![[viii] Introduction
Rizzi 1982)1
or the polysynthesis parameter (Baker 1996), which involved a
large number of languages and sweeping generalizations.
These long-range parameters are at the center of controversy nowadays.
Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) recent work may be seen as a paradigmatic criti-
cism of the notion of parameter embedded in the traditional Principles and
Parameters (P&P) model.2
Criticisms of this sort are usually based on the
alleged failure of the parameter model to issue empirically correct typologi-
cal generalizations. Other criticisms of the notion of parameter come from
a different perspective: rather than focusing on the model’s limited practi-
cal success, they note the problematic status of the concept in a minimalist
framework, where the computational principles at work are subject to radi-
cal modularity, making it very difficult to integrate parameters into principles
(Boeckx 2009, 2011). From this perspective, it is not easy to see how basic
computational operations like merge or copy (previously implied in “move-
ment”), for instance, could accommodate parametric variation of the sort
that was apparent in, say, subjacency (but see Gallego 2010). One alterna-
tive approach that may be logically entertained is that parameters, rather
than being overtly specified in the fabric of UG as binary options, follow
from the underspecification of UG (see Boeckx 2009, Roberts and Roussou
2003). Under this view, the reason languages differ in the way they set
the relative order of head and complement, for instance, follows not from
the head-parameter, specified in UG as a binary choice in the directional-
ity of recursion, but from the fact that merger, which produces hierarchical
relations, does not specify order. Order is enforced by the externalization
systems (PF), which must map hierarchical relations in time. Any of the
possible options (head-complement or complement-head) optimally meet
the interface requirements imposed by PF and therefore both become pos-
sible and are (roughly) evenly distributed.3
Finally, some of the criticisms of
the notion of parameter as understood in the original P&P model emerge
from the area of language acquisition and language change. Recently, work
by Yang (2002, 2010), who takes up and elaborates ideas first proposed by
Kroch in the context of syntactic change, suggests that the learner is best
modeled as having multiple grammars (associated to different weights) that
compete among themselves to closely match the incoming input. It is the
binary nature of the parameters, and the idea that the learner moves from
one UG-defined grammar to another, that is replaced by a more flexible
selectional model. This view of variation puts forward the idea that speakers
1 Although Baker (2008: 351–352) characterized it as a medioparameter.
2 See Roberts and Holmberg (2005) for a reply and Roberts and Holmberg (2010)
for a (favourable) general discussion of the Principles and Parameters model.
3 We are simplifying deliberately. Issues related to nonharmonic orders become highly
relevant.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-13-320.jpg)
![Introduction [ix]
may retain different parametric options as they develop their mature gram-
matical system. Höskuldur Thráinsson (this volume) provides evidence for
this model on the basis of an ongoing change in Icelandic, so-called Dative
Sickness. According to the corpus data he examines, the syntactic change
in question (the spreading of the dative case in several verbal contexts)
must be modeled in terms of an increasing factor of grammatical variabil-
ity among the younger speakers, who accept (and use to different degrees)
the two or more options involved in the change, as opposed to the older
speakers. Intraspeaker variation of a microsyntactic type therefore becomes a
revealing source of data and ideas for discussing the status of parameters.
The limited success of long-range parametric formulations has caused
many linguists to turn their attention to more limited areas of variation,
most notably to language internal variation.4
This is where microparam-
eters arise. As Kayne (2005: 8) graphically puts it, “The special status of
micro-comparative syntax resides in the fact that it is the closest we can
come, at the present time, to a controlled experiment in comparative syn-
tax.” Extending this image, Kayne (2000: 5) claims that
comparative work on the syntax of a large number of closely related varieties/
languages can be thought of as a new research tool, one that is capable of
providing results of an unusually fine-grained and particularly solid character.
If it were possible to experiment in languages, a syntactician would construct
an experiment of the following type: take a language, alter a single one of its
observable syntactic properties, and examine the result to see what, if any, other
property has changed as a consequence. If some other property has changed,
conclude that it and the property that was altered are linked to one another by
some abstract parameter.
This approach to the study of syntactic variation is embedded in a par-
ticular notion of what parameters are. This notion can be defined in terms
of what Baker (2008: 353–355) calls the Borer/Chomsky conjecture:
(1) The Borer/Chomsky conjecture
All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the fea-
tures of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon
(1) finds a stronger formulation in the idea that “every functional element
made available by UG is associated with some syntactic parameter” (Kayne
2005: 11).
4 We take the opposition between I- and E-languages to apply not only to “lan-
guages” but also to “varieties,” and only I-languages/varieties are amenable to scientific
study. In other words, we find no reason not to identify “language” and “variety.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-14-320.jpg)
![[x] Introduction
As Baker points out, this particular conception of parameter was first
addressed by Borer (1984) and then adopted by Chomsky (1995) in the
minimalist program and is tightly related to Kayne’s (and others’) microcom-
parative approach. If functional elements are responsible for cross-linguistic
variation, then this variation resides in the component of grammar we learn
from input data, that is, the lexicon. This way, acquiring the lexicon and idi-
osyncratic properties of functional elements means acquiring syntactic varia-
tion (Borer 1984: 29).
This view stands in contrast to the notion of macroparameters, as pro-
posed by Baker (among others), which continue the original conception of
parameter of the 1980s. The macroparametric view can be formulated as fol-
lows (Baker 2008: 354):
(2) There are some parameters within the statements of the general prin-
ciples that shape natural language syntax.
(2) corresponds to the idea that something like being a polysynthetic lan-
guage, for example, “seems to be more pervasive than can be attributed to any
particular item” (Baker 1996). It is an open question whether parameters of
the polysynthetic sort exist. An alternative view of such parameters is that they
can be cashed out in terms of an aggregate of microparameters. As noted by
Kayne (2005: 7), one of the key properties of polysynthetic languages—the
obligatory appearance of a pronominal agreement element in addition to the
(nonincorporated) lexical argument—is also found within languages like Italian.
For example, the Italian clitic left-dislocation construction (Cinque 1990)
requires the presence of a pronominal clitic in addition to the dislocated direct
object argument. Although this property may ultimately be unconnected to the
polysynthesis parameter, it could alternatively be the case that “the system-
atic obligatoriness of pronominal agreement morphemes in Mohawk is just an
extreme example of what is found to a lesser extent in (some) Romance.”
2. IDENTITY CRITERIA FOR PARAMETERS
The previous discussion on the status of parameters raises the issue of how
we can distinguish bona fide parameters in the context of language varia-
tion, assuming that at least part of that variation will result from histori-
cal accident. Smith and Law (2009) propose a set of “identity criteria” for
parameters that we may use as a useful heuristic to determine the exist-
ence of parameters at the microvariation scale. For Smith and Law, param-
eters present some characterizing properties amid more ordinary variation.
Parameters must cover variation that is systematic, deterministic (in the
sense that the input available to the child must be rich enough and explicit
enough to guarantee that the parameter can be set), discrete (usually binary),](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-15-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xi]
and exclusive, such that the parametric variation gives rise to mutually exclu-
sive options. Under an appropriate formulation, mutual exclusivity entails
that the parametric options exhaust the hypothesis space in an interdepend-
ent way. That is, parameters are hierarchically nested (see Baker 2001).
As an example of how microparametric syntax uncovers significant aspects
of syntactic variation in the sense suggested by Smith and Law (2009),
consider the kind of systematic variation noted by Holmberg & Platzack
between Insular Scandinavian languages (Icelandic, partly Faroese and Old
Scandinavian) and Mainland Scandinavian ones (Danish, Norwegian, and
Swedish).5
As Holmberg & Platzack (2005: 420–421) point out, “In many
respects these languages are no more different than dialects of a single lan-
guage may be.” All Scandinavian languages present a high degree of gram-
matical similarity (Holmberg & Platzack 2005: 421–424). However, some
syntactic differences between Insular Scandinavian and Mainland Scandinavian
are attested, as far as the left periphery (Rizzi 1997) is concerned (see sec-
tion 3.4, 432–438). Apart from the intrinsic interest of the description of
these syntactic differences attested in the languages under discussion, one
of the most appealing aspects of Holmberg & Platzack’s work lies in the
simplicity and elegance of the theoretical explanation that underlies that
variation. Assuming that in the left periphery, there is a Force Phrase, as
in Rizzi 1997, and a Finite Phrase (FinP) that hosts an EPP feature (i.e.,
it must have a specifier), Holmberg & Platzack (2005: 433) propose that
“the syntactic differences are the results of a single inflectional difference
between these languages: the finite verb in Icelandic, but not in Mainland
Scandinavian, is inflected for person.” Holmberg & Platzack assume that
“the person inflection hosts an uninterpretable finiteness feature uFin. For
Mainland Scandinavian, which does not have person inflection, the feature
uFin is contained in the nominative DP.” Furthermore, as Scandinavian lan-
guages are verb-second languages, Fino
must be filled. A number of gram-
matical differences follow automatically from this parametric difference. Thus,
Mainland Scandinavian must have a visible subject in all finite clauses, exple-
tive or not, whereas Icelandic must have a visible element in front of the
finite verb, but not necessarily a subject:
(1) a. Det regnade igår (Swedish)
b. Það rigndi í gær (Icelandic)
it rained yesterday
(2) a. Igår regnade *(det) (Swedish)
b. Í gær rigndi (*Það) (Icelandic)
yesterday rained it
5 Roberts and Holmberg (2005) use the same illustrative case.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-16-320.jpg)
![[xii] Introduction
Then, Insular Scandinavian, but not Mainland Scandinavian has stylistic front-
ing. Here are the examples (from Icelandic) given in Holmberg & Platzack
(2005: 436) from Jónsson (1991) and Holmberg (2000):
(1) a. Þetta er tilboð sem ekki er hœgt að hafna
This is offer that not is possible to reject
b. Þeir sem pessa erfiðu ákvörðun verða að taka
those that this difficult decision have to take
Third, oblique subjects are available in Insular Scandinavian but not Mainland
Scandinavian (from Icelandic):
(3) Hadfði mér Því leiðst Haraldur
had me. dat thus bored Harold. nom
Finally, embedded subject questions compete with the complementizer in
Insular Scandinavian, but not in Mainland Scandinavian:
(3) a. Hon frågade vad *(som) låg i byrån (Swedish)
b. Hún spurði hvað (*sem) lægi í skúffunni (Icelandic)
she asked what that was-lying in chest-the
A difference in the location of a noninterpretable feature (whether in Fin or
in the nominative DP) gives rise to a set of clustering properties distinguish-
ing two groups of dialects. The grammatical options addressed by the param-
eter count as systematic, discrete, mutually exclusive, and deterministic.
Variation of that general form is to be found in several proposals along
the volume. Most of the contributions in this volume are cast within an
approach to parametric variation that is highly sympathetic to (1).
3. WHY DATIVES?
The volume focuses on the syntactic variation that arises in connection with
dative-marked DPs. We define dative DPs as those DPs that typically occur as
recipients of a caused motion event or a caused possession event (see Rappaport
and Levin 2008, among many others) and that are identified by grammati-
cal means that set them apart from the rest of the nominal arguments of a
predicate. Those grammatical means may involve case-endings, dedicated mor-
phology in the finite verb or auxiliary, or a special syntactic position vis-à-vis
other DPs in the sentence (as can be deduced from binding and scope con-
figurations or phrasal ordering). In addition, those means typically go beyond](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-17-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xiii]
recipients of motion or change of possession events to characterize other DPs
whose semantic contribution does not seem to be entailed by the lexical root
or the basic thematic layer of the verb. This is one of the distinctive properties
of dative-marked DPs, and one that sets apart dative-marked DPs from other
case-marked DPs. Dative-marked DPs may occur as benefactives, as experienc-
ers, as external possessors, as ethical datives, or as addressee-oriented markers,
and their relation to selected datives is a source of permanent interrogation.
The presence of nonselected datives has led to the hypothesis that datives in
general are introduced in the clausal structure by indirect means, as arguments
of an independent functional head, which could be inserted in different syntac-
tic positions. The contribution of a dative-marked DP would therefore follow
from the syntactic phrase to which this independent functional head merges.
This intuition underlies much of the research on “high” and “low” datives
(Pylkkänen 2008, Cuervo 2003, Anagnostopoulou 2003), which extends some
of the findings on applicative constructions to languages that have no applica-
tive morphology. Our volume contains two chapters that make specific con-
tributions in this regard. Going beyond the usual discussion on the syntactic
merger position of nonargumental datives, Nora Boneh and Léa Nash uncover
several unnoticed asymmetries between core and noncore datives in French:
the former must bind a variable inside the verbal phrase. By focusing on the
relation between the high dative and its scope (the verbal domain), they are
able to account for the range of DP-types that may occur inside the VP in
combination with a nonselected dative and provide a convincing account of
the uncovered restrictions. In his contribution, Boban Arsenijevic focuses on a
relatively uncommon type of nonselected dative: the so-called evaluative dative,
which he takes to be related to a head expressing evaluative mood. This par-
ticular type of dative can be shown to be licensed by the subject of the clause,
therefore illustrating one of the cases of subject-involvement that make nonse-
lected dative arguments so puzzling.
