Papers by Javier Ormazabal
Isogloss 10 (5): Current issues in Spanish linguistic variation, 2024
In this article, following Ormazabal & Romero (2022) insights, a modular approach to agreement va... more In this article, following Ormazabal & Romero (2022) insights, a modular approach to agreement variation is proposed where syntactic relations are uniform, dialectal variation is determined in morphology, and extragrammatical modules deal with sociolinguistic variation. While dialectal variation is systematic, dependent on hierarchical relations, and occurs within linguistic communities; sociolinguistic agreement variation is arbitrary, linearly determined, and subject to socioeconomic and educational pressures.
Linguistic Inquiry, May 2024
In this paper we reply to all the relevant objections raised against a connection between DOCs an... more In this paper we reply to all the relevant objections raised against a connection between DOCs and to-constructions and present new arguments showing the empirical and theoretical advantages of derivational (P-incorporation type) analyses over mainstream non-derivational (P-have and applicative) ones. We show that to-constructions and DOCs share a common substructure, where the theme is higher than the goal, that construction-based analyses fail to capture, both crosslinguistically and English-internally. Finally, we argue that variation on the lexical properties of verbs and adpositions is the right tool to account for the properties of the alternation.
Linguistic Inquiry, 2024
Most analyses of non-paradigmatic SE derive their agreement patterns structurally, forcing a pass... more Most analyses of non-paradigmatic SE derive their agreement patterns structurally, forcing a passive/impersonal distinction against all evidence. Instead, we uniformly analyze them as regular sentences where the T-agreeing subject is se itself, an argumental clitic pronoun, with [person] but no number φ-features, and show that the overt argument, which has object prop-erties, does not genuinely agree in syntax. We reveal a new asymmetry between postverbal and preverbal/null arguments, which conceals two postsyntactic processes with very distinc-tive properties: morphological clitic Mutation into number agreement, and T’s Number Har-mony with a close DP, not ruled by syntax or morphology.
LABURPENA Erlazio izenetatik eratorritako postposizio konplexu gehienek bi egitura desberdinetan ... more LABURPENA Erlazio izenetatik eratorritako postposizio konplexu gehienek bi egitura desberdinetan parte hartzen dute: etxearen aurrean/etxe aurrean. Hauen desberdintasunetan oinarrituta, gramatikari askok funtzio berezia duten kokapen izenak direla argudiatu dute: hortaz, lehen egitura genitibozko IS bat litzatekeen bitartean bigarrena erlazio-izena ardatzean duen hitz konposatua litzateke. Hipotesi honen kontra, postposizio konplexu hauek lekuzko deklinabide atzizkiekin (-ra,-tik, etab.) batzea proposatzen dut: hortaz, etxe aurrean-en egiturak etxera-ren ezaugarri eta murriztapen berberak (hala nola, determinatzailerik gabeko osagarri definituak, bizigabea izatea, etab.) erakusten dituen bitartean, etxearen aurrean-ena gizonaren gana-ren parekoa dela argudiatzen dut. Postposizio konplexuen eta soilen arteko desberdintasunak lexikalizazio prozesu desberdina izatetik deribatuko lirateke. Gako hitzak: postposizioak; erlazio izenak; kokapen izenak; deklinabide atzizkiak. ABSTRACT Most complex postpositions derived from relational nouns participate in two different structures: etxearen aurrean/etxe aurrean ('in front of the house'). Based on their differences, many grammarians argue that they are location nouns with a special function: thus, while the first one is a genitive NP structure, the second one would be a compound with the relational name as its head. Against this hypothesis, I propose to unify complex postpositions with locative declension suffixes (-ra,-tik, etc.): from this perspective, the structure of etxe aurrean presents the same properties and constraints as etxera (e.g. definite complements without determiners, inanimate properties, etc.), while the structure of etxearen aurrean parallels the one of gizonaren gana. I also propose that the differences between complex and simple postposition derive from differences in their lexicalization process.
