

(LaNación,7-IX-1975,pág.20,c-7,apudMartínZorraquino1979

This lastplaneisreadyandmustbetakenaway,sinceeverydaythatgoesonandit is

notusedwelosemoneyandwehavetopay

b.Ellomoselodaunavueltaenlasartén,selometealaolla,selocubrecon

aceitedeoliva

Themeathastobeturnedupsidedowninthepan,youputit intothepot,youcoverit

witholiveoil

(CampodeSanPedro,Segovia,COSER3702,apudFernández-Ordóñez1999)

[fromdeBenito2013:147]

Insum,pronominalizationofCase-marked internalarguments, likeaPedro (Eng.

‘toPedro’)in(18),asin(19):

(18) SecriticaaPedro (Spanish)

SEcriticizetoPedro

Pedroiscriticized



61

(19) Pronominalizationof(18)(#indicatesthattheformisnotpreferred)

a.Selocritica (non-leísta/AmericanSpanish)

b.Se{#lo/le}critica (leísta/EuropeanSpanish)

This raises the question whether Case-marked internal arguments receive true

accusative. If they do not, then that would explain the restricted availability of lo/la

(onlywithanimates),andthepreferenceforleinEuropeanSpanish.Thisprocessoflo>

le shift with SE can be seen even by speakers that are not leístas withmasculine in

regulartransitivesentences,asnotedbyOrdóñez(2004).

(20) Sihayquefusilar-lo,SElefusila (EuropeanSpanish)

ifthere-be-3.sgthatshoot-CLSECLshoot-3.sg

Ifhemustbeshot,heisshot

[fromP.Preston,Franco,citedbyOrdóñez2004]

Unlike European Spanish, Mexican Spanish shows no le clitic with standard

transitivesentences—itisanon-leístadialect.Alldirectobjects,masculineorfeminine,

deploythestandardmasculinevs.femininedistinction:lo/la.Thiscanbeseenin(21):

(21) a.AJuanlovieron contento (MexicanSpanish)

toJuanCLsee-3.pl happy

Juan,hewasseenhappy

b.AMaríalavieroncontenta (MexicanSpanish)

toMaríaCLsee-3.plhappy

María,shewasseenhappy

However,inthepresenceofSE,MexicanSpanishobligatorilyshiftstole.

(22) a.AJuanSEleviocontento (MexicanSpanish)

toJuanSECLseehappy

Juan,hewasseenhappy


Á.J.GALLEGO

62

b.AMaríaSEleviocontenta (MexicanSpanish)

toMaríaSECLseehappy

María,shewasseenhappy

This shift to le does not occur in Río de la Plata Spanish. This south-American

dialect, contrary to Mexican Spanish or European Spanish, has doubling with Case-

markedinternalargumentsbeyondstrongpronouns:

(23) a.(lo) vi aJuan (RiverPlateSpanish)

CLsaw-1.sgtoJuan

IsawJuan

b.*(la)vi alalibreta (RiverPlateSpanish)

CLsaw-2.sgtothenotebook

Isawthenotebook

Inthisdialectnoleshiftoccurswithdirectobjects:

(24) a.Se(lo)escuchó[alniño] (RiverPlateSpanish)

SECLheard-3.sgto-theboy

Theboywasheard

b.Se(la)escuchó[alaniña] (RiverPlateSpanish)

SECLheard-3.sgto-theboy

Thegirlwasheard

Descriptively, Spanishdialects that allow clitic doublingwithCase-markeddirect

objectsdonotshifttoleinimpersonalSEconstructions(cf.Ordóñez&Treviño2007for

anaccount).

From all the discussion above, one can plausibly conclude that impersonal

sentenceswithSEaredividedintotwodialectsinSpanish:



63

(25) a.DialectA:visφ-defective(accusativeunavailable)

b.DialectB:visφ-complete(accusativeavailable)

Technically,thisamountsto(26):

(26) a.DialectA: [vPv[VPV[PPa[DPOBLIQUE]] (leístaSpanish)

⏐___↑

b.DialectB: i.[vPvφ[VPV[KPaDPACC]]] (non-leístaSpanish)

⏐___________↑

ii.[...Tφ...[vPv[VPV[KPaDPNOM]]] (hybridpattern)

⏐___________________↑

As reported byOrdóñez& Treviño (2007),Mexican andArgentinian varieties of

Spanish, which belong to dialect B, may show agreement with an internal argument

precededbyaccusativea(theaforementioned“hybridpattern”).