The ability of dative-marked DPs to occupy more than one structural
position in such a prominent way raises a question as to the status of the
dative marker, analyzed in many languages as a bona fide case-ending on the
same level as, say, nominative/absolutive or ergative/accusative case-endings.
The particular status of dative markers is apparent, however, in terminology
(oblique case) that assimilates dative endings to other declensional types.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether dative markers should be assimi-
lated to adpositions. According to several authors (e.g., Asbury 2008), dative
case markers are actually adpositions. In Caha’s nanosyntactic approach
(2009), prepositions and case-endings are distinguished as a result of NP
movement. If the NP moves beyond a labeled feature, this feature will show
up as a case-ending on the NP; if the movement does not reach the labeled
feature, this feature will be realized as a preposition. Thus nothing substantial
hinges on the adposition/case-ending distinction. That datives must be kept](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-18-320.jpg)
![[xiv] Introduction
separate from nominative and accusative case (assumed to illustrate “abstract
case”) is shown by Tom Leu’s chapter in the volume. In his analysis of the
nominal inflection of Standard German and Swiss German, dative aligns with
genitive case, not with nominative and accusative in several syncretism phe-
nomena, and also aligns with the genitive in the position it occupies in the
structure of the DP, different from nominative and accusative. Swiss German
therefore becomes a source of evidence that dative case marking must be
treated separately from undisputable instances of abstract case. On the other
hand, many languages make clear distinctions between dative-marked end-
ings and other declension classes, such as primary adpositions and other,
more complex adpositional phrases. In Basque, for instance, dative-marked
DPs typically agree in person and number with the inflected verb, just as
absolutive and ergative-marked DPs do. Furthermore, dative-marked DPs
share their agreement exponence with the ergative, an abstract case (see
Rezac et al. for discussion). Dative DPs also enter into binding as legiti-
mate antecedents, and they differ from primary adpositions in that they fol-
low the determiner, unlike primary adpositions, which attach to the stem.
Still, microvariation studies such as the one contributed by Ricardo Etxepare
and Bernard Oyharçabal (this volume) present dialects that possess spatial
datives along with the more general dative DPs. Those datives do not agree
with the verb and occupy a position lower than agreeing ones. This type of
dative, identical to ordinary dative DPs as to the form of the case-ending,
exists along with the agreeing datives in those dialects, and thus offers an
excellent window for discovering the minimal grammatical components that
may determine the ultimate position of a dative-marked DP in the line that
goes from case-marked DP to adpositional phrase.
The syntactic position of dative-marked DPs in case assignment configu-
rations also sets dative DPs apart from other case-marked DPs. Dative DPs
enter into dative alternations of different sorts. A common one presents an
alternation between a case-marked high recipient that precedes the object, and
a low prepositional recipient that follows the object (Greek, Anagnastopoulou
2003). Others express the prominent status of the dative-marked DP by clitic
doubling (Spanish, Demonte 1995), or agreement (Etxepare 2011, in the con-
text of northeastern dialects of Basque). English, on the other hand, presents
no particular exponence for its first DP in the double object construction, but
its prominent status can be tracked down by a number of syntactic asym-
metries that distinguish the two objects. Microvariation studies can shed
interesting light on several of the issues related to double object or alternat-
ing constructions. Dimitris Michelioudakis and Ioanna Sitaridou (this volume)
compare the substitutes of the Ancient Greek dative in four different varieties
of Greek and are able to establish some revealing correlations between their
different syntactic properties. Thus, they show that those varieties where the
dative DP exerts an intervention effect are also varieties that present a strong](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-19-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xv]
version of the PCC. Those are also the varieties that possess a dative alter-
nation between a case-marked DP and a prepositional one. They propose a
typology based on minimal distinctions in the specification of inherent case
that elegantly accounts for the relevant differences. Juan Romero (this vol-
ume) presents a fresh look at an apparently low-level morphological variation
in the gender specification of the dative clitic in some of the Iberian Spanish
dialects: unlike in most of the Iberian Spanish dialects, northwestern ones
seem to make a gender distinction (masculine/feminine) in the dative clitic
paradigm. Interestingly, this feminine clitic, representing the indirect object, is
possible only in those contexts where accusative is assigned. Romero convinc-
ingly argues that this restriction is related to the one we see in the double
object construction in English, which has the indirect object receiving accusa-
tive case from the verb. A related asymmetry, but in a very different morpho-
logical setting, concerns so-called dative displacement in Basque, whereby a
dative-marked argument ends up controlling the agreement slot in the inflected
verb that corresponds to the absolutive. This phenomenon, like the Spanish
feminine dative clitics, or the dative alternations examined by Michelioudakis
and Sitaridou, is prompted by the presence of animacy or person features in
the dative-marked DP. Unlike in the dative alternation constructions, however,
the predicate does not have to be ditransitive. Dative displacement in those
cases is highly reminiscent of Differential Object Marking phenomena. Milan
Rezac and Beatriz Fernández (this volume) closely examine four Basque varie-
ties that present dative displacement, and they use microsyntactic comparison
to sketch a preliminary map of the grammatical variables that enter into the
determination of the actual forms.
Differential Object Marking is typically associated to features that are not
directly selected by the lexical predicate. Other cases of dative marking, how-
ever, seem to be related to the event structure associated to the lexical verb.
Case alternations involving dative therefore become a good testing ground for
the relation between event structure and case marking (see Svenonius 2002).
Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (this volume) and Hlíf Árnadóttir and Einar Freyr
Sigurðsson (this volume) examine the distribution of dative and accusative cases
in the context of different predicate classes in several varieties of Icelandic. This
comparative work results in reconsideration of the status of inherent case.
4. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE VOLUME
Most of the contributions in the volume are set in a microparametric per-
spective and examine two or more closely related dialectal variants. As such,
the volume is able to provide very specific clues as to the exact factors that
enter into the limited variation allowed in each case. In many cases, these
chapters also include a reflection about the form of the parameters involved](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-20-320.jpg)
![[xvi] Introduction
in variation as well as about the nature of parametric variation in general.
We briefly summarize each of the chapters separately, stating their main
contributions to the issues discussed in the book.
Boban Arsenijevic’s article, “Evaluative Reflexions: Evaluative Dative
Reflexive in Southeast Serbo-Croatian,” focuses on a type of nonselected
clitic dative form in southeastern dialects of Serbo-Croatian that the author
calls “evaluative dative reflexive.” The crucial component of this dative clitic
is that it relates to the evaluative mood. The presence of the evaluative
dative reflexive clitic contributes the meaning that the subject of the clause
is a subject of evaluation of the underlying eventuality. The author argues
that the relative position the evaluative dative reflexive occupies in the clause
is highly reminiscent of evaluative mood as characterized by Cinque (1999).
This evaluative reflexive is bound by the subject of the clause, which raises
to a topic position. The author compares the Serbo-Croatian data with simi-
lar datives in English, Syrian Arabic, and Palestinian Arabic.
Nora Boneh and Léa Nash’s article, “Core and Noncore Datives in
French,” analyzes nonselected or noncore datives, with particular focus on
French. Against the widely held idea that noncore datives are selected by spe-
cial applicative heads, they claim that those datives are merged as subjects of
a stative predicate, itself part of a complex event with a resultant subevent or
a locational endpoint. The extra noncore dative argument is licensed by a pro-
cedure of lambda abstraction over a variable provided by material in the lower
subevent. Boneh and Nash uncover an interesting set of restrictions on the
kind of DP or modifier that stays under the scope of the VP in the presence
of noncore datives: the material inside the VP must be able to be bound by
the null operator that triggers lambda abstraction. It thus follows that objects
such as nonpossessive DPs, proper nouns, or modifiers not containing a pro-
nominal element block the possibility of a noncore dative in French. Their
analysis, inspired partly by Roberge and Troberg (2009), requires the noncore
dative to bind a variable in the scope of the stative predicate.
Ricardo Etxepare and Bernard Oyharçabal’s chapter, “Datives and
Adpositions in Northeastern Basque,” concentrates on two related differences
that distinguish central and western Basque, on the one hand, and north-
eastern Basque, on the other. In the latter, the domain of dative case mark-
ing seems wider: it extends to DPs expressing purely spatial roles, such as
goals of motion, and also to aspectual arguments such as complements of
atelic aspectual verbs. In those contexts, the dative does not agree in person
and number with the finite verb, an option that is otherwise not allowed
for datives in Basque. This raises the question of the status of dative mark-
ing in those dialects. They argue that the spatial dative cases in northeastern
Basque are not different from what we see in canonical dative DPs: they
are case suffixes attached to nominal phrases and expressing purely syn-
tactic relations. The only difference is that the kind of functional support](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-21-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xvii]
necessary to license case in verbal predicates can also be found internal to
adpositional phrases, within certain conditions. Concretely, they capitalize on
recent work by Koopman (2000), Tortora (2009), and Den Dikken (2010)
and argue that the spatial dative cases of northeastern Basque are licensed
in an aspectual projection internal to a phrase headed by a directional adpo-
sition. The argument includes a detailed discussion of some of the aspects
involved in the syntax of postpositional phrases in Basque.
Case in Disguise: The authors of this chapter, Hlíf Árnadóttir and Einar
Freyr Sigurðsson, argue, following Legate (2008), that case assignment obeys
potentially two conditions: a derivational one, whereby case relations are
established in the syntax (abstract case), and an interface one (postsyntactic
morphological case), which concerns its morphological realization. The latter
is realized according to global morphological conditions that take into account
the full set of morphologically realized cases in the sentence. Under this dou-
ble determination of overt case, abstract case and morphological case may
not be directly related. From this indirect relation arises the notion of “case
in disguise,” which may obscure the underlying case relations established in
the syntactic component. The authors account for an ongoing change in the
case pattern of DAT-NOM predicates into a DAT-ACC case pattern, where
the dative case serves to “disguise” abstract nominative case.
Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, in “Dative v. Accusative and the Nature of
Nonstructural Case,” examines the alternation between dative and accusative
case in different predicate types in Icelandic and claims that case marking
in Icelandic argues in favor of a case-marking typology that goes against the
idea that inherent case cannot be assigned to themes (Woolford 2006). A
subset of motion predicates in Icelandic (so-called predicates of translational
motion) is shown to select only dative objects. While the semantic inter-
pretation of those objects is entirely predictable, they are assigned inherent
dative case. The chapter includes a discussion of dative/accusative alterna-
tions in the complements of Icelandic verbs.
Höskuldur Thráinsson’s chapter, “Ideal Speakers and Other Speakers:
The Case of Dative and Some Other Cases,” is concerned with inter- and
intraspeaker variation in the domain of subject and object case marking in
Icelandic and Faroese. Based on the large-scale syntactic variation surveys
IceDiasyn and FarDiaSyn, Thráinsson is able to point out some of the fine
points of variation regarding the selection of case-endings in a population of
speakers spanning from fifteen-year-olds to people between the ages of sixty
and seventy. He observes that interspeaker variation in the time arrow, which
brings about the spread of so-called Dative Sickness (the substitution of accu-
sative case by dative in a particular class of so-called impersonal verbs), is
accompanied by increasing intraspeaker variation. Thus, younger speakers tend
overwhelmingly to accept both accusative and dative case-marking in the sub-
ject position of the relevant verbs, whereas older speakers tend to only accept](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-22-320.jpg)
![[xviii] Introduction
accusative marking. Thráinsson examines this pattern of increasing intraspeaker
variation in the light of recent proposals regarding the way parameters are set.
For Thráinsson, the increasing intraspeaker variation observed in younger gen-
erations is hard to accommodate in a model of parameter setting that regards
learners as settling relatively early in a grammar that is consistent and uniform
in all respects. The data seem to point toward a model of parameter setting,
advocated by Kroch (1989) and more recently (Yang 2000, 2004, 2010), that
proceeds in a probabilistic fashion (within a limited hypothesis space) and
may involve a degree of indeterminacy in the grammatical knowledge that is
acquired, in the sense that the latter may involve more than one grammatical
option, or differently put, more than one grammar.
Tom Leu’s chapter, “Feminine Bleeds Dative: The Syntax of a Syncretism
Pattern,” focuses on the morphological paradigm of case- and agreement-marking
in German (singular) DPs. He argues that the patterns of syncretism that
arise from the combination of case and gender feature exponence are better
analyzed by postulating different syntactic positions for dative and genitive
case-markers (gathered under the category oblique), on the one hand, and
nominative-accusative ones, on the other; the latter are merged lower in the
DP structure and are part of what is called adjectival agreement. Part of the
evidence presented capitalizes on dialectal variation internal to German, with
particular attention to Swiss German. One important conclusion of the analy-
sis is that the correct analysis of adjectival agreement must be stated in the
grammar independently of the distribution of dative/genitive morphology.