Análisis. Revista de investigación filosófica, 2020
En este artículo proponemos que existe un problema de traducción del sistema representacional con... more En este artículo proponemos que existe un problema de traducción del sistema representacional conceptual al lingüístico que tradicionalmente no se ha tenido en cuenta. Tal problema ha pasado desapercibido posiblemente porque se ha echado mano de un sistema representacional intermedio adaptado a las necesidades expresivas del lenguaje. Sin embargo, explicamos que, lejos de resolver el problema, postular este sistema intermedio hace que el problema de traducción sea más difícil de resolver. En consecuencia, proponemos un modelo de producción lingüística que no recurre al nivel de representación conocido como “pensar para hablar” (Slobin, 1996).
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2017
The properties and internal chronology of various dative changes in the history of the Lapurdian ... more The properties and internal chronology of various dative changes in the history of the Lapurdian dialect of Basque are shown to be fully incompatible with the basic tenets of standard non-derivational approaches to dative alternations (both Phave and “Low Applicative projection” types), and support the presence of an underlying P in applicative constructions. A neo-derivational approach based on the incorporation of an adpositional head accounts naturally for important generalizations on the distribution of the changes and conforms to the properties of dative variation crosslinguistically.
Lingvisticae Investigationes, 2019
This paper argues that there is nothing"differential" in the licensing conditions of Differential... more This paper argues that there is nothing"differential" in the licensing conditions of Differential Object Marking and outlines an analysis that unifies DOM with dative object marking and with a broader set of "derived object"-marking configurations. We show that neither morphological nor syntactic distinctiveness can be the driving force for DOM: accounts of DOM as a morphological distinctiveness device are inadequate diachronically and very unefficient functionally. Syntactic analyses that postulate DP-internal differences or construction-specific double-licensing conditions fail to capture the basic fact that DOM is a relation between the objects and the predicates selecting them. Precisely, the burden of our unified explanation falls on the checking requirements imposed to the DP complements by the structural heads selecting them.
Borealis, 2019
Following Oca (1914), this article argues that passive and impersonal se constructions in Spanish... more Following Oca (1914), this article argues that passive and impersonal se constructions in Spanish are regular transitive constructions where the pronominal clitic se is the argumental subject. Several arguments (secondary predication, non-argumental predicates, control and obviation, anaphora binding, active morphology or its alignment with overt nominative pronouns, among others) show that (i) both constructions are active structures, (ii) despite what agreement facts might suggest, in both the internal argument of the verb is not the subject but the direct object throughout the derivation, (iii) se is the active nominative pronominal subject of the construction. We argue that the alleged 'special' properties of passive-se are not construction-specific but follow from the lexical specifications of se agreeing with Tense as a quirky subject. RESUMEN. Este artículo propone siguiendo a Oca (1914) que las construcciones con se pasivas e impersonales son construcciones transitivas normales cuyo sujeto es el clítico pronominal se. Distintos argumentos (predicación secundaria, predicados no argumentales, control y obviación, ligamiento de anáforas, morfología activa o su coherencia con el comportamiento de los pronombres nominativos explícitos entre otros) muestran que (i) se trata de dos construcciones activas, (ii) a pesar de lo que parecen sugerir los hechos de concordancia, en ambas construcciones el argumento interno del verbo no es el sujeto sino el complemento directo de la derivación y (iii) se es el sujeto pronominal nominativo de la construcción. Proponemos que las supuestas propiedades 'especiales' de la pasiva refleja no dependen de la construcción, sino que se siguen de las propiedades de la concordancia de se con Tiempo como sujeto caprichoso. Palabras clave. construcciones con se; sujeto caprichoso; Marcado Diferencial de Objeto; clíticos de sujeto * The two authors, listed in alphabetical order, are equally responsible for the entire content of the paper. We are grateful to
Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Dec 1, 2013
In this paper we propose an asymmetrical approach to Case-licensing where, on the one hand, the f... more In this paper we propose an asymmetrical approach to Case-licensing where, on the one hand, the functional architecture in the verbal system can license at most one DP, and, on the other, only certain DPs require formal licensing. Our proposal straightforwardly explains long-lasting syntactic problems in the syntax of Spanish and other languages concerning Differential Object Marking (DOM), Raising to Subject asymmetries in se constructions, and Person Case Constraint effects. Then, we analyze the consequences and challenges of our proposal for the explanation of the clitic behavior in laísta dialects in contexts where both internal arguments seem to be independently formally licensed, one of them via DOM, and the other by means of a dative clitic. We show that this dative clitic does not establish an agreement relation, but it is an incorporated determiner, as in the case of third person accusative clitics (Ormazabal and Romero 2013a). Euskadi (La phrase dans la langue basque et les langues voisines: approche comparative, 2012).