(27) a.Finalmente,secastigaronalosculpables(MexicanSpanish)

finallySEpunished-3.pltotheculprits

Finally,theculpritswerepunished

b.Seevacuaronamásde120.000damnificados (ArgentinianSpanish)

SEevacuated-3.pltomoreof12.000damaged

Morethan120.000damagedpeoplewereevacuated

[fromOrdóñez&Treviño2007:12]

The data in (27) pose a puzzle. They clearly indicate that the φ-Probe in T can

agree with the internal argument, but this is unexpected, given that the latter has

alreadybeenCasemarked(byv),andisthus“inactive”inChomsky’s(2001)terms.Itis

nonethelesspossible⎯andit iswhatwewouldliketoproposehere⎯thatdialectB

dividesfurtherintoasubdialectthatfailstoCasemarktheinternalargument.

Awaytogoaboutthissubtlermicro-parametricdistinctionistotakeSpanishato

varywithin the relevant varieties. Building onmuch literature on this topic (cf. López


Á.J.GALLEGO

64

2012, Torrego 1998, and references therein), we assume that the vocabulary item a

correspondstothreedifferentelementsinSpanish:

(28) Athree-wayanalysisforainSpanish

a.Aspell-outofatruepreposition

b.Thespell-outofaCase/clitic-relatedprojection(cf.López2012,Torrego1998)

c.Thespell-outofafeatureofaCase/clitic-relatedprojection

Clearly,inthevarietiesofSpanishthatlicense(28b),aisnotapreposition,andit

isnotthestandardCase-markingmorphemeofDOM—forotherwiseagreementwould

fail —, so we are left with option (28c): a is the spell-out of a feature, not even a

projecting category. Given that the v of dialect Bii is φ-defective and that a is not a

preposition,itfollowsthattheinternalargumentcanlong-distanceagreewithT.

HavingconsideredthebasicCase-agreementconfigurationswhereSEisinvolved,

wewould like tobriefly considerapattern that seems tobe intimately related to the

onein(28c),andwhichquicklyevokestheprofileofpseudopassivestructures.

4.SEpassives(2):residualpseudopassives

Asjustnoted,theexamplesin(27)showthattheφ-ProbeonTcanlong-distance

agree with the internal argument, ignoring the would-be preposition — actually a

feature,underthepresentaccount—a.Thisissomewhatsurprising,asitresemblesa

pseudopassive.

Yetmuchmoresurprisingly,othervariants(mainlyAmerican)ofSpanishdialectA

manifest agreement with DPs contained in lexical PPs. The following data are from

differenton-linesources:

(29) a.Dijoquesehablaronconlas autoridades (AmericanSpanish)

saythatSEtalked-3.plwiththe authorities

Hesaidthattheauthoritiesweretalkedto

[http://www.santiagodigital.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13837&Itemid

=17]



65

b. EnSantiagoanocheseinformarondecuatrohomicidios(AmericanSpanish)

inSantiagolastnightSEinformed-3.ploffourhomicides

FourhomicideswerereportedlastnightinSantiago

[http://www.periodismoglobal.cl/2006/08/la-democracia-de-la-udi.html]

c. Elcomercioonlinesumó[...]100millonesdetransacciones(AmericanSpanish)

thetradeonlineadded-3.sg100millionsoftransactions

[...]cuandosellegaronalos74,3millonesdeoperaciones

whenSEarrived-3.pltothe74,3millionsofoperations

The online trading added 100million transactions when 74,3 million operations were

reached

[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/comercio/electronico/volvio/batir/record/2010/elp

epueco/20110506elpepueco_7/Tes]

d. Enrealidadsedependendetantosfactores (AmericanSpanish)

inrealitySEdepend-3.plofso-manyfactors

queestoprovocaunaextremadificultad

thatthisprovokesaextremedifficulty

Actually,onedependsonsomanyfactorsthatitmakesthingsextremelydifficult

[http://diegotenis9.wordpress.com/]

MoredatacanbeobtainedfromtheCREAdatabase,andfromGoogle:

(30) a.Sólosedisponendedatosdematrículas... (ElSalvador)

justSEdispose-3.plofdataofregistration

Wejusthavedataonregistration

b.Aunquenosedisponendecifrasexactas... (CostaRica)

althoughnotSEdispose-3.plofnumbersexact

Althoughwedon’thaveexactnumbers


Á.J.GALLEGO

66

c.Sísesabendediversosfactoresqueinfluyen... (Spain)

yesSEknow-3.plofdiversefactorsthatinfluence

Wedoknowfactorsthatinfluence

[fromCREA:http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html]

(31) a.Todavíaseconfíanenlosmilagros (México)

yetSEtrust-3.plinthemiracles

Theystillbelieveinmiracles

[http://www.sinembargo.mx/30-03-2014/947521]

b.Cuandosehablandelassupuestasdesigualdades (Chile)

whenSEtalk-3.ploftheallegedasymmetries

Whentheytalkabouttheallegedasymmetries

[http://blog.lanacion.cl/2014/03/11/desigualdades-de-genero-en-el-emprendimiento/]

These data are rather restricted due to normative pressures, but they are not

isolatedon-linehits.Themainconclusiontobedrawnfrom(29)isthatcertaindialects

ofSpanishdisplay,contrarytowhatistypicallyassumed,pseudopassives.

