Structural ambiguity and SE: What could a clitic tell us about VP-internal composition?

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Sheffield

Congreso; 2018 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain; 2018

Linguistics Association of Great Britain

Structural ambiguity and SE: What could a clitic tell us about VP-internal composition?It is a challenge for current theory to explain how certain readings of the Romance clitic SE/SI emerge with a given (sub)type of verb and not with another using a single underspecified meaning or set of functions for this clitic. Here we consider verb formation combining causative Vo and abstract P to account for structural ambiguities exposed by a little-discussed reading of SE in Spanish. The idea lines up with data from other languages supporting similar analyses (Harley 2002) and coincides with a configurational contrast widely defended in the literature (Larson 1990). The paper builds on the idea that availability of diverse grammatical functions for the clitic can also be seen as a window into finer structural contrasts among verbs with apparent similar makeup but crucially different behavior.In Spanish, a structural ambiguity suggested by SE brings out a contrast between an otherwise uniform class of verbs. While some change-of-possession verbs (Levin 1993) [COP] give passive-impersonal readings (α) ((1)a, COPs vender?sell?, soltar?release?, perder?lose?, abandonar ?abadon?, pagar?pay?); others, including respective counterparts (comprar?buy?,agarrar ?grab?, ganar ?win?, encontrar?find?, cobrar?cash?(b-c)) yield a non-passive benefactive-like reading (β).Importantly, β-reading is (i) not available in (1)a; (ii)distinct from reciprocal reading (γ) seen in COP like asignar ?assign?(c) and its kin.(1) a. Se vendieron (todos los) coches importados. (SE sell.3P.PST all the cars imported)(α) ?All the imported cars have been sold [out]?b. Se compraron (todos los) coches importados. (SE buy.3P.PST all the cars imported)(α) ?All the imported cars have been bought *?[in/out]?(β) ?They bought all the imported cars for themselves?c. Se distribuyeron (todos los) coches importados. (SE distribute.3P.PST all the cars imported)(α) ?All the imported cars have been distributed?(β) ?They distributed all the imported cars to themselves?(γ) ?They distributed the imported cars among themselves?The well-known aspectual role of SE is central: the benefactive quirk concurs with an aspectual closure not seen in passive SE, which is key to telicity independent of measure-out (2), but also to explain (β).(2) a. (Se) {vendieron/perdieron} *({todos los/?algunos}) coches importados en una hora.?*(All the/Some) imported cars were sold/lost within an hour?b. *(Se) {compraron/ganaron} ({todos los/algunos}) coches importados en una hora.?They got (lit. bought/won) (all the/some) imported cars [for themselves] within an hour?.c. *(Se) distribuyeron/asignaron ({todos los/algunos}) coches importados en una hora.?They distributed/assigned (all the/some) imported cars [to themselves] within an hour?Even if, initially, not all COP verbs patterning with comprar systematically occur with dative PP (cf.(8) below), this is no impediment for SE to deliver β-type readings with the consequent aspectual closure; nor for the verb to accommodate the additional PP expressing the COP beneficiary (not to be confused with unselected affected dative in anticausative SE; Mendikoetxea& F.Soriano 2010). Importantly, even this if may seem an instance of the much discussed aspectual SE seen with universal quantifiers such as todo ?all? in consumption verbs (odd α reading), the contrast in entailment (completion not correlated with extent of the incremental theme in (3)-(4)b) is key to the fact that the telicity fits well with a richer descriptive content related to an implicit location given by possession (e.g. location of the object in an endpoint Ground defined by the possessor (Goal)). To this end, lexically-coded (cf.(9)) direction of motion is trivial: llevar|traer ?bring to|from? both give β-reading and Goal-based scalarity.(3) a. Se comió todo. (Lit. She ate all) ?She ate it all [up]? (⇒all items have been eaten)b. Se compró todo. (Lit. She bought all) ?She bought it all [for herself]? (⇏all items have been bought)(4) a. Se comió *(el) postre (*para ella) (She ate the desert (*for herself) ?She ate up the desert?b. Se compró (el) postre (para ella) ?She bought up the desert?/?She got the desert for herself?