Dimitris Michelioudakis and Ioanna Sitaridou’s chapter, “Syntactic
Microvariation: Dative Constructions in Greek,” is a careful comparison of
the status of the IO (the descent of the classical Greek dative) in several
closely related varieties and subvarieties of Greek (particularly Pontic Greek).
Michelioudakis and Sitaridou manage to scrutinize some of the most promi-
nent theoretical issues regarding the relation between case-marked and PP IOs
on the basis of minimally contrasting varieties and reach conclusions that, in
the light of comparison, have general import. Their work thus constitutes a
good example of a microvariation study. Michelioudakis and Sitaridou exam-
ine some of the basic aspects of cross-dialectal variation in Greek, such as
the availability of dative alternations, the relative syntactic position of objects
and indirect objects, the existence of minimality effects in Agree/Move
operations in the context of dative constructions, and the presence of PCC
effects of varying strength. The correlations they find between those different
aspects of variation suggest that the differences must be related to the nature
of the case feature associated with the dative argument: the authors distin-
guish between bona fide inherent cases, and inherent cases that seem to par-
ticipate in Agree/Move relations. They also defend the idea that applicative
morphemes do not select or introduce datives but, rather, attract DPs with
an active case originating in a thematic position related to the verbal root.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-23-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xix]
Milan Rezac and Beatriz Fernández’s chapter, “Dative Displacement in
Basque,” discusses differences across Basque dialects in the accessibility of
datives to absolutive-type agreement. In most varieties, including Standard
Basque, datives control a dedicated series of dative suffixes. In some varie-
ties, however, their agreement “displaces” to take over morphology otherwise
reserved for the absolutive, a phenomenon known as dative displacement.
Rezac and Fernández examine in detail four dative displacement dialects in
Basque with the aim of distinguishing the syntactic and the morphological
factors that may enter in the determination of the forms showing displace-
ment. Although they show that in many cases the arising forms could be
accounted for by invoking either syntactic or purely morphological opera-
tions, some conditioning factors are irreducibly syntactic. This corresponds
to those cases where dative displacement is limited to particular subclasses
of datives (goals of motion, or indirect objects of causativized verbs) whose
marking is indistinguishable from that of other datives in the morphology.
Juan Romero’s chapter, “Accusative Datives in Spanish,” explores the
phenomenon of “laísmo” (the use of feminine dative clitics) in a subset of
peninsular Spanish dialects. He shows that the traditional analysis of this
phenomenon, traditionally interpreted as a low-level morphological varia-
tion, is related in a nontrivial way to other syntactic dimensions of ditransi-
tive constructions, such as the animate/inanimate status of the dative, the
case-assigning properties of the predicate, and the argumental nature of
the dative, all of them unexpected if only a gender distinction is at stake.
Romero provides a convincing analysis of laista dialects that builds on some
well-established properties of double object constructions: the idea that the
object and the indirect object are part of a small clause, that the head of
the small clause incorporates onto the verb, and that the higher verb only
has a case to assign. In this context, standard dialects of Spanish incorporate
the head of the indirect object to the verb in the form of the clitic le. On
the basis of the ambiguous status of le as both a dative and an accusative
clitic in standard Spanish, laísta dialects have reanalyzed certain instances
of dative case/agreement involving feminine gender as cases of incorpora-
tion. In this sense, laista dialects are a subset of leista ones, and the rela-
tion between the different varieties can be described in terms of a “nested”
microparametric option.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been partially supported by the following grants: Basque
Government HM-2009-1-25, IT4-14-10 and GIC07/144-IT-210-07; Ministerio
de Ciencia e Innovación FFI2008-00240/FILO and FFI2011-26906; Agence
Nationale de la Recherche ANR-07-CORP-033.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-24-320.jpg)
![[xx] Introduction
REFERENCES
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Asbury, Anna. 2008. “The morphosyntax of case and adpositions.” PhD diss., Utrecht
University.
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.
Baker, Mark. 2008. “The macroparameter in a microparametric world.” In Theresa Biberauer
(ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2009. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. “Approaching parameters from below.” In Cedric Boeckx and Anna
M. di Sciullo (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and
nature of the human language faculty, 205–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. “The nanosyntax of case.” PhD diss., Tromso.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative alternation in Spanish.” Probus 7: 5–30.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. “On the functional structure of locative and directional
PPs.” In Cuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The car-
tography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 74–126. Oxford Studies in Comparative
Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2011. “Contact and change in a restrictive theory of parameters.” To
appear in C. Picallo (ed.), Parameters and linguistic variation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gallego, Angel. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. “Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become
an expletive.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–484.
Holmberg, Anders. 2010. “Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian.”
Theoretical Linguistics 36(1): 1–48.
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 2005. “The Scandinavian languages.” In
Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of com-
parative syntax, 420–458. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jónsson, Johánnes Gisli. 1991. “Stylistic fronting in Icelandic.” Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax (Lund University) 48: 1–43.
Kayne, Richard S. 1996. “Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks.” In
J. Black and V. Montapanyane (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialect variation,
ix–xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Kayne 2000: 3–9.
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. “Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference
to English and French.” In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 3–69. New York: Oxford University Press.
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. “Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles.”
In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London:
Routledge.
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.” Language
Variation and Change 1: 199–244.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-25-320.jpg)
![Introduction [xxi]
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. “Morphological and abstract case.” Linguistic Inquiry. 39 (1):
55–101.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. “Against a parameter-setting approach to language vari-
ation.” In Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck, and Jeroen van Craenenbroek (eds.),
Language Variation Yearbook, 4: 181–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages. A generative perspective on
Linguistic Typology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2006. “A rejoinder to ‘On the role of parameters in Universal
Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer’ by Ian Roberts and Anders Holmberg.”
Available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000248.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. “The object agreement constraint.” NLLT
25 (2): 315–347.
Pica, Pierre. 2001. “Introduction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: v–xii.
Pylkkänen, Lyna. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rappaport, Hovav M., and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English dative alternation: The case
for verb sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.
Rezac, Milan, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2011. “Abstract ergative case.”
Ms. CNRS–University of the Basque Country.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the Left Periphery.” In Liliane Haegeman (ed.),
Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2009. “The high applicative syntax of the dativus
commondi/incommodi in Romance.” Probus 21: 249–289.
Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg. 2005. “On the role of parameters in Universal
Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer.” In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny
Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic
studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 538–553. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg. 2010. “Introduction: Parameters in minimalist the-
ory.” In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan
(eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to gram-
maticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Neil, and Ann Law. 2009. “On parametric (and non-parametric) variation.”
Biolinguistics 3 (4): 332–343.
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events.” Journal of
Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.
Tortora, C. 2009. “Aspect inside PLACE PPs.” In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit
Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of Spatial P, 273–301.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent Case, and argument structure.” Linguistic
Inquiry 37 (1): 111–130.
Yang, Charles. 2000. “Internal and external forces in language change.” Language
Variation and Change 12 (3): 231–250.
Yang, Charles. 2002. “Knowledge and learning in natural language.” Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Yang, Charles. 2004. “Universal grammar, statistics or both?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences
8 (10): 451–456.
Yang, Charles. 2010. “Three factors in language variation.” Lingua 120: 1160–1177.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-26-320.jpg)
![[2] Variation in Datives
appear on both selected and nonselected constituents. It is selected when
the meaning of the verb (the type of eventualities it denotes) somehow
introduces the presence of a participant that it expresses, and it is nonse-
lected when no such relation with the verb can be observed. A typical use
of the former type is to mark the recipient (1a) or the direction of some
movement (1b), while a typical use of the latter is to mark the benefactive/
malfactive meaning (1c, d).
(1) a. Jovan daje knjigu Mariji. S-C
J.Nom gives book.Acc M.Dat
“Jovan gives/is giving a/the book to Marija.”
b. Jovan ide lekaru.
J.Nom goes doctor.Dat
“Jovan is going to (see) the doctor.”
c. Jovan je otvorio vrata Mariji.
J.Nom Aux opened door.Acc M.Dat
“Jovan opened the door for Marija.”
d. Jovan je Mariji postavio zamku.
J.Nom Aux M.Dat set trap.Acc
“J set a trap for Marija.”
Other nonselected datives include the possessive dative (2a), the ethical
dative (2b), the dative of interest (2c), and others (Horn 2008, Al Zahre
& Boneh 2010).
(2) a. Marija mu je videla sestru. S-C
M.Nom he.DatCl Aux seen sister.Acc
“Marija saw his sister.”
b. Kako si mi?
how Aux.2Sg me.Dat
lit. “How are you to/for me?”
c. Ja ti onda krenem na put.
I you.DatCl then start_going on trip.Acc
“And then I took a trip [information in which you are
interested].”
These traditional classes of nonselected datives are closely related to each other
and are often hard to differentiate. This is already obvious in (2b and c),
where the ethical dative could be seen as a pragmatically colored version
of the benefactive (the speaker presents the well-being of the hearer as](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-31-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [3]
something that she is concerned about, hence benefactive/malfactive, i.e., the
speaker takes the information he is conveying to directly bear on the hearer,
again as a kind of benefactive/malfactive role in this respect). Moreover,
most examples of benefactive and malfactive datives involve the meaning of
possession and vice versa, as illustrated in (3).
(3) a. Jovan je Mariji slomio olovku.
J.Nom Aux M.Dat broken pen.Acc
“Jovan broke Marija’s pen [at her damage].”
b. Marija je Jovanu namestila zglob.
M.Nom Aux J.Dat set joint.Acc
“Marija relocated Jovan’s joint [for his benefit].”
Yet another type of nonselected datives is the Evaluative Dative Reflexive
(EDR), as I call it in this article, also known as the Coreferential Dative
(CD; Berman 1982, Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), Reflexive Dative (Borer
2005), Personal Dative (Horn 2008), and so on. (For arguments that EDR
belongs to nonselected datives, see especially Horn 2008.) I decide to intro-
duce a new term for the same element to an already long list, because
I think that none of the existing terms points to an exclusive property of
the phenomenon observed and hence is a potential source of confusion. It
is indeed coreferential and reflexive, but indirect objects and benefactives
can also be coreferential (with another nominal expression in the clause, or
even just the subject) and reflexive; it involves a “personal attitude,” but this
is not so straightforwardly read of the term Personal Dative and so on. As
will be argued in this article, its evaluative contribution is its core charac-
teristic, and along with its reflexivity, this characteristic distinguishes it from
all other datives.
While rare or totally absent in the standard S-C, EDR is highly fre-
quent in some of its dialects, especially in the southeastern dialects of S-C
(SESC). (From here on, unless otherwise specified, all examples are from
this group of dialects, which behave uniformly in respect of the construction
under discussion; most of the examples are from the dialect of the city of
Niš, with around four hundred thousand inhabitants, which represents nearly
half of the speakers of SESC.)
(4) a. Jovan si sedi i gleda si film.
J.Nom Refl.Dat sits and watches Refl.Dat movie.Acc
“Jovan’s sitting and watching a movie [+EDR effects].”1
1 To specify the additional meaning contributed by the EDR, which is not contained
in the English translation, I add “[+EDR effects]” to each translation rather than trying
to paraphrase the effects.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-32-320.jpg)
![[4] Variation in Datives
b. Dao sam si još jedan ispit.
given Aux.1Sg Refl.Dat more one exam
“I took one more exam [+EDR effects].”
It is in most relevant respects similar to the EDR in most other languages
in which this phenomenon exists, as it is described in, among others, Horn
(2008), for English, and Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) for Syrian Arabic and
Modern Hebrew. Throughout the article, I consider EDR in different lan-
guages essentially the same phenomenon, but with certain variations. In
some cases, the differences may well be a matter of (im)precise observa-
tions or descriptions, the risk of which is great due to the sociolinguistic
and pragmatic aspects playing a significant role in the use and interpretation
of these expressions. Compared to the situation in other languages, SESC
shows a greater variety of verbs (or verb classes) that appear in the EDR
construction. This pattern of variation is not exceptional: it resembles the
patterns in other domains, such as that of the classes of verbs used as inac-
cusatives, as presented in Sorace (2000).
While it is closely related to some of them, none of the traditional classes
of nonselected datives may fully accommodate EDR, as it both escapes cer-
tain properties of each of them and has properties of its own that are not
typical for any of these classes. The following section lists its typical prop-
erties, some of which are already described in the literature, and some of
which are either observed for the first time, or characteristic only of the
EDR as it is used in SESC.
