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

Probus

International Journal of Romance Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Wetzels, W. Leo

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.429
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.739

CiteScore 2017: 0.32

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.198
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.691

Online
ISSN
1613-4079
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 21, Issue 2

Issues

The high applicative syntax of the dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance

Yves Roberge / Michelle Troberg
Published Online: 2010-01-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2009.008

Abstract

Dative benefactive/adversative arguments, also known as the ‘dativus commodi/incommodi’ (DCI) in the Latin grammatical tradition, present variable behaviour in Romance. This paper compares and contrasts the syntactic restrictions on DCIs in five Romance languages to reveal that clitic-doubling covaries with the possibility of lexical DCIs and the possibility of combining the DCI with a bare unergative. We argue that Pylkkänen's (Introducing arguments, MIT, 2002) High Applicative analysis should be broadened to account for these Romance datives and their variable behaviour so that the DCI clitic is always generated as the head of a high applicative projection. Doubling and non-doubling languages diverge based on the type of D-element that merges in the specifier of ApplP. In clitic-doubling languages (Romanian and Spanish), the DCI essentially matches the Bantu high applicative construction in that lexical datives, as DPs, are merged in the specifier position of the applicative phrase. The Appl head in doubling languages may also introduce a pro as an applied argument whose reference is recovered via the agree relation established with the applied morpheme. In non-doubling languages (French, Portuguese, Italian), the DCI functions quite differently. It may only occur in clitic form as the head of the applied phrase, since lexical indirect objects are PPs and consequently may not merge in Spec,ApplP. A result of this restriction is that an expletive operator is merged in the specifier, binding a VP-internal referential DP, accounting for the restriction on bare unergatives.

About the article

Published Online: 2010-01-29

Published in Print: 2009-12-01


Citation Information: Probus, Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 249–289, ISSN (Online) 1613-4079, ISSN (Print) 0921-4771, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2009.008.

Export Citation

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.

[1]
Nora Boneh and Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal
Journal of Jewish Languages, 2015, Volume 3, Number 1-2, Page 309

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in