Anuario Del Seminario De Filologia Vasca Julio De Urquijo, Mar 30, 2013
This paper is mainly devoted to discuss some topics concerning the organization of morphology and... more This paper is mainly devoted to discuss some topics concerning the organization of morphology and to show some of the theoretical and empirical advantages of a syntactic approach to word formation processes over the standard lexicalist approach. It is argued that complex. word formation 'obeys the same general principles that apply at each level of the' syntactic component, and that the differences between morphological and syntactic operations can be derived from the interaction of general conditions of the system. This move from the lexicalist approach to a syntactic view of morphology is possible due to two independent factors that have combined within the linguistic theory only in the last few years: on the one hand, the development of morphology th~ory itself has made evident a large number of regulariti~s in those processes that, I think, were misconceived in earlier stages of the inquiry; these properties manifest a highly complex organization of the morphological component and its relationship with other components of the grammar. On the other hand, a rather productiye development of comparative linguistics within what has been called, the Principles and Parameters approach has permitted a considerable extension in the range of linguistic studies on a variety of languages that show very different morphological and syntactic patterns. This new material reveals a considerable number of general properties that systematically appear in morphological processes even across languages that superficIally appear to be very different.
Anuario Del Seminario De Filologia Vasca Julio De Urquijo, Apr 6, 2013
This paper is part of a more extensive project whose main topic is the role of Casetheory in the ... more This paper is part of a more extensive project whose main topic is the role of Casetheory in the general design of the language facultyl. The ultimate goal of this work would be to show that Case does not play the central role current linguistic theories attribute to it, and to derive its effects from other general conditions of the system. In this paper, we will focus on several phenomena that show, contrary to standard assumptions, that Case and Agreement-checking are independent processes. We will argue that Case-features are not the relevant trigger for overt agreement-inducing movement; in particular, in the cases we will analyze, we will show that verbal agreement is sensitive to some animacy feature of the attracted object. Case-marking will then be analyzed as a property of the morphological component, with no bearing on the issue of syntactic movement.
Anuario Del Seminario De Filologia Vasca Julio De Urquijo, Jun 7, 2013
Azken urteotan, argumentu egituraren teoriak aldaketa sakonak jasan ditu, bai eztabaidan dauden h... more Azken urteotan, argumentu egituraren teoriak aldaketa sakonak jasan ditu, bai eztabaidan dauden hipotesien arteko planteamendu teorikoen aldetik, baita lehian dauden hipotesi hauek besarkatzen duten eremu enpirikoarenetik ere. Urrun gelditu dira Hatsarre eta Parametroen lehen urteetan egiten ziren sarrera lexikoak aditz bakoitzeko argumentu zerrenda bat zehazten zutenak kanpo eta barne argumentuaren arteko diferentzia sarreran bertan markatuz. Eztabaida horretan, aditz al diz katzeak erdigunean egon diren egiturak dira, eztabaidagai diren proposamenen arteko desberdintasunak eta hipotesi bakoitzaren besarkadura enpiriko eta eremu teorikoa zehazteko orduan duten garrantziagatik. Haien artean, (1) adibideko kausatibo al dizka tzeak eztabaida askotako gaia izan dira: 2 1 Gure belaunaldiko asko perpausaren egituraren labirintoan Gramatika Bideetan liburuaren eta bere egilearen eskolen eskutik sartu ginen lehendabiziko aldiz; askok gogoratzen dugu Patxi eskolara bere liburuaren bigarren ediziorako zuzenketekin etortzen zela, edozein gairekin eztabaida sortuz. Eta gutariko batzuek horrez geroztik ez dugu labirintotik ateratzerik izan. Nire kasuan behintzat -eta, ziur naiz, nire ikaskide batzuenean ere-hogeita lau urte hauek Minotauroarena baino gehiago Ithakako bidaia luzea izan da, "ple d'aventures, ple de coneixences". Hortaz, nire omenaldi xume hau bihotzez de di katzen diot bidaia horretan abiarazi zidan maisuari.