3. PROPERTIES OF EDR
As Horn (2008) describes it, EDR does not bear on the truth conditions of
the sentence it appears in. The sentence is fully grammatical and semantically
sound without the EDR. Yet, with the reflexive, its meaning is somewhat
different. The difference—that is, the contribution of the reflexive—can be
informally described through a number of components. Horn (2008: 172)
provides the following:
(5) a. They always co-occur with a quantified (patient/theme) direct
object.
b. They cannot be separated from the verb that precedes and
case-marks them.
c. They are most frequent/natural with monosyllabic “down-home”-
type verbs (e.g., buy, get, build, shoot, get, catch, write, hire,
cook).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-33-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [5]
d. They lack any external (PP) pronominal counterpart.
e. They can occur in positions where a true indirect object is
ruled out and can co-occur with (rather than substituting for)
overt dative/indirect object.
f. They are weak pronouns (Cardinaletti & Starke 1996, 1999;
Bresnan 2001) and cannot be stressed or conjoined.
g. They have no full NP counterpart.
h. There’s no consistent thematic role for these elements.
i. Most speakers have no absolute restriction against third-person
pronominals, but some exhibit a residual person-based asym-
metry: first > second > third
j. They are nonarguments coreferring with the subject.
k. They do not combine well with negated verbs.
In what follows, I describe a number of properties of EDRs in SESC. Some of
the properties given here (e.g., (5b, d, f, g, i, j)) are trivial or nonapplicable in
SESC because it uses a reflexive, not a pronoun. Moreover, as will be shown,
EDRs in SESC do not share all the properties of their English counterpart
described by Horn—for instance, they can occur with any verb (against (5a, c, k)).
The list in (6) summarizes the properties of EDR in SESC presented in this
section (as specified in the following discussion, most of them have been
observed for other languages where EDR is in use, by other authors).
(6) a. They are always realized by a reflexive.
b. The subject they are bound by has to involve some kind of
intentionality.
c. The eventuality in the respective clause is positively evaluated
by the subject.
d. They do not combine well with focal elements with an evalua-
tive interpretation.
e. Information conveyed by the respective sentence is implied to
be of low relevance.
f. The subject binding the EDR must be topical.
g. The subject binding the EDR must be referential.
f. They resist distribution over plural subjects.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-34-320.jpg)
![[6] Variation in Datives
I first describe the semantic and pragmatic ones, and then those that are
(also) related to the syntax of this expression.
Unlike its English counterparts described by Horn, but on a par with its
counterparts in most other languages that display this phenomenon, EDR
in SESC is always realized as a reflexive: that is, it is always anaphoric and
bound by the clausal subject. Again on a par with its counterparts in other
languages (Borer & Grodzinsky 1986), EDR in SESC cannot be stressed.
And since pronominal elements that cannot take stress in SESC are real-
ized as clitics, EDR in SESC is always a clitic. In other words, there is only
one lexical item that realizes EDR in SESC: the dative form of the reflexive
clitic, si.
Al Zahre & Boneh (2010: 9) observe that EDR comes with an interpre-
tation “involving some intentionality attributed to the referent of the subject
DP.” Even when the subject is the undergoer or some other participant, its
involvement still assumes some kind of intentionality, some awareness of the
underlying eventuality.2
(7) a. Pera si zna odgovor.
P Refl.Dat knows answer
“Pera is having the answer ready [+EDR effects].”
not the more literal: “Pera knows the answer [+EDR effects].”
b. Grana (#si) plovi rekom.
branch Refl.Dat sail river.Inst
“The branch is floating down the river [+EDR effects].”
[This sentence improves if the branch is personified.]
Horn (2008: 181) talks about the following interpretive effect of the use of
EDRs: “The speaker assumes that the action expressed has or would have
a positive effect on the subject, typically satisfying the subject’s perceived
intention or goals.” I argue that this is actually an evaluative effect: the sub-
ject positively evaluates the eventuality, or more precisely the meaning
of the entire PolP (the eventuality located with respect to the reference time
2 Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) argue that EDRs may only be used with a verb that
has an external argument, and Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) show that this is actually not
correct. It may be that Borer and Grodzinsky were misled exactly by the component of
control described here, which is similar to the control typical of certain external argu-
ments but is at the epistemic level rather than the level of event-participants. To illustrate
the difference, let me note that, as Al Zahre and Boneh show, in Modern Hebrew, even
stative and nonverbal predicates, including the individual-level ones, can be used with
an EDR, as long as the subject holds some rather vague intentional control over them
(though it is clearly not a controller in the sense of agency). The same holds in SESC.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-35-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [7]
and assigned a polarity). Information with a negative bias is pragmatically
degraded, often infelicitous with the EDR.3
(8) a. Upao sam (#si) u rupu.
fallen Aux.1Sg Refl.Dat in hole
“I fell into a hole.”
b. Pera (#si) slomio nogu.
P.Nom Refl.Dat broken leg
“Pera had his leg broken.”
Both these examples are fine in contexts in which their subjects consider
it good for themselves to fall into a hole and broke a leg, respectively.
Nevertheless, I provide arguments that this is rather a tendency, with a sig-
nificant number of exceptions. Not all negatively biased examples sound so
bad with an EDR (see section 5 for examples and a discussion).
To further illustrate the evaluative effect, observe the examples in (9).
When the sentences are pronounced with a strong stress on mnogo “much,”
they get an interpretation of a strong subjective evaluation that the newspa-
per is judged as highly interesting. Intensifiers of this type do not combine
with EDRs, because the EDR requires an evaluative interpretation but the
evaluative interpretation is already reserved for the focal intensifier.4
(9) a. Čitam (#si) MNOGO interesantne novine!
read Refl.Dat much interesting newspaper
“I’m reading SUCH an interesting newspaper.”
b. Pera (#si) video MNOGO dobar sat!
P Refl.Dat saw much good watch
“Pera saw SUCH a good watch.”
[The sentence improves with a possessive/benefactive reading
of the reflexive.]
There is one more interpretive effect of EDR that involves attitude and is
common for its use in all languages in which it is found. The speaker utter-
ing the sentence containing the EDR considers the information conveyed
by it to bear little relevance for the collocutors. In SESC, sentences
3 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, the evaluational restriction is another
property that can be observed on other types of expressions as well. For instance, epi-
thets tend to carry a negative evaluation, even though positively evaluated uses are not
fully excluded. The source of the restriction is probably pragmatic in both cases, even
though it is linked to different syntactic and semantic phenomena.
4 More precisely, the problem is that the EDR takes one subject of evaluation (the
clausal subject) and the evaluative focal element another one (the speaker), which
yields a conflict. See sections 4 and 5 for an explanation.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-36-320.jpg)
![[8] Variation in Datives
containing EDR have a kind of marginal, parenthetical intonation. They can-
not be exclamative, and cannot involve a strong focal stress on the clausal
polarity or one of the arguments.
(10) a. Dobio sam si sat. /no strong focal stress/
gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch
“I got a watch [+EDR effects].”
b. #DOBIO SAM SI SAT! /strong focal stress on the sentence/
gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch
c. #Dobio sam si SAT. /contrastive focal stress/
gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch
In other words, a sentence involving EDR cannot be felicitously used in a
context where it brings in the information that the hearer is wondering about.
Its content is always somehow digressive—beside the main line of exchange of
information. Although the speaker assumes that the information is not relevant
to the hearer, the hearer may well show interest in the information conveyed,
and this is exactly what usually happens, and what probably is one prominent
purpose of EDR—to smuggle into the discourse information that might be
pragmatically (socially) inadequate, by attributing it a lower degree of relevance
(usually simply because the speaker may be judged egocentric for introducing
such information without a ground in the current set of topical issues).
Al Zahre and Boneh (2010) report that in Syrian Arabic, EDRs can only
be used if the eventuality involved is modified to have a small quantity
(by adverbs and quantifiers such as šway “little,” kam “several,” or numerals
marking a relatively small quantity). In other languages that display instances
of EDR there is a similar tendency, though not necessarily with an overt
marking. This is probably just a consequence of the marginal informational
relevance of the contents of sentences involving EDRs. Observe the example
in (11), where it is obvious that the quantification introduces only prag-
matic information, without real quantity entailments.
(11)a. Šta si radeo juče?
what Aux2Sg done yesterday
“What did you do yesterday?”
b. Malo sam si jeo palačinke.
little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat eaten pancakes
“I ate pancakes [+EDR effects].”
c. Kolko si pojeo?
how_much Aux2Sg eaten_up
“How much/many did you have?”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-37-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [9]
d. Uuu, mnogo, najmanje 20.
many, fewest 20
“Huh, a lot, at least 20.”
Finally, as an illustration of the pragmatic nature of this type of quantifica-
tion, observe a typical exchange in the beginning of a colloquial conversa-
tion in SESC in (12).
(12) a. Šta se radi?
what Refl.Acc does
“What’s up?” / “What’s going on?” / “What are you doing?”
b. Evo malo.
Prtl.Deic5
little
lit. “Here, a little.” [semantically empty, pragmatic content only]
The response does not say what the person is doing; it only says that it
is a little of whatever it is. There seems to be a pragmatic convention, the
mechanisms of which should be looked for in sociolinguistics, that what-
ever one is saying about oneself, it is by default of little relevance in the
ongoing discourse, and one of the ways to express this is by a low degree
quantification.
This property interacts with the level of aspect. In SESC (and generally
in S-C), only sentences involving imperfective verb forms can include an
explicit quantification with an adverb such as malo “little.” With perfective
verbs, this yields unacceptability.
(13) a. Malo sam gledao TV.
little Aux1Sg watched TV
“I watched TV for a little while.”
b. */# Malo sam pročitao novine.
little Aux1Sg read_out newspaper
~“I read the newspaper for a little while.”
However, when the sentence involves an EDR (or even when it does not,
but the respective reading of malo “little” is suggested by the context or
by the intonation), the use of malo “little” no longer depends on the
aspectual properties of the verb. In such cases, malo “little” clearly specifies
the degree of relevance of the information conveyed.
5 Evo is a deictic particle, similar in meaning to the Italian ecco. It refers to some-
thing that the speaker is showing or presenting, and it can be used ostensively, but
also in a more abstract way, to refer to some discourse-prominent object, event, tem-
poral interval, or spatial location.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-38-320.jpg)
![[10] Variation in Datives
(14) a. Malo sam si gledao TV.
little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watched TV
“I watched TV a little [+EDR effects].”
b. Malo sam si pročitao novine.
little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat read_out newspaper
“I read the newspaper a little [+EDR effects].”
These facts can be interpreted in two ways. One conclusion would be
that EDR has nothing to do with aspect, as the quantification that is related
to its meaning is at the level of informational relevance rather than at the
level of aspect. The other would be that the use of EDR shifts the aspec-
tual status of the verb to imperfective, thus making it compatible with the
adverbs of the type of malo “little.” Again, only a precise description of the
aspectual restrictions imposed by EDRs could provide an answer to this
question, and as I propose an analysis that is orthogonal to the issues of
aspect (although certain interactions are obvious), I do not devote a more
elaborate discussion to this problem.
Sentences involving an EDR come with restrictions on their information
structure. The subject must be topical. This is already illustrated in (10),
where the subject is a first-person pro that must be topical. Topic on other
constituents yields unacceptability, as illustrated in (15) and (16).6
(15) a. Znaš onaj sati
što smo videli?
know.2Sg that watch Comp Aux1Pl seen
“You know that watch that we saw?”
b. Znam. Pera (#si) gai
kupio!7
know.1Sg Pera Refl.Dat it.AccCl bought
“I know. Pera bought it!”
(16) a. On si pije kafu. /(contrastive) topic on the subject/
he Refl.Dat drinks coffee
“He is drinking coffee [+EDR effects].”
b. pro Pije si kafu. /topic on the subject, which is dropped/
pro drinks Refl.Dat coffee.
“He is drinking coffee [+EDR effects].”
6 The type of topic in all these cases is the aboutness topic, which preferably coin-
cides with the familiarity topic, in terms of Reinhart (1981). For more information on
the structural “side effects” of topical constituents in S-C, see Arsenijević (2009).
7 In this article, I assume the EDR use for each dative reflexive used in the exam-
ples. Sometimes another interpretation is available and yields different acceptability
judgments (e.g., in this case, the example improves with a recipient interpretation of
the dative reflexive clitic), but these other readings are ignored.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-39-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [11]
c. Kafu (#si) pije (on). /topical object/
coffee Refl.Dat drinks he
“Coffee, he drinks.”
Al Zahre & Boneh (2010: 17) find this requirement for a topical subject so
striking that they “speculate that the CD [their term for EDR] is actually related
to a topic in an A<prime>-position, itself associated with a thematic-argument.”
As Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) observe, the subject of a clause involv-
ing an EDR must be referential—that is, it cannot be arbitrary or
generic. This is confirmed in SESC, as shown in literal translations of their
Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew examples. The sentence in (17), on the
intended interpretation with an arbitrary subject, cannot combine with an
EDR. The EDR is fine if pro is interpreted as referential.