(5) a. Poco a poco se vendieron todos los coches. ?Little by little, all the cars were sold?b. Poco a poco se compraron todos los coches.?Little by little, all the/every car(s)ended up being theirs?Analysis. Our proposal builds on Hale&Keyser?s [HK] (2002, 2005) theory of P-conflation, but also on Larson?s (1990) proposal of base-generation of two different structures. We draw on Hale?s (1996) and Kayne?s (1993) ontology of abstract prepositions, to advance the idea that COP verbs allowing(β) involve a (bi)relational head po like the one found in possessive verbs (cf. Hale 1986, Freeze 1992, Kayne 1993); this po being basically defined as a noneventive head yielding the (SC-like) stative predicate of spatial contiguity (an entity in contact with another entity), amenable in meaning to the lexical P with (HK 2002:208, Rapoport 2012, Rigau 2005), or PHAVE (Harley 2002, 2007, see GoalP in Pesetsky 1995). Unlike have, here the verb combined with po is not semantically empty: this burden (which we attribute to vCAUSE, cf. Harley 2002) can be noted in the fact that comprar ?buy? involves, unlike have, a caused COS event producing the spatial contiguity (possession) as result (note the contrast between conseguir?attain? (where (β)≈accomplished state) and stative possession verbs like have). If correct, comprar-like verbs would decompose into two heads: a monadic Vo and a non-eventive birrelational head (po) heading the stative predicate that instantiates the contiguity/GOAL relation lacked by vender. Advantages: The proposed configuration accommodates this asymmetry in event complexity along with the fact that the semantic relation between the two arguments is actually not one of change but of stasis?i.e., the inner state produced by this type of telic COP empirically brought out by for-x-time adverbials (6) (cf. the passive (α)-like interpretation in (se) vendió el coche por una hora ?The car was for sale for an hour?), which further composes with the basic event (yielded by VCAUS). On this account, the additional benefactive PP in (8) is not unexpected, but rather readily explained as a further instantiation of the incorporated P, consistently showing the hyponym interpretation hence expected (Haugen 2009, Mateu 2012). The triviality of the object to telicity also follows from the proposed configuration (7), inasmuch as this argument is not sitting in the relevant (measure-out) position; instead, PC is, thus defining telicity accordingly (measuring-out with respect to the entire state denoted by the small clause, cf. Harley 2005). Crucially, the distinction is orthogonal to the classical opposition between (incremental theme) measuring-out and (Goal-dictated) delimitness (Tenny 1994) and correlates with a structural contrast between potential roles of SE in aspectual closure (recall (3)-(4)). It would be this additional projection that explains distribution in (1) and the (β)-type reading derived; SE being regarded as silent ?indefinite? subject or as a binder of a null subject (Torrego 2013 i.a.) serving as adequate controller (8). Verbs without PC do not allow possessors to c-command possessees, and do not give (β) readings, in which Goals c-command themes (which is, in turn, a distribution meeting a basic requisite in HK for P-conflation). In the case of vender, arguably lacking PC, SE can only be handled under passivization; the benefactive PP logically does not occur; and structural organization is arguably different: theme generated in the canonical internal position and the Goal (plus the lexical P a ?to?) as a complement (cf. comprar, with Goal generated in spec position and Theme as complement). Finally, note that verbs with meaning seemingly in line with vender, like dejar ?leave?, allow (β)/COP-interpretation with SE (9)a and the consequent sort of telicity. Note, further, the significant ambiguity of P in motion verbs (also producing (β)/COP (9)b). Recap. On the proposed account, important facts (divergences within otherwise analogous transitive verbs, occurrence of benefactive PPs, argument interpretation) receive a unified explanation. More importantly, it allows us to consider the role of SE as an aspectually-relevant element in a way rather different to the one commonly analyzed (Zagona1996, de Miguel&Lagunilla 2000); in line with a classical opposition (measure-out|delimitness) and in strict correlation with argument structure (theme-|Goal-dictated telicity). Further work will establish if these observations generalize to Romance; e.g. Italian, which apparently shows the same contrast (although some natives allow (β) in all COPs). Structural asymmetry would help to explain clitic distribution correlated with the contrast between (α)-(β) readings: cf. la si compra (ACC.f|SE|buy.3S) ?one buys it? vs. se la compra (SE|ACC.f|buy.3S) ?he buys it for himself? and contrasts in participle agreement: ce la si è comprata (ppt/obj agr.) gives (β); ce la si è comprate (ppt/ subj agr.), only (β).(6) (se) compró un coche por una hora. ?She bought a car for an hour? (≈the car was hers/with her for 1h)(7) [vP DP1i [V, PC [ sei [PC0 DP2]]]](8) (Los inspectoresi) *(sei) {quedaron/acapararon/incautaron/alquilaron} coches [para ellosi].The inspectors kept/monopolized/confiscated/rented} cars for themselves (≈they got them by renting)(9) a. Se pagaron/dejaron los coches ?They left/payed the cars to themselves?(≈they got the cars as result)b. Se trajeron/llevaron los coches ?they brought/carried the cars with/to themselves?