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

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Fischer, Olga / Norde, Muriel


Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.463
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.647

CiteScore 2018: 0.59

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.284
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.971

Online
ISSN
1614-7308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 51, Issue 3

Issues

Agentivity marking in Spanish nominalisations: The use of por ‘by’ vs. de ‘of’

Henrik Høeg Müller
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Dalgas Have 15, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-11-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0026

Abstract

The first objective of this paper is to provide justification for the claim that variation between the prepositions por ‘by’ and de ‘of’ introducing the subject argument in Spanish nominalisations should not be explained as primarily paralleling sentence-level voice or aspectual distinctions. The strongest arguments against assuming a direct analogy between the clausal and the phrasal levels with respect to these functional categories are, on the one hand, that the use of agentive por-phrases is far from limited to nominals which can reasonably be claimed to bear a resemblance to a passive structure and, on the other, that de-marking of the Agent is fully compatible with an activity reading of the nominal, as opposed to a result reading. Secondly, as an alternative, it is proposed that the use of por vs. de relates to the perceived degree of agentivity of the subject referent, correlated with the degree of affectedness experienced by the object referent, and that por functions as a semantic marker overtly signalling agentivity rather than a syntactic marker of subjective Case.

Keywords: affectedness; agentivity; causativity; prepositional variation; Spanish nominalisations

References

  • Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalisation and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, Mariángeles Cano, Gianina Iordachioaia, Fabienne Martin & Schäfer. Florian. 2014. The realization of external arguments in nominalizations. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16. 73–95.Google Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, Lilian Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia, Fabienne Martin, Florian Schäfer & Mariángeles Cano. 2013. ‘Direct participation’ and ‘agent exclusivity’ effects in derived nominals and beyond. In Gianina Iordăchioaia, Isabelle Roy & Kaori Takamine eds., Categorization and category change, 155–182. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Mona. 1983. Prenominal genitive NPs. The Linguistic Review 3. 1–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Azpiazu, Susana. 2004. Las estrategias de nominalización. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Baldwin, Timothy. 2006. Distributional similarity and preposition semantics. In Patrick Saint-Dizier ed., Syntax and semantics of prepositions, 197–210. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Bonet Farran, Neus. 1989. Aspects of complex predicate formation in Romance. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 1993. Parallel morphology. Ms. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring sense: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bosque, Ignacio & Mari Carme Picallo. 1996. Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DPs. Journal of Linguistics 32. 349–385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bottari, Piero. 1992. Romance ‘passive nominals’. Geneva Generative Papers 1. 66–80.Google Scholar

  • Breuning, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1). 1–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cano Aguilar, Rafael. 1981. Estructuras sintácticas transitivas en el español actual. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalisation. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum eds., Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1980. On extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5. 47–99.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Demonte, Violeta. 1985. Papeles temáticos y sujeto sintáctico en el sintagma nominal. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 9–10. 265–331.Google Scholar

  • Demonte, Violeta. 2002. Preliminares de una clasificación léxico-sintáctica de los predicados verbales del español. In Sybille Grosse & Axel Schönberger eds., Festschrift für Eberhard Gärtmer zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, 121–144. Frankfurt am Main: Valentia.Google Scholar

  • Durst-Andersen, Per. 1992. Mental grammar: Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Escandell Vidal, María Victoria. 1995. Los complementos del nombre. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

  • Fernández Lagunilla, Marina & Alberto Anula Rebollo. 1995. Sintaxis y cognición: Introducción al conocimiento, el procesamiento y los déficits sintácticos. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.Google Scholar

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

  • Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118. 190–202.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fradejas, Pilar. 1984. Sur le se impersonnel. Ms. Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar

  • García, Erica. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Giammatteo, Mabel, Hilda Albano & Adalberto Ghio. 2005. Clases de predicados y nominalización. In Juan Cuartero & Otal Gerd Wotjak eds., Algunos problemas específicos de la descripción sintáctico-semántica, 35–48. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar

  • Giorgi, Alessandra & Guiseppe Longobardi. 1991. The syntax of noun phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Jane & Edwin Williams. 1993. Nominalisation and predicative prepositional phrases. In James Pustejovsky ed., Semantics and the lexicon, 97–106. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1992. Causative and perception verbs. Genève: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador. 2005. Diátesis no verbal. In Juan Cuartero Otal & Gerd Wotjak eds., Algunos problemas específicos de la descripción sintáctico-semántica, 17–33. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar

  • Hernanz, María Lluïsa. 1999. El Infinitivo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte, Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 2197–2356. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar

