Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Dialectologia et Geolinguistica

Journal of the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics

Ed. by Nahl, Astrid

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.071
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.194

CiteScore 2017: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.639

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Patrones de ergatividad en el español peninsular

Victor Lara
Published Online: 2017-11-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dialect-2017-0005


Western Peninsular Spanish possesses a type of causative construction in which an intransitive lexeme is used as transitive. Specifically, the verbs caer (‘to fall’), quedar (‘to stay’) and entrar (‘to enter) can induce a direct object in detriment of the standard verbs tirar (‘to throw’), dejar (‘to leave’) and meter (‘to put in’). This phenomenon (called lability) has not been investigated in depth for Spanish and, with this paper I attempt to pinpoint its current geographical extension as well as the semantic factors that favour the transitivisation of these verbs.

Keywords: Causativisation; transitivisation; lability; Peninsular Spanish; ergativity


  • Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Aikhenvald, Aleksandra & Robert Dixon (eds). 2000. Changing valency. Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • ALCyL: véase Alvar, Manuel. 1999.Google Scholar

  • ALEANR: véase Alvar, Manuel. 1979–1983.Google Scholar

  • ALEC-MAN: véase García Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno Fernández. 1988–1994.Google Scholar

  • Alvar, Manuel. 1979–1983. Atlas lingüístico y etnográfico de Aragón, Navarra y Rioja (ALEANR). Zaragoza: CSIC.Google Scholar

  • Alvar, Manuel. 1996. Manual de dialectología hispánica. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar

  • Alvar, Manuel. 1999. Atlas lingüístico de Castilla y León. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.Google Scholar

  • Ariza, Manuel. 2008. Estudios sobre el extremeño. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar

  • Baños Baños, José Miguel. 2009. Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus.Google Scholar

  • Bassols de Climent, Mariano. 1956. Sintaxis latina. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar

  • Bilous, Rostyslav. 2012. Transitivity revisited: an overview of recent research and possible solutions. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar

  • Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Cano, Rafael. 2004. Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar

  • Cennamo, Michela. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin. In The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case, 307–346, eds. Jóhanna Barddal & Shobhana Chelliah. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology, syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Comrie Bernard. & Maria Polinsky (ed.). 1993. Causatives and transitivity. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • COSER: véase Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1988–2016.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: the case of alignment variations. Folia linguistica 42: 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2014. P-liability and radical P-alignment. Linguistics 52: 911–944.Google Scholar

  • Daniel, Michael, Timor Maisak & Solmaz Merdanova. 2012. Causatives in Agul. In Argument structure and grammatical relations, 55–113, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Davis, Cary. 1968. The indirect object of possession in Spanish. The USF Language Quarterly 1968: 1–6.Google Scholar

  • De Benito, Carlota. 2015. Las construcciones con se desde una perspectiva variacionista y dialectal. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, Robert. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dumitrescu, Domnita. 1990. El dativo posesivo en español y rumano. Revista Española de Lingüística 20: 403–429.Google Scholar

  • Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Elvira, Javier. 2001. Intransitividad escindida en español: el uso auxiliar de ser en español medieval. Estudios de lingüística 15: 201–245.Google Scholar

  • Elvira, Javier. 2012. Construcciones y significado: aspectos diacrónicos de la transitividad en español. In Corrientes de estudio en semántica y pragmática históricas. In Corrientes de estudio en semántica y pragmática históricas, 1–28, ed. Ricardo Maldonado. Madrid: Instituto Menéndez Pidal.Google Scholar

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1988–2016. Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural (COSER). http://www.uam.es/coser/.

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 1317–1397, eds. Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 2006. Del Cantábrico a Toledo: el “neutro de materia” hispánico en un contexto románico y tipológico I. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 1: 67–118.Google Scholar

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 2007. Del Cantábrico a Toledo: el “neutro de materia” hispánico en un contexto románico y tipológico II. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 2: 29–81.Google Scholar

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 2011. La lengua de Castilla y la formación del español. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Frago, Juan Antonio. 1993. Historia de las hablas andaluzas. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

  • García Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno Fernández. 1988–1994. Atlas Lingüístico (y etnográfico) de Castilla-La Mancha. http://www2.uagh.es/alecman.

  • García Mouton, Pilar. 1994. Lenguas y dialectos de España. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261–296.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gianollo, Chiara. 2014. Labile verbs in Late Latin. Linguistics 52: 945–1002.Google Scholar

  • Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Syntax and semantics. The grammar of causative constructions, 80–120, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani. Nueva York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Harris, Alice. 1982. Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis. Linguistics 58: 290–306.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and transitivity, 87–121, eds. Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Heidinger, Steffen. 2014. The persistence of labile verbs in the French causative-anticausative alternation. Linguistics 52: 1003–1024.Google Scholar

  • Hetzron, Robert. 1976. On the Hungarian causative verb and its syntax. In The grammar of causative constructions, 371–398, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani. Nueva York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Hewitt, George. 1987. Georgian: ergative or active? Lingua 71: 319–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson (ed.). 1982. Syntax and semantics. Studies in transitivity. Nueva York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Jiménez Fernández, Ángel & Mercedes Tubino Blanco. 2014. Variación sintáctica en la causativización léxica. Revista española de lingüística 44: 7–38.Google Scholar

  • Karantzola, Eleni & Nikolaos Lavidas. 2014. On the relation between labilisations and neuter gender: evidence from Greek diachrony. Linguistics 52: 1025–1059.Google Scholar

