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

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 5

Issues

Propositional null objects in Spanish and the completeness of the proposition

Asela Reig Alamillo
  • Corresponding author
  • UAM – IZTAPALAPA, Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186, Col. Vicentina, Iztapalapa, 55-536, 09340 México D.F, Mexico
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-08-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0023

Abstract

This paper addresses the distribution of a phonetically null pronoun and the clitic lo referring to a proposition as the direct object (DO) of cognition and communication verbs in Spanish. The use of this null object referring to propositions is found cross-dialectally in Spanish, and this paper argues that the completeness of the proposition constrains in crucial ways the distribution of these two propositional anaphors. The analysis of five different cases in which the DO pronoun refers to an incomplete proposition illustrates that the null object is the anaphor preferred when the proposition being referred to is incomplete, whereas the propositional pronoun lo is preferred to refer to complete propositions. Completeness of the proposition – defined here as a gradient feature and not a binary distinction – is discussed in relation to the notion of saliency or accessibility of the referent and the data analyzed in this article for propositional anaphora is discussed in relation to NP anaphora.

Keywords: propositional anaphora; object pronouns; null objects; Spanish neuter lo

References

  • Ariel, Mira. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30. 3–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 1996. Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 13–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Bosque, Ignacio. 1984. Negación y elipsis. Estudios de Lingüística (Alicante) 2. 171–199.Google Scholar

  • Bosque, Ignacio & Juan Carlos Moreno. 1990. Las construcciones con lo y la denotación del neutro. Lingüística 2. 5–50.Google Scholar

  • Brucart, José María. 1999. La elipsis. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, 2787–2863. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Byron, Donna K. 2004. Resolving pronominal reference to abstract entities. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Cameron, Richard. 1997. Accessibility theory in a variable syntax of Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 29–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Campos, Héctor. 1986. Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 354–359.Google Scholar

  • Carlson, Lauri. 1983. Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Choi, Jinny K. 1998. Languages in contact: A morphosyntactic analysis of Paraguayan Spanish from a historical and sociolinguistic perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Choi, Jinny K. 2000. [-Person] direct object drop: The genetic cause of a syntactic feature in Paraguayan Spanish. Hispania 83. 531–543.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clements, J. Clancy. 1994. Notes on topicalization and object drop in Spanish. In Michael L. Mazzola (ed.), Issues in Romance linguistics: Selected paper from LSRL XXIII, 219–37. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clements, J. Clancy. 2006. Null direct objects in Spanish. In Clancy J. Clements & Jiyoung Yoon (eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax, 134–150. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

  • Cornish, Francis. 2006. Complément nuls vs. pronoms objets manifestes en anglais en tant qu’anaphoriques: syntaxe, sémantique ou pragmatique? Cahiers de Grammaire 30. 89–101.Google Scholar

  • Cyrino, Sonia. 1997. O objeto nulo no português do Brasil. Londrina: Editora da Universidade Estadual de Londrina.Google Scholar

  • Delbecque, Nicole. 2000. Cognitive constraints on complement clause cliticization in Spanish. In Kaoru Horie (ed.), Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives, 149–197. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Depiante, Marcela. 2001. On null complement anaphora in Spanish and Italian. Probus 13. 193–221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Escandell Vidal, Victoria. 1999. Los enunciados interrogativos. Aspectos semánticos y pragmáticos. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 3, 3929–3991. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Esgueva, Manuel & Margarita Cantarero (eds.). 1981. El habla culta de la ciudad de Madrid. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar

  • Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loímo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 1, 1317–1397. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Vassiliky Nikiforidou, Mary Vanllay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Felder (eds.), Proceedings of the XII annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Fónagy, Ivan. 1985. J’aime, Je connais: Verbes transitifs à l’objet latent. Revue Romaine 20. 3–35.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–41. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gundel, Jeanette, Michael Hegarty & Kaja Borthen. 2003. Cognitive status, information structure, and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12. 281–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1987. The interpretation of inherent objects in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7. 223–248.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Google Scholar

  • Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–428.Google Scholar

  • Hegarty, Michael. 2001. Reference to abstract entities within clausal complements. In Alan Yu, Lisa Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya & Alyssa Wulf (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 121–132. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Hegarty, Michael. 2003. Semantic types of abstract entities. Lingua 113. 891–927.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hurtado, Luz Marcela. 2005. Condicionamientos sintáctico-semánticos de la expresión del sujeto en el español colombiano. Hispania 88. 335–348.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iliescu, María. 1988. Reprise et non reprise pronominale d’un complément d’object direct à valeur neutre. International Journal of Rumanian Studies 6. 69–79.Google Scholar

  • Iten Corinne, Marie-Odile Junker, & Aryn Pyke. 2005. Null complements: Licensed by syntax or by semantics/pragmatics? In Marie-Odile Junker, Martha McGinnis & Yves Roberge (eds.). Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique. Proceedings of the 2004 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Null_Complements.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015).

  • Junker, Marie-Odile, Robert Stainton & Catherine Wearing. 2005. The semantics and syntax of null complements. http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/documents/thesyntaxandsemanticsofnullcomplements.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015).