(17) proARB
popravili (#si) klimu.
fixed Refl.Dat aircondition
‘’They fixed the aircondition.’ [on an arbitrary agent reading]
EDRs seem to resist distribution over subjects and probably even
distribution in general. They involve an effect of singularity: whatever
interpretation is derived for the eventuality and its participants, the EDR
subjects it to one evaluation. More precisely, they never combine with dis-
tributed or iterative referential eventualities. The example in (18a) can be
interpreted in only one way: that the speaker answered correctly each time
and the speech therefore displays the positive evaluation, lower informational
relevance, and other EDR effects. The other reading—in which for every rel-
evant event in which the speaker gives the correct answer, the speech dis-
plays the positive evaluation, lower informational relevance, and other EDR
effects—is not available. The example in (18b) is similar: only the collective
interpretation is available for the conjoined constituents (as a group, they
are solving crosswords). The distributive interpretation, where each is solving
crosswords, and each of these facts is evaluated as positive and marginally
relevant—is out. In section 4, I speculate that this is a consequence of the
tight relation between the evaluative effects and the discourse update.
(18) a. Ja sam si svaki put tačno odgovorio.
I Aux1Sg Refl.Dat each time correct answered
“[EDR effects](I answered correctly each time).”
*“Each time, [EDR effects](I answered correctly).”
b. Pera i Mika si rešavaju ukrštene reči.
P and M Refl.Dat solve crossed words
“[EDR effects](Pera and Mika are solving crosswords).”
*“[EDR effects](Pera is solving crosswords) and [EDR effects]
(Mika is solving crosswords).”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-40-320.jpg)
![[12] Variation in Datives
While other authors do not make similar observations on the use of EDR in
other languages, there are some observations that I consider related to this
one. In particular, Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) note that EDRs (Reflexive
Datives in their terminology) cannot be coordinated, Al Zahre & Boneh
show that they cannot be associated with a group of coordinated verbs, and
Borer (2005) argues that they only occur with atelic interpretations (but see
Al Zahre & Boneh, who show that telicity does not play a role in the use
of EDRs in Modern Hebrew). While the ban on coordination of EDRs can-
not be tested in SESC, where EDR is a clitic and clitics generally do not
coordinate, its ban in languages in which otherwise it would be expected,
as well as the ban on coordination of eventualities, needs an explanation.
As for the aspectual facts, the empirical situation is still quite unclear (see
Al Zahre & Boneh), but it would not be surprising to find that they also
derive from the singularity restriction on the evaluation time.
Horn observes that in English, EDRs do not go well with negation.
Although certain examples are attested, they are all licensed by what Horn
refers to as a syntagmatic priming (the expression involving an EDR is liter-
ally repeated in the negated sentence, from a sentence from the preceding
discourse). Horn’s evidence is based on the quantitative data about antonym
verbs as well as examples involving explicit negation, rather than on the
unacceptability of negated examples, and I refer the reader to Horn’s article
for the precise data.
In SESC, EDRs are not (so) sensitive to negation, as long as it does
not affect the positive evaluation of the sentential content by the subject.
Examples of the type in (19) are well formed, although some speakers find
some of them slightly degraded.
(19)a. Ja si danas ne odo na poso.
I Refl.Dat today not went on work
“I didn’t go to work today [+EDR effects].”
b. Pera si ni ogrebotinu ne dobi.
P refl.Dat n_even scratch not got
“Pera wasn’t even scratched [+EDR effects].”
4. THE ANALYSIS
Previous accounts of the EDR were mostly based on the data from Modern
Hebrew (Berman 1982, Borer & Grodzinsky 1986), with the exception of Al
Zahre & Boneh (2010), who compare the Modern Hebrew data with those
from Syrian Arabic, and Horn (2008), who uses the data from English.
These analyses form two groups: the first tries to explain the effects of EDR](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-41-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [13]
in terms of conventional implicature (Horn, and to some extent Al Zahre &
Boneh); and the second links the EDR to the aspectual and argument struc-
ture (all other accounts). An exception is the work of Al Zahre and Boneh,
the aim of which is not to offer an analysis but to systematize the data,
adding important new observations and generalizations, and correcting some
old ones that turned out to be wrong. They show that at least the accounts
focusing on the aspectual and argument structure are based on incomplete
data and actually fail to explain the facts. Finally, the analysis in this article
is similar in spirit to the analysis of Boneh and Nash (2010), who target
French and who also argue that the dative element brings in a sense of
affectedness, and that its attachment site is crucial for its interpretation. From
the information available about their analysis, the main differences are that
they assume the subject in EDR constructions to be the agent, which is not
necessarily the case in SESC, and their analysis generates EDRs no higher
than TP, while in the present analysis it goes to MoodP, or even ForceP; as
will be presented soon, the present analysis also goes into more detail about
the mechanics deriving the effects observed. For reasons of space, I do not
discuss the earlier accounts in more detail; instead I refer the reader to Al
Zahre & Boneh (2010), who provide a detailed discussion.
In deriving the analysis of EDR in SESC, and probably also more uni-
versally, I depart from the analysis proposed in Boneh and Nash (2010).
Boneh and Nash argue convincingly that EDR (CDC in their terminology)
is generated somewhere at the level of TP, that is, higher than vP and lower
than CP. In this section, I first offer some additional arguments for the same
claim and then propose a more precise location for EDRs: the projection of
the evaluative mood (Cinque 1999’s Moodevaluative
P). In section 5 I show how
the particular syntactic and semantic properties of EDR presented in sec-
tions 3 and 4 follow from generating EDR in this position.
As shown in section 3, EDR has several pragmatic effects, including the
marking of a low informational relevance. This effect is often employed to
serve certain social relations between the speaker and the hearer, such as the
introduction of oneself as a topic. In this way, EDR is similar to the inter-
ested speaker dative (which is often grouped together with the ethical dative),
expressed in S-C by a first-person dative clitic, and to the interested hearer
dative (IHD), expressed by a second-person dative clitic. IHD thus refers to
the hearer, indicating that the information conveyed, or the process of convey-
ing it, is of a high relevance for the hearer, or even takes place for her benefit.
The entire narration that includes (20) is somehow dedicated to the hearer.
(20)Pera ti onda dohvati jabuku i baci je kroz prozor.
P you.DatCl then catches apple and throws it through window
“[FYI] Pera then catches the apple and throws it through the
window.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-42-320.jpg)
![[14] Variation in Datives
In SESC, in addition to the hearer-oriented relevance, it also marks a spe-
cial social relation between the speaker and the hearer—they are in a close,
almost intimate relation (a typical gesture that comes with the IHD is
putting an arm on the hearer’s arm or shoulder). Note, in illustration, that
IHD cannot take the form of a polite second person.
(21)#Pera Vam dohvati jabuku
P you_polite.Dat.Cl catches apple
i baci je kroz prozor.
and throws it through window
“[FYI] Pera catches the apple and throws it through the window.”
Next to the relevance and socially related effects, EDR and IHD are also
similar in being restricted to the expression by only one lexical item. EDR is
always lexically realized as a dative reflexive, and IHD as a dative-second per-
son clitic. Strong pronouns, lexical nominals, or any other items are excluded.
Assuming that IHD is expressing a set of features in the projection
responsible for the performative force of the clause (ForceP), marking thus
that the force of the clause goes in the hearer’s direction, we may speculate
that EDR expresses a similar type of features, but specifying the direction
of the clausal subject.
This parallel explains (a) the restriction to clitics: clitics are light ele-
ments without lexical content, realizing bundles of functional features, and
that is why they have the capacity to realize not only arguments, but also
contents of higher functional heads, such as Force; and (b) the restric-
tion on EDRs to use in clauses where the subject is topical: only a topical
subject may bind a reflexive generated in a position as high as ForceP. In
semantic terms, while IHD marks that the force of the clause is directed
toward the hearer, and hence of a special relevance for her, the orientation
toward the subject, especially when the subject is in first person, marks that
the information is relevant to the speaker, hence at least by implicature not
particularly relevant to the hearer.
There are, however, also certain facts indicating that these two elements
are neither syntactically nor semantically identical. First, IHDs and EDRs
may occur in the same sentence.
(22) Mika ti si ustane i ode.
M you.DatCl Refl.Dat gets_up and leaves
“[FYI] Mika gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].”
If they were generated in the same position, and contributing semantics of
the same type, they should never co-occur in a sentence unless they were
coordinated.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-43-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [15]
Second, while EDR frequently appears in embedded clauses, IHD never
embeds.
(23) Mika kaže da (*ti) (si) on lepo ustane i ode.
M says comp you.DatCl Refl.Dat he nice gets_up and leaves
“Mika says that [*FYI] he simply gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].”
Since embedded clauses lack a fully specified force, this minimal pair sug-
gests that IHD is indeed force-related, but that EDR sits not in ForceP but
in some lower functional projection, as indicated by example (23), and also
by example (24), which shows that the IHD cannot surface after the EDR.
(24) Mika (ti) si (*ti) ustane i ode.
M you.DatCl Refl.Dat you.DatCl gets_up and leaves
“[FYI] Mika gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].”
The lower bound can be determined by another type of nonselected dative—
the benefactive. Let us assume with Pylkkänen (2002) that benefactives are
generated somewhere at the level of vP, and observe (25).
(25)Ček da si mu otvorim vrata.
wait Comp Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door
“Wait till I open the door for him [+EDR effect].”
Finally, one sentence can have all three types of datives above, but only in
the strict order IHD<EDR<Benefactive.
(26)Ja ti si mu otvorim vrata...
I you.Dat.Cl Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door
“[FYI] I open the door for him [+EDR effect].”
This tells us that indeed, as argued by Boneh and Nash (2010), EDR is base
generated somewhere between CP (or, more precisely, ForceP) and vP—that
is, within the IP layer (which I assume, with Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999, and
a lot of subsequent work, to be constituted by the specification of the com-
ponents such as polarity, mood, tense, and outer aspect, i.e., different types
of MoodP, PolP, TP, AspP, and perhaps other related projections).
The asymmetries are not really unexpected, considering that the descrip-
tion of EDR involved specifying a number of different properties, some of
which have nothing to do with force, while IHD seems to be restricted to the
force-related effects. Moreover, the possibility of combining IHD and EDR
in the same sentence, without a conflict, indicates that the relevance-related
effect of one of them at the very least has to be cancelable; otherwise in](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-44-320.jpg)
![[16] Variation in Datives
some cases the same sentence would be specified for contributing informa-
tion that is at the same time relevant and irrelevant for the hearer.
I propose, based on the semantics of EDRs, that, in a finer analysis of
the IP layer, the right projection to generate them is Mood0
evaluative
(which
specifies the evaluative aspect of the mood; see Cinque 1999, and especially
Liu 2007 for an implementation). The dative reflexive in this head intro-
duces a variable that is bound by a c-commanding nominative subject and
specifies the subject of evaluation (i.e., the one who evaluates the semantic
contents of the structure in the complement). The direct interpretive effect
is that the predicate of the eventuality is evaluated by the clausal subject.
Other evaluators determined overtly or in the discourse are allowed, as long
as the subject is also involved, and as long as the evaluation by the subject
is exempted from any more general evaluation. We arrive at the analysis in
(27a), illustrated by an example in (27b).
(27)a. [Subji
[ForceP
[IHD] ... [MoodPeval
[EDR]i
[vP
[v] [ApplP
[Benefactive]]]]]
b. Ja ti si mu otvorim vrata...
I you.Dat.Cl Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door
“[FYI] I open the door for him [+EDR effect].”
[TopicP
Ja [ForceP
[ti]...[MoodP
[si] [PolP
...[vP
Ja [v] [ApplP
[mu] [otvorim
vrata]]]]]]]
This, I argue, is the semantic entailment of the EDR: The eventuality is
evaluated, and it is evaluated by the clausal subject. Other semantic and
pragmatic effects, in particular: that this evaluation is positive, the lower
degree of relevance of the information, the small quantity of the eventuality,
the intentionality of the subject, and the ban on distributive interpretations
all derive from this core property.
5. EXPLAINING (AND REEXAMINING) THE
PROPERTIES OF EDR
The positive interpretation of the eventuality is only an implicature from
specifying that the subject is also a subject of evaluation, and of giving the
subject’s evaluation a special status in this way. In over 70 percent of nearly
300 examples excerpted using Google, the subject is also the agent, and the
controller of the evaluated eventuality. It is natural that if the evaluator holds
control over the evaluated eventuality, she evaluates the eventuality as posi-
tive for herself (else she would have stopped it, or controlledly pushed it in
another direction). Sentences with EDRs involving other types of subjects
inherit this generalized positive evaluation interpretation from those which](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-45-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [17]
make a majority (note that the asymmetry in frequency is so strong that
Borer & Grodzinsky 1986 had made a generalization that only eventualities
with an external argument license the use of EDR; Al Zahre & Boneh 2010
showed that this generalization was wrong). In any case, the positive evalu-
ation of the eventuality is not an absolute condition for the use of EDRs,
as shown in the examples in (28), where those in (28b–f) are found via
Google, and (28a) is from a live conversation.