  • Kehayov, Petar & Virve Vihman. 2014. The lure of lability: a synchronic and diachronic investigation of the labile pattern in Estonian. Linguistics 52: 1061–1105.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Hee-Su. 2012. Transitives, causatives and passives in Korean and Japanese. In Argument structure and grammatical relations, 241–255, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Klimov, Georgij. 1977. Tipologija jazykovaktivnogo stroja. Moscú: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Kulikov, Leonid. 1999a. May he prosper in offspring and wealth: a few jubilee remarks on the typology of labile verbs and Sanskrit púsyati ‘prosper; makes prosper’. In Tipologija i teorija jazyka: at opisanija k ob”jasneniju K 60-letiju A. E. Kibrika, 224–244, eds. Ekaterina Rakhilina & Yakov Testelets. Moscú: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury,Google Scholar

  • Kulikov, Leonid. 1999b. Split causativity: remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect and tense. In Tense, aspect, transitivity and causativity. Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov, 21–43, eds. Werner Abraham & Leonid Kulikov. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kulikov, Leonid. 2003. The labile syntactic type in a diachronic perspective: the case of Vedic. Journal of linguistics 26: 93–112.Google Scholar

  • Kulikov, Leonid. & Nikolaos Lavidas. 2014. Typology of labile verbs: focus on diachrony. Linguistics 52: 871–877.Google Scholar

  • Lara, Víctor. 2012. Ustedes instead of vosotros and vocês instead of vós: an analysis through the Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula (ALPI). Dialectologia Special Issue 3: 57–93.Google Scholar

  • Lara, Víctor. 2016. La expresión del futuro en las lenguas romances de la Península Ibérica. Boletín de la Real Academia Española XCVI (Cuaderno CCCXIV): 529–558.Google Scholar

  • Larjavaara, Meri. 2000. Présence ou absence de l’objet : limites du possible en français. Helsinki: Academia Scientirum Fennica.Google Scholar

  • Laroche, Emmanuel. 1962. Un ergative en indo-europeen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 57: 23–43.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Ergative and active traits in Latin. In Relational gramar, 243–267, ed. Frans Plank. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Letuchiy, Alexander. 2004. Lability of verbs and its relations to verb meaning and argument structure (based on data from Indo-European, Arabic, Turkish and other languages). Vortrag beim LENCA-2-Symposium an der Universität Kasan, http://www.ksu.ru/conf/LENCA-2/187.rtf (último acceso: 20 de diciembre de 2016).

  • Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Towards a typology of labile verbs: lability versus derivation. In New challenges in typology: transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 247–268, eds. Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Letuchiy, Alexander. 2010. Lability and spontaneity. In Transitivity: form, meaning, acquisition and processing, 237–255, eds. Patrick Brandt & Marco García. Ámsterdam / Filadelfia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Letuchiy, Alexander. 2015. Historical development of labile verbs in modern Russian. Linguistics 53: 611–647.Google Scholar

  • McMillion, Alan. 2006. Labile verbs in English: their meaning, behaviour and structure. Estocolmo: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • Meillet, Antoine. 1931. Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes, la theorie du feminine. Bullentin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 32: 1–28.Google Scholar

  • Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 1575–1630, eds. Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. 2005. Historia de la lengua española. Madrid: Instituto Menéndez Pidal.Google Scholar

  • Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Grammar inside and outside the clause, 324–362, eds. Johanna Nichols & Anthony Woodbury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mondéjar, José. 1991. Dialectología andaluza. Granada: Don Quijote.Google Scholar

  • Montero, Pilar. 2006. El extremeño. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

  • Narbona, Antonio. 2003. El español hablado en Andalucía. Sevilla: Ariel.Google Scholar

  • Nedjalkov, Vladimir. 1969. Nekotorye verojatnostnye universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazonavii. In Jazykovye universalii i lingvističeskaja tipologija, 106–114, ed. Igor Vardul. Moscú: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Nerbonne, John, Rinke Colen, Charlotte Gooskens, Peter Kleiweg & Therese Leinonen. 2010. GabmapA Web Application for Dialectology. Groningen: University of Groningen. http://www.gabmap.nl/.

  • Nunes, José Joaquim. 1945. Compêndio de gramática histórica portuguesa. Lisboa: Livraria Clássica Editora.Google Scholar

  • Penny, Ralph. 2004. Gramática histórica del español. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar

  • Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusativity hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistic society, 157–189. Chicago: Berkeley University.Google Scholar

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 2011. Licensing of instrumental case in Hindi / Urdu causatives. Nordlyb 38 : 49–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Real Academia Española & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Said, Manoel. 1931. Gramática histórica da língua portuguesa. Río de Janeiro: Livraria Académica.Google Scholar

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1976. Syntax and semantics. The grammar of causative constructions. Nueva York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Visser, Fredericus. 1970. A historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Wheeler, Max, Alan Yates & Nicolau Dols. 1999. Catalan: a comprenhensive grammar. Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Wolfram, Wolfram & Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2003. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 713–735, eds. Brian Joseph & Robert Janda. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1970. Dialectología española. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-11-27

Published in Print: 2017-11-27

Citation Information: Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 93–122, ISSN (Online) 1867-0903, ISSN (Print) 0942-4040, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dialect-2017-0005.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter BmgH Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in