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and Semantics 7. 361–385.Google Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew & Gregory Ward. 2004. Constraints on ellipsis and event reference. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (ed.), Handbook of pragmatics. 383–403. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on this and that. Papers from the tenth regional meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society. 345–356.Google Scholar

  • Lambrecht, Knud & Kevin Lemoine. 1996. Vers une grammaire des compléments zéro en français parlé. In Jean Chuquet & Marc Frid (eds.), Absence de marques et représentation de l’absence, 279–309. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar

  • Landa, Miren Alazne. 1995. Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to leísmo and clitic doubling. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar

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

  • Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. El artículo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol.1, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

  • Lope Blach, Juan M. (ed.). 1971. El habla de la ciudad de México: Materiales para su estudio. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).Google Scholar

  • Lope Blach, Juan M. (ed.). 1976. El habla popular de México: Materiales para su estudio. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar

  • Maes, Alfons. 1996. The markedness of abstract-object anaphors in discourse. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 10. 161–183CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marcos Marín, Francisco. 1992. COREC: Corpus de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea: Corpus Oral Peninsular. http://www.lllf.uam.es/~fmarcos/informes/corpus/corpusix.html (accessed 25 June 2015).

  • Masullo, Pascual J. 2003. Clitic-less definite object drop in River Plate Spanish. Paper presented at LSRL XXXIII, April 24–27, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar

  • Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1923. Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 3. New York: Stechert.Google Scholar

  • Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2002. Formal and cultural constraints on optional objects in Bislama. Language Variation and Change 14. 323–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Noailly, Michèle. 1997. Les mystères de la transitivité invisible. Langages 31. 96–109.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ojeda, Almerindo. 1984. A note on the Spanish neuter. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 171–174.Google Scholar

  • Otheguy, Ricardo. 1978. A semantic analysis of the difference between el/la and lo. In Margarita Suñer (ed.), Contemporary studies in romance languages, 241–257. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Otheguy, Ricardo. 2004. Single-language and code-switching strategies in immigrant and heritage varieties: Spanish subject personal pronouns in Toribio’s cross-model hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7. 175–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Palacios Alcaine, Azucena. 1998. Variación sintáctica en el sistema pronominal del español paraguayo: La elisión de pronombres objeto. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 14. 431–454.Google Scholar

  • Palacios Alcaine, Azucena. 2000. El sistema pronominal del español paraguayo: un caso de contacto de lenguas. In Julio Calvo (ed.), Teoría y práctica del contacto: El español de América en el candelero, 123–143. Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar

  • Paredes, Liliana. 1996. The Spanish continuum in Peruvian bilingual speakers: a study of verbal clitics. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Parsons, Terence. 1993. On denoting propositions and facts. Philosophical Perspectives 7. 441–460.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peterson, Philip L. 1982. Anaphoric reference to facts, propositions, and events. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 235–276.Google Scholar

  • Prince, Ellen F. 1986. On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. In Anne M. Farley, Peter T. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough (eds.), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory, 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 208–222. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Reig Alamillo, Asela. 2009. Cross-dialectal variation in propositional anaphora: Null objects and propositional lo in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. Language Variation and Change 21. 381–412.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reig Alamillo, Asela. & Scott A. Schwenter. 2007. Null objects and neuter lo: A cross-dialectal variationist analysis. In Jonathan Holmquist, Augusto Lorenzino & Lotfi Sayahi (eds.), Selected proceedings of the third Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 113–121. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Schwenter, Scott A. 2006. Null objects across South America. In Timothy L. Face & Carol A. Klee (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 23–36. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Schwenter, Scott & Gláucia Silva. 2003. Anaphoric direct objects in spoken Brazilian Portuguese: semantics and pragmatics. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 2. 99–123.Google Scholar

  • Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1982. Subject expression and placement in Mexican-American Spanish. In Jon Amastae & Lucía Elías-Olivares (eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic aspects, 93–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 2003. Otra mirada a la expresión del sujeto como variable sintáctica. Lengua, variación y contexto. In Francisco Moreno Fernández, José Gimeno Menéndez, Antonio Samper, María Luz Gutiérrez Araus, María Vaquero & César Hernández (eds.), Estudios dedicados a Humberto López Morales, 849–860. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar

  • Suñer, Margarita & María Yépez. 1988. Null definite objects in Quiteño. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 561–565.Google Scholar

  • Toscano, Mateus. 1953. El español en el Ecuador. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar

  • Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Facts and events. In Zeno Vendler, (ed.) Linguistics in Philosophy, 122–146. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Webber, Bonnie L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6. 107–135.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yépez, María Victoria. 1986. Direct object clitics in Quiteño Spanish. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University MA Thesis.Google Scholar

  • Zulaica Hernández, Iker. 2007. Demonstrative pronouns in Spanish. A discourse-based approach. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-08-13

Published in Print: 2015-09-01


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 959–994, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0023.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Asela Reig Alamillo
Journal of Pragmatics, 2016, Volume 105, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in