(28)a. Pao sam si ispit, sa’ću vi’m šta ću radim.
fallen Aux1Sg Refl.Dat exam now I’ll see what to do
“I failed the exam, now I’ll see what to do [+EDR effects].”
b. Nego, nema veze, teb si ide to na savest...
but n_have connection you.Dat Refl.Dat goes that on conscience
“But, never mind, it goes to your conscience [+EDR effects]...”
c. Kome se ne svidja nek si ide!!
who.Dat Refl.Acc not like let Refl.Dat go.3Sg
“Those who don’t like it may leave [+EDR effects].”
d. Iz ovaj li moj dom da si idem?
from this Q_Part mine home Comp Refl.Dat go.1Sg
“Is it this home of mine that I have to leave? [+EDR effects]”
e. ipak džabe Raka uči, on si ide kući...
nevertheless in_vain R learns he Refl.Dat goes home
“Nevertheless, Raka’s learning is in vain, he’s going home [+EDR
effects]...”
f. Nek si ide život...
let Refl.Dat goes life
lit. “Let go the life [+EDR effects]...”
“Let my life be sacrificed (for a contextually given reward) [+EDR
effects].”
(used when a great sacrifice has to be made for a rather hedon-
ist reason)
In fact, almost one-third of the examples excerpted from the Internet can
be judged more or less negative for the subject. In all these cases, however,
there is a sense of the negative facts being (a) evaluated and (b) “none of
the business of anyone else than the subject.” This is actually a rather gen-
eral effect that comes with EDRs and that is also observed (though not as
a general one, but as one of the pragmatic options) by Al Zahre & Boneh
(2010: 25) as an “isolation effect.” This effect naturally follows from the
present analysis, more precisely from the specification of the subject as a
(singled-out, hence isolated) subject of evaluation.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-46-320.jpg)
![[18] Variation in Datives
I argue that exactly this effect of isolation of the clausal subject as a sub-
ject of evaluation is what triggers the effect of a lower informational rel-
evance of the sentence containing an EDR. As the subject is taken aside,
as an evaluator, from the other relevant subjects of evaluation (most impor-
tantly the interlocutors as the default evaluators), the information conveyed
receives a special status in the discourse. It carries an evaluation that is not
(necessarily) shared by the speaker and/or the hearer, and therefore less
directly updates the discourse (i.e., updates it not with an evaluation of
the facts, but with information about the subject’s evaluation of the facts).
Moreover, the MoodPevaluative
projection is closely related to the projection
introducing evidentiality specification, MoodPevidential
(see Liu 2007 for empir-
ical evidence). Unless the evidential status of the sentence is explicitly speci-
fied, this brings about an effect of indicating that the subject is the source
of information.
In itself, this gives a weak lower relevance effect, which can be made
stronger when the pragmatic conditions are fulfilled, that is, when the
speaker intends to make a stronger effect of this kind. One way to overtly
mark this status is through adverbs and quantifiers that introduce the values
from the lower sections of a scale. This is illustrated in (29), where the
sentence with the adverbial malo “little” sounds more natural than the one
without it, although both are fully acceptable.
(29)a. Malo sam si jeo palačinke.
little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat eaten pancakes
“I ate pancakes a little [+EDR effects].”
b. Jeo sam si palačinke.
eaten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat pancakes
“I ate pancakes [+EDR effects].”
The sentence in (29a) is more appropriate when it is a digression or intro-
duces a new topic into the discourse (which gives it a stronger low relevance
effect). The one in (29b) is more natural as an answer to the question “What
were you doing (at the relevant time)?”—that is, in a context in which it
has some informational relevance (answers a question), which it degrades by
its own implicature of low relevance. In languages like Syrian Arabic, where
EDR necessarily requires the presence of an adverb or quantifier of this kind
(Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), EDR has probably become part of a construction
specialized to express meanings with a strong low relevance effect.
The component of intentionality of the subject that binds the EDR (Al
Zahre & Boneh 2010: 9) directly follows from the specification of the sub-
ject as an (isolated) evaluator: trivially, intentionality is a necessary property
of any possible subject of evaluation—it is a prerequisite of evaluation. The](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-47-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [19]
very fact that the subject binds a variable that represents the evaluator forces
an interpretation that attributes intentionality to the subject, even when the
actual referent normally does not display intentionality, as illustrated by the
example in (7b), repeated here as (30).
(30) Grana (#si) plovi rekom.
branch Refl.Dat sail river.Inst
“The branch is floating down the river (#[+EDR effects]).”
[This sentence improves if the branch is personified.]
EDR effects do not distribute over subjects or times, as already discussed in
section 3 in relation to examples in (18), repeated here as (31). Several other
restrictions, such as the ban on coordination both of EDRs and of the respec-
tive eventualities (Borer and Grodzinsky 1986), as well as the referentiality
restrictions described in Al Zahre & Boneh (2010), subsume under this one.
I speculate that the discourse status of evaluative attitudes is responsible for
these effects. More precisely, (the discourse-representation of) the set of beliefs
of the subject has to be updated by the evaluation introduced by EDR, and
this effect cannot distribute (similar to the fact that force does not distribute).
(31) a. Ja sam si svaki put tačno odgovorio.
I Aux1Sg Refl.Dat each time correct answered
“I answered correctly each time [+EDR effects].”
b. Pera i Mika si rešavajuukrštene reči.
P and M Refl.Dat solve crossed words
“Pera and Mika are solving crosswords [+EDR effects].”8
This is also part of the explanation of a final property of EDRs discussed
in this section, namely that the subject that binds the EDR has to be topi-
cal. The direct discourse update of clauses involving an EDR (e.g., in the
sense of file-card semantics of Heim 1982) are in the domain of the beliefs
of the subject. If any other event participant were topical, that should also
be the referent directly targeted by the discourse update, and the semantic
contribution of EDR could not be realized.
The restriction of EDRs’ realization by a reflexive is not an effect; rather,
it is a core property of EDRs. Hence, rather than explaining why it holds,
one could speculate on the ways in which it led to the independent estab-
lishing of this element in mutually unrelated languages. The reasons are more
pragmatic than grammatical. As Horn (2008) indicates, there was probably
8 Note, in further support of the weak low informational relevance effects, that this
sentence cannot combine with adverbs such as malo “little,” and only in a very remote
sense displays the low relevance effect.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-48-320.jpg)
![[20] Variation in Datives
a fortunate match between a niche in the set of frequent pragmatic patterns
and the entailments of the particular syntactic structure with a referent
with the evaluative capacity being both the evaluator and the controller of
an event. This guaranteed a high frequency of the configuration, leading to
its establishment as a construction, with the set of restrictions less directly
related to its entailment varying across languages.
There is also a syntactic condition that is fulfilled by the topical interpre-
tation of the subject. In order to bind the dative reflexive, the subject needs
to be higher than MoodPevaluative
. Assuming that the subject normally moves
only as high as TP, which is lower than MoodPevaluative
(Cinque 1999), the
subject must move higher up to get into a c-command relation with the
EDR. This is achieved by its movement to TopicP.
6. CONCLUSION
In this article, I presented the data about the Evaluative Dative Reflexive as it
is used in southeastern Serbo-Croatian. It shares most of its properties with
its counterparts from Modern Hebrew, Syrian Arabic, French, or dialects of
English, but also differs from them in some interesting ways. I proposed an
analysis according to which the semantic contribution of EDR is in specify-
ing that the subject of the clause is a subject of evaluation of the underly-
ing eventuality. Syntactically, it is generated in MoodPevaluative
, where it realizes
its semantic contribution and is bound by the subject, which moves up to
TopicP. I showed how this analysis accounts for other presented properties
of the EDR: the positive nature of the evaluation, the intentionality and
the topical and collective interpretation of the subject, the low relevance of
the information conveyed, and the reflexive nature of the EDR. The analysis
should also apply to EDRs in other languages—possibly with small modifica-
tions in the domains of variation (e.g., the obligatory use of a small-quantity
adverb in Palestinian Arabic, as in Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), hopefully moti-
vated by the different setting of syntactic parameters in these languages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to the editors of this volume, and the organizers of the work-
shop at which it was initiated for providing a great venue for the research
on the aspects of variation in the use of datives, and to two anonymous
reviewers for comments that have helped me to improve the article consid-
erably. Funding from the following grants is gratefully acknowledged: “The
origins of truth” (NWO 360-20-150) and “Natural language ontology and
the semantic representation of abstract objects” (MICINN, FFI2010-15006,
and JCI-2008-2699).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-49-320.jpg)
![EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [21]
REFERENCES
Al-Zahre, Nisrine, and Nora Boneh. 2010. “Coreferential dative constructions in Syrian
Arabic and Modern Hebrew.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics
2, 248–282.
Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. “{Relative {conditional {correlative clauses}}}.” In Aniko
Liptak (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically, 131–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berman, Ruth. 1982. “Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew.”
Hebrew Annual Review 6: 35–59.
Boneh, Nora, and Lea Nash. 2010. “Getting high.” Paper presented at the Colloquium
on Generative Grammar, Barcelona, March 18–20, 2010.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticiza-
tion: The case of Hebrew dative clitics.” In Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and seman-
tics 19, 175–215. New York: Academic Press.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. “The emergence of the unmarked pronoun.” In Geraldine Legendre,
Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 113–142.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1996. “Deficient pronouns: A view from
Germanic. A study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance.”
In Hoskuldur Thräinsson, Samuel Epstein, and Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in
Comparative Syntax II, 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency: A
case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics
in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Heim, Irene. 1982. “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases.” PhD diss.,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Horn, Laurence R. 2008. “‘I love me some him’: The landscape of nonargument datives.”
In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax
and semantics 7, 169–192. Available at www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/index_en.html.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2007. “The V-qilai evaluative construction in Chinese.” UST
Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 43–62.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing arguments.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.”
Philosophica 27: 53–94.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the Left Periphery.” In Lilliane Haegeman
(ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. “Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs.”
Language 76 (4): 859–890.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-50-320.jpg)
![CORE AND NONCORE DATIVES IN FRENCH [23]
b. La teinturier lui a massacré une chemise.
The dry-cleaner 3s.dat destroyed a shirt
“The dry-cleaner ruined her/his shirt (on her/him).”
c. Hélène lui a peint son portail.
Hélène 3s.dat painted his gate
“Hélène painted the gate for her/him.”
d. Marie lui a vomi sur ses coussins.
Marie 3s.dat vomited on his cushions
“Marie vomited on her/his cushions.”
e. Elle lui a tiré dans le ventre.
She 3s.dat shot in the belly
“She shot her/him in the belly.”
The constructions in (1) and (2) are also alike in that the datives co-occur
in both sentences with direct objects. It has been long noted that noncore
datives cannot appear when the verb is a bare intransitive, lacking VP addi-
tional material (see Leclère 1976, Morin 1981, Herslund 1988, Rooryck
1988, Authier & Reed 1992, Lamiroy & Delbecque 1998, Roberge &
Troberg 2007, Jouitteau & Rezac 2007):
(3) a. Marie lui a bu *(trois pastis).
Marie 3s.dat drank (three pastis)
“Marie drank three glasses of pastis (on her/him).”
b. Hélène lui a chanté *(sous ses fenêtres).
Hélène 3s.dat sang (beneath his windows)
“Hélène sang beneath her/his window (on her/him).”
c. Marie lui a mangé *(avec les doigts)/(*rapidement).
Marie 3s.dat ate (with the fingers)/(quickly)
“Marie ate with her fingers (on her/him, aggravating her/him).”
d. *Jean lui a chanté tout l’après-midi.
Jean 3s.dat sang all afternoon long
e. *Jean lui a chanté parce qu’il ne pouvait pas s’en empêcher.
Jean 3s.dat sang because he couldn’t refrain from it
f. *Jean lui a bu pour choquer ses invités.
Jean 3s.dat drank to shock the guests
The examples, adapted from Authier & Reed (1992), show that VP mate-
rial has to be of a specific categorial and semantic type. Alongside DP
arguments (3a), location and manner PPs are allowed (3b–c), but manner](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-52-320.jpg)
![[24] Variation in Datives
adverbial phrases (3c), temporal adjuncts (3d), causation adjuncts (3e), or
purpose clauses (3f) are not suitable VP material. Note that in the absence
of a dative clitic, bare intransitives are fully acceptable.
(4) a. Marie a bu (rapidement).
“Marie drank quickly.”
b. Hélène a chanté.
“Hélène sang.”
Beyond the superficial similarities in the form of the dative clitic and the
obligatoriness of a certain type of VP material, core and noncore datives
differ in several respects. The most proclaimed feature setting them apart
is the ability to appear as full à-DPs (Leclère 1976, Rouveret & Vergnaud
1980, Barnes 1985, Rooryck 1988, Herschensohn 1992, Authier & Reed
1992, Roberge & Troberg 2009 a.o.). Whereas there are no restrictions on
the availability of full à-DPs for core datives, noncore datives are most natu-
ral as clitics; full à-DPs are awkward or plainly ungrammatical.1
(5) a. Le syndic a envoyé des lettres recommendées aux co-propriétaires.
