Presented at LAGB 2012 in Salford

1. Indirect Object Clitic Doubling
Constructions in Spanish and
the Applicative Head
Rebecca Woods
University of York
rlw523@york.ac.uk
LAGB 2012

2. Research Question
• Dative constructions come in two principal forms:
o prepositional construction (PC)
“The boy gave the ball to the dog”
o double-object construction (DOC)
“The boy gave the dog the ball”
• A minority of languages (around 28 out of 170, Siewierska, 1996) feature
dative alternation, using both of the above constructions. The others are
limited to one construction for all ditransitive verbs
• Some languages, like Greek, Romanian and Spanish, feature a third option
which resembles a PC but doubles the indirect object with a clitic:
o Indirect object clitic doubling construction (IODC)
Juan le envío el libro a su pariente
Juan CL sent the book to his relative
• This option is like a DOC in terms of its interpretation, but is like a PC in
terms of the movement which is permitted
• MY QUESTIONS:
o What forms the basis for the clitic?
o How does the clitic bring about the mixed characteristics of the IODC?

3. Ditransitive constructions
• Larson (1988, 1990)
– Transformational approach
PC = base form
DOC = formed by passive-like
movement of IO to Spec(lower)VP

4. Ditransitive constructions
• Pesetsky (1995); Harley (1997, 2002)
– “Alternative projection” approaches with
decomposed CAUSE predicates
PC = Locative feature on P DOC = “Have” feature on P

5. Ditransitive constructions
• Pylkkänen’s (2002, 2008) on low
Applicatives, Bruening (2010) incorporates
Appl
DOC: IO generated in SpecApplP, which
PC
intervenes between VoiceP/VP or vP/VP

6. PCs and DOCs: characteristics
• PCs
– DO can bind into IO, not vice versa
*John showed heri daughter to Maryi
– IO can be inanimate
– DO may be raised and passivized
• DOCs
– Scope freezing effects (NP1 takes wide scope)
– IO can bind into DO, not vice versa
*Lisa gave itsi author the booki
– Stronger sense of possession; IO must be a valid
recipient/benefactor
– DO may not be raised or passivized

7. The third option: IODCs
• Juan envió el libro a su pariente (PC)
Juan sent the book to his relative
• *Juan envió su pariente el libro (*DOC)
Juan sent his relative the book
• Juan le envió el libro a su pariente (IODC)
Juan CL sent the book to his relative

8. The third option: IODCs
Scope Binding IO animacy DO
Construction freezing asymmetry restriction DO passive unaccusative DO raising
PC N N N Y Y Y
Spanish DOC - - - - - -
IODC Y Y Y Y Y Y
PC N N N Y Y Y
Greek DOC Y Y Y ?N ?N N
IODC Y Y Y Y Y Y
PC N N N Y Y Y
English DOC Y Y Y N N N
IODC - - - - - -

9. The Applicative Head as Clitic
• Proposal
– The key difference in the structure of the DOC and
IODC as opposed to the PC is the Appl phrase
– Following Bruening (2010), the IO is generated in
SpecApplP
– Through the Spec-Head relationship in ApplP, Appl
forms the basis for the IO clitic
• Consequences
– The presence of Appl induces DOC-like restrictions on
the IO, scope and binding
– The movement of the clitic permits the DO to raise
within the vP, giving the surface structure of the PC

10. Characteristics of the clitic
• Does not match determiner paradigm – typical of
dative clitics in Romance languages (le in Spanish, lui in
French, etc.)
• Agrees with IO in number and case, but not gender
– Franco (2001) and Anagnostopoulou (2006) for evidence
that [+animate] overrides [+gender]
• Encodes possession relationship between DO and IO
– Clitics in other contexts e.g. inalienable possession
Le lavaron los manos a Luis
CL wash-3pl the hands of Luis

11. Movement of the clitic

12. Consequences
• Scope freezing
– Clitic takes on φ-features of IO, therefore has a Q-
feature to be valued by an appropriate scopal head
(cf. Beghelli and Stowell, 1997; Tsoulas, 2003)