This raises at least two questions. The first one is whether, apart from “SE

pseudopassives”,Spanishcanalsodisplay“BEpseudopassives”.Theanswerisnegative,

assentenceslikethosein(32)areruledoutbyAmericanSpanishspeakers,whofinda

sharpasymmetrywithrespecttotheexamplesin(30-31):

(32) a.*Fueronhabladasconlasautoridades (AmericanSpanish)

be-3.pltalked-3.fem.plwiththeauthorities

Authoriteswerespokento

b.*Fueroninformadosdecuatrohomicidios (AmericanSpanish)

be-3.plinformed-3.masc.ploffourhomicides

Fourhomicideswerereported



67

The asymmetry between (30-31) and (32) provides support for the idea that SE

andBEpassivesaremorphologicallyandsyntacticallydifferent,ashasbeenargued in

theliterature(cf.Mendikoetxea1999).

Thesecondquestionisaparametricone:Howdoesagreementtakeplaceinsuch

varietiesofSpanish?Atfirstglance,thedialectsallowing(30-31)mustbeabletolicense

a‘reanalysis’process(howeveritmustbeimplemented,anissuewecannotinvestigate

here;cf.Hornstein&Weinberg1981,Kayne1975,2004,amongmanyothers)whereby

Tcanlong-distanceagreewiththecomplementsofP.

It is important to point out, to conclude, that even though pseudopassivization

seemstobeanoptioninSpanish,prepositionstrandingisstillimpossible.Thatistosay,

sentenceslikethosein(30-31)withtheagreeingDPin[Spec,TP](afterA-movement)or

[Spec,CP](afterA-barmovement)areimpossible.Whatistrulysurprising,andhasgone

unnoticedintheliterature,istheveryexistenceoftheexamplesin(30-31).Thisnotonly

suggests that Spanish does have a residual type of pseudopassives, it also seems to

threaten theempirical generalization thatpseudopassivesarecross-linguisticallymore

restrictedthanprepositionstranding.

5.Conclusions

Thispaperhasmadetwointerestingpoints.Ontheempiricalside,wehaveshown

that, alongwith the hybrid pattern of SE sentences, somedialects of Spanish feature

whatappeartobesomeformofpseudopassiveconstruction(seedatain30and31).Of

course,amorecarefulstudyisneeded,andthefactorstocontrolforare(atleast)the

following:(i)thetypeofverb(non-pronominal,agentive)thatallowspseudopassives,(ii)

thetypeofprepositionthatcanbecomeinertforagreementprocesses,(iii)thecategory

of the agreeing element (DP or NP), and (iv) the relevant source of data (journal,

newspaper,forum,CREA,Google,etc.).Quitepossibly,thesecouldjustbetyposorthe

resultoforalspeech,butthefactthatthis‘extended’hybrid(pseudopassive, ifweare

correct)patternisnotfoundwithadjuncts.Inotherwords,exampleslikethosein(33)

areunattested.


Á.J.GALLEGO

68

(33) a.*Sehablaronenlasaulas (Spanish)

SEtalk-3.plintheclass

Peopletalkintheclass

b.*Seaspiraronalpuestopormuchosmotivos(Spanish)

SEaspire-3.plto-thepositionformanyreasons

Peopleaspiretothepositionformanyreasons

Onthetheoreticalside,thispaperhasarguedthatthenatureofprepositionsmust

be divided into three types. The distinction between lexical and functional (or fake)

prepositions isnotnew in the field (cf.Abels2003,Cuervo2003,Demonte1987,1991,

1995,Pesetsky&Torrego2004,Romero2011),butwehavetriedtosharpenitinorderto

accountforthe(28b)/(28c)distinction.Muchworkisrequiredinthestudyoffunctional

categories,especiallyinthecontextofdialectalvariation,andthispaperisnothingbuta

smallcontributiontothisgoal.

References

ABELS, K. (2003) Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding, PhD Dissertation,

UniversityofConnecticut.

BELLO,A.(1847)Gramáticadelalenguacastellana,destinadaalusodelosamericanos,edición

connotasdeRufinoJoséCuervo,2vols.,RamónTrujillo(ed.),Madrid:Arco/Libros.