“The property manager sent registered letters to the
apartment-owners.”
b. Marie a donné un baiser à Jean.
“Marie gave a kiss to Jean.”
c. Il a dit la vérité à Jean.
“He told the truth to Jean.”
(6) a. *Le plombier a vidé un chauffe-eau aux co-propriétaires.
The plumber emptied a water-heater to the apartment-owners
b. *La teinturier a massacré une chemise à Marie.
The dry-cleaner ruined a shirt to Marie
c. *Ton fils a encore décapité trois poupées Barbie à ses petites
camarades.
Your son has again decapitated three Barbie dolls to/on his lit-
tle friends
d. *Marie a embrassé le front à Jean.
Marie kissed the forehead to Jean
e. *Elle a tiré dans le ventre à Jean.
She shot in the belly to Jean
1 Like the other authors, we distinguish between clause-level à-DPs and adnominal
ones. The latter is qualified as substandard French, e.g., la pipe à papa “Dad’s pipe.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-53-320.jpg)
![CORE AND NONCORE DATIVES IN FRENCH [25]
Second, core datives can appear in nominalizations (7a), but noncore datives
cannot (7b–c):
(7) a. l’envoi des lettres aux co-propriétaires
the sending the letters to the apartment-owners
“the sending of the letters to the apartment-owners”
b. *la vidange d’un chauffe-eau aux co-propriétaires
the emptying of a water-heater to the apartment-owners
c. *le repassage des chemises à nos fidèles clients
the ironing of shirts to our devoted customers
Third, noncore datives seem to differ from core datives in that they imply a
notion of affectedness: the extra noncore participant is taken to be affected
by the underlying event. In the examples above, this is reflected in the
English translation by the expression “on her/him.”2
1.2 Previous Analyses
Previous analyses tried to account for licensing conditions of noncore datives
in the absence of semantic selection, or theta-role assignment. Positing an
applicative analysis whereby an applicative head selects and licenses the non-
core dative has gained popularity since the publication of Pylkkänen’s work
(2002/2008). She establishes two kinds of applicatives: low applicatives, relat-
ing two individuals and high applicatives relating an individual to an event.
It has been shown on several grounds that assuming low applicatives fails to
account for phenomena attesting that the introduced argument is in fact higher
in the structural hierarchy (Nash 2006, Georgala et al. 2008), or does not take
2 Core and noncore datives also seem to differ as to whether or not they allow
passivization of the internal argument (Rooryck 1988, ex. 9). Core datives, in (i), can
co-occur with theme subjects in passives, but noncore datives, in (ii), cannot. However,
speakers do not seem to be unanimous about these facts (Authier & Reed 1992).
(i) a. Un livre lui a été donné.
A book 3s.dat was given
“A book was given to her/him.”
b. Cet emploi lui a été attribué.
This job 3s.dat was allocated
“This job was allocated to her/him.”
(ii) a. *Un gâteau leur a été cuit.
A cake 3p.dat was cooked
b. *Ce pull lui a été déchiré (par le gosse).
This sweater 3s.dat was torn (by the kid)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5005522-250528094704-0cb23c38/85/Variation-In-Datives-A-Microcomparative-Perspective-Beatriz-Fernndez-54-320.jpg)
Variation In Datives A Microcomparative Perspective Beatriz Fernndez
- 1. Variation In Datives A Microcomparative Perspective Beatriz Fernndez download https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-datives-a- microcomparative-perspective-beatriz-fernndez-10011044 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Variation In Metonymy Crosslinguistic Historical And Lectal Perspectives Weiwei Zhang https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-metonymy-crosslinguistic- historical-and-lectal-perspectives-weiwei-zhang-50929846 Variation In Indonesian Sign Language A Typological And Sociolinguistic Analysis Nick Palfreyman https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-indonesian-sign-language-a- typological-and-sociolinguistic-analysis-nick-palfreyman-50952476 Variation In Language System And Usagebased Approaches Aria Adli Editor Marco Garca Garca Editor Gz Kaufmann Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-language-system-and- usagebased-approaches-aria-adli-editor-marco-garca-garca-editor-gz- kaufmann-editor-50962346 Variation In Time And Space Observing The World Through Corpora Anna Ermkov Editor Markta Mal Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-time-and-space-observing- the-world-through-corpora-anna-ermkov-editor-markta-mal- editor-50986898
- 3. Variation In Indigenous Minority Languages Impact Studies In Language And Society James N Stanford https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-indigenous-minority- languages-impact-studies-in-language-and-society-james-n- stanford-2005808 Variation In English Across Time Space And Discourse Daniela Cesiri https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-english-across-time-space- and-discourse-daniela-cesiri-23831982 Variation In The Caribbean From Creole Continua To Individual Agency Lars Hinrichs https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-the-caribbean-from-creole- continua-to-individual-agency-lars-hinrichs-2496806 Variation In Indonesian Sign Language A Typological And Sociolinguistic Analysis 1st Edition Nick Palfreyman https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-indonesian-sign-language-a- typological-and-sociolinguistic-analysis-1st-edition-nick- palfreyman-38171506 Variation In P Comparative Approaches To Adpositional Phrases Jacopo Garzonio Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/variation-in-p-comparative-approaches- to-adpositional-phrases-jacopo-garzonio-editor-42958482
- 7. OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX II Richard Kayne, General Editor The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from North Italian Dialects Cecilia Poletto The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages Edited by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle Parameters and Universals Richard Kayne Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies Edited by João Costa XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu Ayesha Kidwai Infinitive Constructions: A Syntactic Analysis of Romance Languages Guido Mensching Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar Edited by Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP Edited by Peter Svenonius A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections Yoshiki Ogawa Functional Structures in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 1 Edited by Guglielmo Cinque Syntactic Heads and Word Formation Marit Julien The Syntax of Italian Dialects Christina Tortora The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa Enoch Oladé Aboh The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 Edited by Luigi Rizzi The Syntax of Anaphora Ken Safir Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh Ian G. Roberts Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3 Edited by Adriana Belletti Movement and Silence Richard S. Kayne Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 4 Guglielmo Cinque Scrambling, Remnant Movement and Restructuring in West Germanic Roland Hinterhölzl The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch Dialects Jeroen van Craenenbroeck Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 5 Edited by Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6 Edited by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, and Pied-Piping Seth Cable Comparisons and Contrasts Richard S. Kayne Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections Silvio Cruschina Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 7 Edited by Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Cecilia Poletto Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 8 Liliane Haegeman Variation in Datives Edited by Beatriz Fernández and Ricardo Etxepare
- 8. Variation in Datives A Microcomparative Perspective Edited by Beatriz Fernández and Ricardo Etxepare 1
- 9. 1 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 © Oxford University Press 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Variation in datives : a micro-comparative perspective / edited by Beatriz Fernández and Ricardo Etxepare. p. cm. — (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–19–993738–7 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–19–993736–3 (alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Syntax. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general—Case. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general—Agreement. I. Fernández, Beatriz. II. Etxepare, Ricardo. P201.V34 2013 415—dc23 2012011725 ISBN 978–0–19–993736–3 ISBN 978–0–19–993738–7 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
- 10. CONTENTS Introduction vii Beatriz Fernández and Ricardo Etxepare 1. Evaluative Reflexions: Evaluative Dative Reflexive in Southeast Serbo-Croatian 1 Boban Arsenijević (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) 2. Core and Noncore Datives in French 22 Nora Boneh and Léa Nash (The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem/Univ. of Paris VIII) 3. Datives and Adpositions in Northeastern Basque 50 Ricardo Etxepare and Bernard Oyhar Çabal (IKER) 4. Case in Disguise 96 Hlíf Árnadóttir and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (Univ. of Iceland) 5. Dative versus Accusative and the Nature of Inherent Case 144 Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (Univ. of Iceland) 6. Ideal Speakers and Other Speakers: The Case of Dative and Some Other Cases 161 Höskuldur Thráinsson (Univ. of Iceland) 7. Feminine Bleeds Dative: The Syntax of a Syncretism Pattern 189 Thomas Leu (Yale University) 8. Syntactic Microvariation: Dative Constructions in Greek 212 Dimitris Michelioudakis and Ioanna Sitaridou (Univ. of Cambridge) 9. Dative Displacement in Basque 256 Milan Rezac and Beatriz Fernández (Univ. of Paris VIII/UPV/EHU) 10. Accusative Datives in Spanish 283 Juan Romero (Univ. of Cáceres) Index 301
- 11. This page intentionally left blank
- 12. INTRODUCTION This volume attempts to examine some of the issues related to the syntac- tic status of dative-marked DPs in the light of microsyntactic variation. Some of the central issues involved in characterizing dative-marked DPs in a larger grammatical context, such as the complementarity of dative case markers and adpositions, their relation to the lexical meaning of the verb, the animacy or definiteness restrictions that emerge in dative case marking, the range of func- tions available to dative-marked DPs and the way they are represented in the functional structure of the clause, their indexation in the finite verb, or the case alternations that arise between datives and other cases (accusative or nominative as well as so-called oblique cases), are addressed in this volume, in most cases from an angle that crucially involves syntactic comparison at a microvariation scale. The combination of a narrowly defined grammatical topic giving rise to some of the central interrogations in grammatical theory and a microcomparative approach addressing theoretically significant syntactic variation among closely related linguistic varieties characterizes this volume of the series. 1. MICROPARAMETERS IN THE CONTEXT OF PARAMETRIC VARIATION The last twenty years in the area of generative grammar have seen a grow- ing concern with progressively more inclusive comparative studies, on the one hand, and with an increasing focus on language internal variation, on the other. Both approaches directly stem from the principles and parameters model of the early 1980s and the notion of parameter that ensued: in this approach, Universal Grammar is an invariant system of abstract principles that constitute the species-specific language endowment and that permit a limited degree of variation in the form of parameters, unspecified options associated to a restricted set of grammatical loci, to be set by properties of the linguistic input. Early work in this model resulted in the formulation of large-scale parameters, the so-called macroparameters (Baker 2008) or meta- parameters (Pica 2001), such as the null subject parameter (Chomsky 1981,
- 13. [viii] Introduction Rizzi 1982)1 or the polysynthesis parameter (Baker 1996), which involved a large number of languages and sweeping generalizations. These long-range parameters are at the center of controversy nowadays. Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) recent work may be seen as a paradigmatic criti- cism of the notion of parameter embedded in the traditional Principles and Parameters (P&P) model.2 Criticisms of this sort are usually based on the alleged failure of the parameter model to issue empirically correct typologi- cal generalizations. Other criticisms of the notion of parameter come from a different perspective: rather than focusing on the model’s limited practi- cal success, they note the problematic status of the concept in a minimalist framework, where the computational principles at work are subject to radi- cal modularity, making it very difficult to integrate parameters into principles (Boeckx 2009, 2011). From this perspective, it is not easy to see how basic computational operations like merge or copy (previously implied in “move- ment”), for instance, could accommodate parametric variation of the sort that was apparent in, say, subjacency (but see Gallego 2010). One alterna- tive approach that may be logically entertained is that parameters, rather than being overtly specified in the fabric of UG as binary options, follow from the underspecification of UG (see Boeckx 2009, Roberts and Roussou 2003). Under this view, the reason languages differ in the way they set the relative order of head and complement, for instance, follows not from the head-parameter, specified in UG as a binary choice in the directional- ity of recursion, but from the fact that merger, which produces hierarchical relations, does not specify order. Order is enforced by the externalization systems (PF), which must map hierarchical relations in time. Any of the possible options (head-complement or complement-head) optimally meet the interface requirements imposed by PF and therefore both become pos- sible and are (roughly) evenly distributed.3 Finally, some of the criticisms of the notion of parameter as understood in the original P&P model emerge from the area of language acquisition and language change. Recently, work by Yang (2002, 2010), who takes up and elaborates ideas first proposed by Kroch in the context of syntactic change, suggests that the learner is best modeled as having multiple grammars (associated to different weights) that compete among themselves to closely match the incoming input. It is the binary nature of the parameters, and the idea that the learner moves from one UG-defined grammar to another, that is replaced by a more flexible selectional model. This view of variation puts forward the idea that speakers 1 Although Baker (2008: 351–352) characterized it as a medioparameter. 2 See Roberts and Holmberg (2005) for a reply and Roberts and Holmberg (2010) for a (favourable) general discussion of the Principles and Parameters model. 3 We are simplifying deliberately. Issues related to nonharmonic orders become highly relevant.