13. Scopal Heads
Tsoulas , 2003; based on Beghelli and Stowell, 1997

14. Consequences
• Scope freezing
– Clitic takes on φ-features of IO, therefore has a Q-
feature to be valued by an appropriate scopal head
(cf. Beghelli and Stowell 1997, Tsoulas 2003)
– IO always takes wide scope:
IODC Juan le mandó a un pariente cada cuadro un>cada,
IO>DO Juan CL sent to a relative each painting *cada>un
IODC Juan le mandó cada cuadro a un pariente un>cada,
DO>IO Juan CL sent each painting to a relative *cada>un
PC Juan mandó cada cuadro a un pariente un>cada,
Juan sent each painting to a relative cada>un

15. Consequences (cont.)
• Binding asymmetries
IODC: La profesora le entregó su dibujo a cada niño
The teacher CL gave his/her drawing to each child
IODC: ?La profesora le entregó cada dibujo a su autor
The teacher CL gave each drawing to its author
PC: *La profesora entregó su dibujo a cada niño
The teacher gave his/her drawing to each child
• Animacy restrictions
PC: Juan envío el libro a Sonia / a Nueva York
Juan sent the book to Sonia / to New York
IODC: Juan le envío el libro a Sonia / *a Nueva York
Juan CL sent the book to Sonia / *to New York

16. Consequences (cont.)
• DO movement
– To achieve canonical DO>IO word order
• Both word orders unmarked in the IODC, unlike in PCs
• IO>DO underlying order
• DO>IO order motivated by EPP feature on v (cf. Torrego
(2002) on psych predicates
• Only DO is viable target to avoid feature clash in CP
• DO must be interpreted as specific
La abuela les entregó *(los) juguetes a los niños
The grandmother CL gave (the) toys to the children
La abuela les entregó a los niños juguetes
The grandmother CL gave to the children toys

17. Consequences (cont.)
• DO movement
– Passivisation and raising (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003 on Greek)
• Movement of the clitic in T -> DO and IO equally close for
attraction by EPP in T
• IO features on clitic in same minimal domain as the target of
movement
• Passivisation and unaccusative constructions licit in IODCs
(though not normally licit in DOCs)
El premio Nobel (le) fue concedido a Cela el año pasado
The Nobel Prize CL was awarded to Cela last year
[A los alumnos] *(les) gusta el libro
To the student CL pleased the book
Examples from Anagnostopoulou (2003)

18. Conclusion and next steps
• Most minimal method as does not rely on new/unnecessary
functional projections with no other interpretative effects, e.g. ClP
(Sportiche)
• Presence of Appl well-motivated as the locus of relations between
IO and DO
• Appl shown to be an overt inflection in Bantu languages; leading
towards cross-linguistic parameterisation
• Next steps – cross-linguistic application in applicatives generally and
DOC/IODCs more specifically
– Overt in Spanish, Greek (?), covert in English therefore no clitic
• IODCs in French?
“Sa grandmère leur a légué sa maison aux trois filles”
• Thank you for your time!

19. References
• Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Anagnostopoulou, E. (2006). Clitic doubling. In: M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax.
Malden, MA.: Blackwell, ch. 14.
• Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In: A. Szabolsci, ed. (1997). Ways
of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ch. 3.
• Bruening, B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: frozen Scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 233-273.
• Bruening, B. (2010). Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 519-562.
• Chomsky, N. (1995).The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds. Step by step:
Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp.89-155.
• Cuervo, M-C. (2003). Structural asymmetries but same word order. In: A.M. Di Sciullo, ed. Asymmetry in Grammar, vol. 1.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Franco, J. (2001). On the doubling of overt operators. In: J. Gutiérrez-Rexach and L. Silva-Villar, eds. Current issues in Spanish
syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.85-106.
• Harley, H. (1997). If you have, then you can give. In: B. Agbayani and S.-W. Tang, eds. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA.: CSLI. Available at:
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyHaveGiveWCCFL1996.pdf [last accessed 27 March 2012]
• Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 29-68. Available at:
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyGive2002.pdf [last accessed 27 March 2012]
• Larson, R.K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335-391.
• Larson, R.K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 589-632.
• Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In S.A. Mchombo, ed. Theoretical aspects
of Bantu grammar 1.Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications, pp.113-151.
• Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Torrego E. (2002). Arguments for a derivational approach to syntactic relations based on clitics. In: S.D. Epstein and T.D.
Seely, eds. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Cambridge: CUP, Ch. 10.
• Tsoulas, G. (2003). Floating quantifiers as overt scope markers. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 157-
180