  • Herslund, Michael (ed.). 1996. Det franske sprog. Kapitel III: Valens og transitivitet [The French language. Chapter III: Valency and transitivity]. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar

  • Herslund, Michael & Irène Baron. 1995. Transitivitet og verbonominale prædikater [Transitivity and verbo-nominal predicates]. KLIMT 1. 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 1977. S and X’ Convention. Linguistic Analysis 3. 137–176.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Klein-Andreu, Flora. 1999. Variación actual y reinterpretación histórica: Le/s, la/s, lo/s en Castilla. In María José Serrano ed., Estudios de variación sintáctica, 197–220. Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.Google Scholar

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2015. Action nouns. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer eds., Word formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, 1195–2009. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelica. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring eds., Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelica. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Ms. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z/.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan Van Benthem & Peter von Emde Boas eds., Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi eds., Lexical matters, 30–52. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1988. Subjects and the theta-criterion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 1–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lebeaux, David. 1986. The interpretation of derived nominals. In Anne M. Farley, Peter T. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 231–247. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Leonetti, Manuel & María Victoria Escandell Vidal. 1991. Complementos predicativos en sintagmas nominale. Verba 18. 431–450.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2004. The semantic determinants of argument expression: A view from the English resultative construction. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme eds., The syntax of time, 478–494. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1999. Two structures for compositionally derived events. In Proceedings of the 9th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT), 199–223. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

  • Martín, Juan. 1995. On the syntactic structure of Spanish DPs. Los Angeles: University of Southern California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Angelita. 2010. De España a América: Recategorización y desplazamientos en el sistema de clíticos. Olivar, Revista de Literatura y Cultura Españolas 11(14). 149–162.Google Scholar

  • Milner, Jean-Claude. 1982. Ordres et raisons de langue. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Monjour, Alf. 2005. “La humillación de Franco a Don Juan”: Otra vez sobre la valencia nominal en español. In Juan Cuartero Otal & Gerd Wotjak eds., Algunos problemas específicos de la descripción sintáctico-semántica, 49–62. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2001. Spanish N de N structures from a cognitive perspective. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund & Finn Sørensen ed., Dimensions of possession, 169–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2007a. Predicatives inside NPs. Scolia 22. 63–83.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2007b. Diatese eller aspekt i spanske nominalsyntager [Voice or aspect in Spanish NPs]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik 14. 185–204.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2014. Lexical coding vs. syntactic marking of homogeneity: Evidence from Spanish and Danish. Studies in Language 38(4). 896–955.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ormazabal, Javier. 1991. Asymmetries on Wh-movement and some theoretical consequences. Ms., Storrs: University of Connecticut. http://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/ASJU/article/viewFile/9398/8626.

  • Palmerini, Mónica. 2006. Sintaxis y semántica en la diátesis pasiva nominal. In Milka Villayandra Llamazares ed., Actas del XXXV Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, 1442–1463. León: Universidad de León.Google Scholar

  • Picallo, Mari Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalisations in Catalan. Probus 3(3). 279–316.Google Scholar

  • Picallo, Mari Carme. 1999. Las nominalizaciones y otros sustantivos con complementos argumentales. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte, Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 363–393. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar

  • Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj & Tal Siloni eds., The Theta system: Argument structure at the interface, 150C176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Ms. Storrs: University of Connecticut. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.232.3860&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Roeper, Thomas. 1987. The syntax of compound reference. Ms. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Event structure constraints in nominalization. In Artemis Alexiadou & Monica Rathert eds., The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks, 151–190. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Sichel, Ivy. 2011. Nominalization, causativization, and category-free syntax. Paper presented at Approaches to the Lexicon (Roots III), The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 13–16 June.Google Scholar

  • Spang-Hanssen, Ebbe. 1963. Les prépositions incolores du français modern. Copenhagen: Gad.Google Scholar

  • Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic publishers.Google Scholar

  • Ticio, Emma. 2010. Locality domains in the Spanish determiner phrase. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Torrego, Esther. 1987. On empty categories in nominals. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine eds. 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Varela, Soledad. 1977. Estudios de gramática transformacional: La nominalisación en castellano. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Varela, Soledad. 2012. La interacción de las nominalizaciones con la voz, el aspecto y la dimensión temporal. In Elisenda Bernal, Carsten Sinner & Martina Emsel eds., Tiempo y espacio en la formación de palabras en español, 91–106. München: Peniope.Google Scholar

  • Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 297–315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wolff, Phillip. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88. 1–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-04-23

Received: 2016-01-21

Revised: 2016-12-19

Accepted: 2017-01-30

Published Online: 2017-11-25

Published in Print: 2017-11-27


Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 695–744, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0026.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in