BENITO, C. de (2010) “Las oraciones pasivas e impersonales con SE: Estudio sobre el ALPI”,

Dialectologia,5,1-25.<http://www.publicacions.ub.edu/revistes/dialectologia5/>

BENITO, C. de (2013) “(Esa tela) se la descose: La pronominalización del paciente en las

impersonalesreflejasdelespañolpeninsular”,Borealis,2.2,129-157.

CAMPOS,H.(1991)“PrepositionStrandinginSpanish?”,LinguisticInquiry,22,741-750.

CHOMSKY,N.(2001)“DerivationbyPhase”,inM.Kenstowicz(ed.),KenHale:ALifeinLanguage,

Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1-52.

CUERVO,M.C.(2003)Dativesatlarge,PhDdissertation,MIT.



69

D’ALESSANDRO, R. (2007) Impersonal Si constructions: agreement and interpretation, Berlin:

MoutondeGruyter.

DEMONTE,V.(1987)“C-command,prepositionsandpredication”,LinguisticInquiry,18,147-157.

DEMONTE,V.(1991)Detrásdelapalabra.Estudiosdegramáticadelespañol,Madrid:Alianza.

DEMONTE,V.(1995)“DativealternationinSpanish”,Probus,7,5-30.

FERNÁNDEZ-ORDÓÑEZ, I. (1999) “Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo”, in I. Bosque and V. Demonte (dirs.),

GramáticaDescriptivadelaLenguaEspañola,Madrid,Espasa-Calpe,1317-1397.

HORNSTEIN,N.&A.WEINBERG(1981)“Casetheoryandprepositionstranding”,LinguisticInquiry,

12,55-91.

KAYNE,R.(1975)Frenchsyntax,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

KAYNE,R.(1984)Connectednessandbinarybranching,Dordrecht:Foris.

KAYNE, R. (2004) “Prepositions as probes”, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. The

CartographyofSyntacticStructures,vol.3,Oxford,NY:OxfordUniversityPress,192-212.

LAW,P. (2006)“Prepositionstranding”, inM.Everaert&H.vanRiemsdijk (eds.),TheBlackwell

companiontosyntax,Oxford:Blackwell,631-684.

LEGATE,J.(2014)Voiceandv,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

LÓPEZ,L.(2007)LocalityandtheArchitectureofSyntacticDependencies,NewYork:Palgrave.

LÓPEZ,L.(2012)Indefiniteobjects.DifferentialObjectMarking,ScramblingandChoiceFunctions,

Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

MARÍAS, J. (2008) “Sobre la dificultad de contar”, Discurso de ingreso en la Real Academia

Española,27deabrilde2008,Madrid:RealAcademiaEspañola.

MARTÍN ZORRAQUINO, M. A. (1979) Las construcciones pronominales en español. Paradigma y

desviaciones,Madrid:Gredos.

MENDIKOETXEA, A. (1992)On the nature of Agreement: The Syntax of ARB SE in Spanish, PhD

Dissertation,UniversityofYork.

MENDIKOETXEA,A. (1999)“Construccionesconse:medias,pasivase impersonales”, in I.Bosque

and V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa

Calpe,1575-1630.

ORDÓÑEZ, F. (2004) “Se Across Romance”, Talk given at GURT conference, Georgetown

University.

ORDÓÑEZ,F.&E.TREVIÑO(2007)“UnambiguousSE”,TalkgivenatXVIIColloquiumonGenerative

Grammar,UniversitatdeGirona(Girona),13-15June2007.


Á.J.GALLEGO

70

PESETSKY, D. & E. TORREGO (2004) “Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories”, in J.

Guéron&J.Lecarme(eds.),Thesyntaxoftime,Cambridge,MA:MITPress,495-537.

REALACADEMIAESPAÑOLABancodedatos(CREA)[online].Corpusdereferenciadelespañolactual.

<http://www.rae.es>[Retrieved20April2014].

RAE-ASALE(2009)NuevaGramáticadelaLenguaEspañola,Madrid:Espasa.

RAPOSO, E.& J.URIAGEREKA (1996) “IndefiniteSE”,Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory, 14,

749-810.

ROMERO,J.(2011)Losdativosenespañol,Madrid:ArcoLibros.

TORREGO,E.(1998)TheDependenciesofObjects,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

TRUSWELL, R. (2009) “Preposition-stranding, Passivisation, and Extraction from Adjuncts in

Germanic”,LinguisticVariationYearbook,8,131-177.


Documents

THREE TYPES OF PREPOSITIONS IN SPANISH SE …