Probus, 2013
This article presents an analysis of object clitics in Spanish and some of its consequences for t... more This article presents an analysis of object clitics in Spanish and some of its consequences for the theory of agreement and Case. On the empirical side, we present syntactic, morphological and semantic arguments supporting a mixed approach to object clitics where 3rd person Direct Object (DO) cliticization constitutes a genuine case of Determiner movement, but other DO and Indirect Object (IO) clitics are agreement elements. Once third person object clitics are set aside, the emerging picture is a single agreement that does not discriminate between DOs and IOs in the syntax. This idea finds striking support in Basque Leísta Dialect, where there is a 3rd person DO agreement clitic that behaves in all relevant respects like all other agreement clitics. Moreover, the consequences of this analysis extend to other properties of the object relation in Spanish, such as Differential Object Marking (DOM), and dialectal variation in the clitic field. An interesting observation that arises from this study is that the agreement nature of 1st and 2nd person clitics and the whole series of IOs is extremely robust in Spanish and remains invariable across all the dialects analyzed. Variation is thus restricted to 3rd person DO objects, where in contrast the changes are diverse and take very different directions, a fact that raises interesting questions related both to the historical evolution of the clitic system and to the theoretical analysis of Case and agreement.
Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2013
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2010
Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 2005
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2007
This paper is an extensively revised and expanded version of the first part of a broader paper th... more This paper is an extensively revised and expanded version of the first part of a broader paper that was circulated as and also included a syntactic analysis of the agreement restrictions discussed here. The syntactic proposal analyzed the properties of a series of ditransitive constructions that were shown to be subject to the restriction: dative Constructions, dative Clitic Constructions and Double Object Constructions, all in a broad variety of languages. Due to editorial requirements, we have extended the descriptive sections of the work, leaving the more theoreticallyoriented parts of our proposal for a forthcoming paper. Parts of this material were presented at the Universities of the Basque Country, British Columbia, Connecticut, Melbourne, MIT, Paris 8-Saint Denis, the Linguistic Seminar at Deusto, the 21 st GLOW Colloquium at Tilburg, and the Journées d´Études Linguistiques de Nantes, JEL 2004. We are very grateful to these audiences for helpful comments and discussion. We are also thankful to Abstract This paper deals with the so-called Person Case Constraint (Bonet 1991), a universal constraint blocking accusative clitics and object agreement morphemes other than third person when a dative is inserted in the same clitic/agreement cluster. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we argue that the scope of the PCC is considerably broader than assumed in previous work, and that neither its formulation in terms of person (1 st /2 nd vs. 3 rd )-case (accusative vs. dative) restrictions nor its morphological nature are part of the right descriptive generalization. We present evidence (i) that the PCC is triggered by the presence of an animacy feature in the object's agreement set; (ii) that it is not case dependent, also showing up in languages that lack dative case; and (iii) that it is not morphologically bound. Second, we argue that the PCC, even if it is modified accordingly, still puts together two different properties of the agreement system that should be set apart: (i) a cross-linguistic sensitivity of object agreement to animacy and (ii) a similarly widespread restriction on multiple object agreement observed crosslinguistically. These properties lead us to propose a new generalization, the Object Agreement Constraint (OAC): if the verbal complex encodes object agreement, no other 1 For reasons that will become clear in the discussion, we will use the same notation for clitics and agreement markers in the glosses. We will use the following abbreviations: CL=clitic, ACC=accusative,
Linguistic Inquiry, 2012
Bresnan and Nikitina (2009) and Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) show that, contrary to standard ... more Bresnan and Nikitina (2009) and Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) show that, contrary to standard assumptions, fixed-theme idioms may appear in to-constructions under certain pragmatic circumstances. Bruening (2010a) contends that the cases they present are in fact R(ightward)-dative shifts, double object constructions with the object projected to the right. In this article, we argue that Bruening’s proposed theoretical apparatus is
Uploads
Papers by Javier Ormazabal