- 14. Introduction [ix] may retain different parametric options as they develop their mature gram- matical system. Höskuldur Thráinsson (this volume) provides evidence for this model on the basis of an ongoing change in Icelandic, so-called Dative Sickness. According to the corpus data he examines, the syntactic change in question (the spreading of the dative case in several verbal contexts) must be modeled in terms of an increasing factor of grammatical variabil- ity among the younger speakers, who accept (and use to different degrees) the two or more options involved in the change, as opposed to the older speakers. Intraspeaker variation of a microsyntactic type therefore becomes a revealing source of data and ideas for discussing the status of parameters. The limited success of long-range parametric formulations has caused many linguists to turn their attention to more limited areas of variation, most notably to language internal variation.4 This is where microparam- eters arise. As Kayne (2005: 8) graphically puts it, “The special status of micro-comparative syntax resides in the fact that it is the closest we can come, at the present time, to a controlled experiment in comparative syn- tax.” Extending this image, Kayne (2000: 5) claims that comparative work on the syntax of a large number of closely related varieties/ languages can be thought of as a new research tool, one that is capable of providing results of an unusually fine-grained and particularly solid character. If it were possible to experiment in languages, a syntactician would construct an experiment of the following type: take a language, alter a single one of its observable syntactic properties, and examine the result to see what, if any, other property has changed as a consequence. If some other property has changed, conclude that it and the property that was altered are linked to one another by some abstract parameter. This approach to the study of syntactic variation is embedded in a par- ticular notion of what parameters are. This notion can be defined in terms of what Baker (2008: 353–355) calls the Borer/Chomsky conjecture: (1) The Borer/Chomsky conjecture All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the fea- tures of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon (1) finds a stronger formulation in the idea that “every functional element made available by UG is associated with some syntactic parameter” (Kayne 2005: 11). 4 We take the opposition between I- and E-languages to apply not only to “lan- guages” but also to “varieties,” and only I-languages/varieties are amenable to scientific study. In other words, we find no reason not to identify “language” and “variety.”
- 15. [x] Introduction As Baker points out, this particular conception of parameter was first addressed by Borer (1984) and then adopted by Chomsky (1995) in the minimalist program and is tightly related to Kayne’s (and others’) microcom- parative approach. If functional elements are responsible for cross-linguistic variation, then this variation resides in the component of grammar we learn from input data, that is, the lexicon. This way, acquiring the lexicon and idi- osyncratic properties of functional elements means acquiring syntactic varia- tion (Borer 1984: 29). This view stands in contrast to the notion of macroparameters, as pro- posed by Baker (among others), which continue the original conception of parameter of the 1980s. The macroparametric view can be formulated as fol- lows (Baker 2008: 354): (2) There are some parameters within the statements of the general prin- ciples that shape natural language syntax. (2) corresponds to the idea that something like being a polysynthetic lan- guage, for example, “seems to be more pervasive than can be attributed to any particular item” (Baker 1996). It is an open question whether parameters of the polysynthetic sort exist. An alternative view of such parameters is that they can be cashed out in terms of an aggregate of microparameters. As noted by Kayne (2005: 7), one of the key properties of polysynthetic languages—the obligatory appearance of a pronominal agreement element in addition to the (nonincorporated) lexical argument—is also found within languages like Italian. For example, the Italian clitic left-dislocation construction (Cinque 1990) requires the presence of a pronominal clitic in addition to the dislocated direct object argument. Although this property may ultimately be unconnected to the polysynthesis parameter, it could alternatively be the case that “the system- atic obligatoriness of pronominal agreement morphemes in Mohawk is just an extreme example of what is found to a lesser extent in (some) Romance.” 2. IDENTITY CRITERIA FOR PARAMETERS The previous discussion on the status of parameters raises the issue of how we can distinguish bona fide parameters in the context of language varia- tion, assuming that at least part of that variation will result from histori- cal accident. Smith and Law (2009) propose a set of “identity criteria” for parameters that we may use as a useful heuristic to determine the exist- ence of parameters at the microvariation scale. For Smith and Law, param- eters present some characterizing properties amid more ordinary variation. Parameters must cover variation that is systematic, deterministic (in the sense that the input available to the child must be rich enough and explicit enough to guarantee that the parameter can be set), discrete (usually binary),
- 16. Introduction [xi] and exclusive, such that the parametric variation gives rise to mutually exclu- sive options. Under an appropriate formulation, mutual exclusivity entails that the parametric options exhaust the hypothesis space in an interdepend- ent way. That is, parameters are hierarchically nested (see Baker 2001). As an example of how microparametric syntax uncovers significant aspects of syntactic variation in the sense suggested by Smith and Law (2009), consider the kind of systematic variation noted by Holmberg & Platzack between Insular Scandinavian languages (Icelandic, partly Faroese and Old Scandinavian) and Mainland Scandinavian ones (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish).5 As Holmberg & Platzack (2005: 420–421) point out, “In many respects these languages are no more different than dialects of a single lan- guage may be.” All Scandinavian languages present a high degree of gram- matical similarity (Holmberg & Platzack 2005: 421–424). However, some syntactic differences between Insular Scandinavian and Mainland Scandinavian are attested, as far as the left periphery (Rizzi 1997) is concerned (see sec- tion 3.4, 432–438). Apart from the intrinsic interest of the description of these syntactic differences attested in the languages under discussion, one of the most appealing aspects of Holmberg & Platzack’s work lies in the simplicity and elegance of the theoretical explanation that underlies that variation. Assuming that in the left periphery, there is a Force Phrase, as in Rizzi 1997, and a Finite Phrase (FinP) that hosts an EPP feature (i.e., it must have a specifier), Holmberg & Platzack (2005: 433) propose that “the syntactic differences are the results of a single inflectional difference between these languages: the finite verb in Icelandic, but not in Mainland Scandinavian, is inflected for person.” Holmberg & Platzack assume that “the person inflection hosts an uninterpretable finiteness feature uFin. For Mainland Scandinavian, which does not have person inflection, the feature uFin is contained in the nominative DP.” Furthermore, as Scandinavian lan- guages are verb-second languages, Fino must be filled. A number of gram- matical differences follow automatically from this parametric difference. Thus, Mainland Scandinavian must have a visible subject in all finite clauses, exple- tive or not, whereas Icelandic must have a visible element in front of the finite verb, but not necessarily a subject: (1) a. Det regnade igår (Swedish) b. Það rigndi í gær (Icelandic) it rained yesterday (2) a. Igår regnade *(det) (Swedish) b. Í gær rigndi (*Það) (Icelandic) yesterday rained it 5 Roberts and Holmberg (2005) use the same illustrative case.
- 17. [xii] Introduction Then, Insular Scandinavian, but not Mainland Scandinavian has stylistic front- ing. Here are the examples (from Icelandic) given in Holmberg & Platzack (2005: 436) from Jónsson (1991) and Holmberg (2000): (1) a. Þetta er tilboð sem ekki er hœgt að hafna This is offer that not is possible to reject b. Þeir sem pessa erfiðu ákvörðun verða að taka those that this difficult decision have to take Third, oblique subjects are available in Insular Scandinavian but not Mainland Scandinavian (from Icelandic): (3) Hadfði mér Því leiðst Haraldur had me. dat thus bored Harold. nom Finally, embedded subject questions compete with the complementizer in Insular Scandinavian, but not in Mainland Scandinavian: (3) a. Hon frågade vad *(som) låg i byrån (Swedish) b. Hún spurði hvað (*sem) lægi í skúffunni (Icelandic) she asked what that was-lying in chest-the A difference in the location of a noninterpretable feature (whether in Fin or in the nominative DP) gives rise to a set of clustering properties distinguish- ing two groups of dialects. The grammatical options addressed by the param- eter count as systematic, discrete, mutually exclusive, and deterministic. Variation of that general form is to be found in several proposals along the volume. Most of the contributions in this volume are cast within an approach to parametric variation that is highly sympathetic to (1). 3. WHY DATIVES? The volume focuses on the syntactic variation that arises in connection with dative-marked DPs. We define dative DPs as those DPs that typically occur as recipients of a caused motion event or a caused possession event (see Rappaport and Levin 2008, among many others) and that are identified by grammati- cal means that set them apart from the rest of the nominal arguments of a predicate. Those grammatical means may involve case-endings, dedicated mor- phology in the finite verb or auxiliary, or a special syntactic position vis-à-vis other DPs in the sentence (as can be deduced from binding and scope con- figurations or phrasal ordering). In addition, those means typically go beyond
- 18. Introduction [xiii] recipients of motion or change of possession events to characterize other DPs whose semantic contribution does not seem to be entailed by the lexical root or the basic thematic layer of the verb. This is one of the distinctive properties of dative-marked DPs, and one that sets apart dative-marked DPs from other case-marked DPs. Dative-marked DPs may occur as benefactives, as experienc- ers, as external possessors, as ethical datives, or as addressee-oriented markers, and their relation to selected datives is a source of permanent interrogation. The presence of nonselected datives has led to the hypothesis that datives in general are introduced in the clausal structure by indirect means, as arguments of an independent functional head, which could be inserted in different syntac- tic positions. The contribution of a dative-marked DP would therefore follow from the syntactic phrase to which this independent functional head merges. This intuition underlies much of the research on “high” and “low” datives (Pylkkänen 2008, Cuervo 2003, Anagnostopoulou 2003), which extends some of the findings on applicative constructions to languages that have no applica- tive morphology. Our volume contains two chapters that make specific con- tributions in this regard. Going beyond the usual discussion on the syntactic merger position of nonargumental datives, Nora Boneh and Léa Nash uncover several unnoticed asymmetries between core and noncore datives in French: the former must bind a variable inside the verbal phrase. By focusing on the relation between the high dative and its scope (the verbal domain), they are able to account for the range of DP-types that may occur inside the VP in combination with a nonselected dative and provide a convincing account of the uncovered restrictions. In his contribution, Boban Arsenijevic focuses on a relatively uncommon type of nonselected dative: the so-called evaluative dative, which he takes to be related to a head expressing evaluative mood. This par- ticular type of dative can be shown to be licensed by the subject of the clause, therefore illustrating one of the cases of subject-involvement that make nonse- lected dative arguments so puzzling. The ability of dative-marked DPs to occupy more than one structural position in such a prominent way raises a question as to the status of the dative marker, analyzed in many languages as a bona fide case-ending on the same level as, say, nominative/absolutive or ergative/accusative case-endings. The particular status of dative markers is apparent, however, in terminology (oblique case) that assimilates dative endings to other declensional types. There is an ongoing debate as to whether dative markers should be assimi- lated to adpositions. According to several authors (e.g., Asbury 2008), dative case markers are actually adpositions. In Caha’s nanosyntactic approach (2009), prepositions and case-endings are distinguished as a result of NP movement. If the NP moves beyond a labeled feature, this feature will show up as a case-ending on the NP; if the movement does not reach the labeled feature, this feature will be realized as a preposition. Thus nothing substantial hinges on the adposition/case-ending distinction. That datives must be kept
- 19. [xiv] Introduction separate from nominative and accusative case (assumed to illustrate “abstract case”) is shown by Tom Leu’s chapter in the volume. In his analysis of the nominal inflection of Standard German and Swiss German, dative aligns with genitive case, not with nominative and accusative in several syncretism phe- nomena, and also aligns with the genitive in the position it occupies in the structure of the DP, different from nominative and accusative. Swiss German therefore becomes a source of evidence that dative case marking must be treated separately from undisputable instances of abstract case. On the other hand, many languages make clear distinctions between dative-marked end- ings and other declension classes, such as primary adpositions and other, more complex adpositional phrases. In Basque, for instance, dative-marked DPs typically agree in person and number with the inflected verb, just as absolutive and ergative-marked DPs do. Furthermore, dative-marked DPs share their agreement exponence with the ergative, an abstract case (see Rezac et al. for discussion). Dative DPs also enter into binding as legiti- mate antecedents, and they differ from primary adpositions in that they fol- low the determiner, unlike primary adpositions, which attach to the stem. Still, microvariation studies such as the one contributed by Ricardo Etxepare and Bernard Oyharçabal (this volume) present dialects that possess spatial datives along with the more general dative DPs. Those datives do not agree with the verb and occupy a position lower than agreeing ones. This type of dative, identical to ordinary dative DPs as to the form of the case-ending, exists along with the agreeing datives in those dialects, and thus offers an excellent window for discovering the minimal grammatical components that may determine the ultimate position of a dative-marked DP in the line that goes from case-marked DP to adpositional phrase. The syntactic position of dative-marked DPs in case assignment configu- rations also sets dative DPs apart from other case-marked DPs. Dative DPs enter into dative alternations of different sorts. A common one presents an alternation between a case-marked high recipient that precedes the object, and a low prepositional recipient that follows the object (Greek, Anagnastopoulou 2003). Others express the prominent status of the dative-marked DP by clitic doubling (Spanish, Demonte 1995), or agreement (Etxepare 2011, in the con- text of northeastern dialects of Basque). English, on the other hand, presents no particular exponence for its first DP in the double object construction, but its prominent status can be tracked down by a number of syntactic asym- metries that distinguish the two objects. Microvariation studies can shed interesting light on several of the issues related to double object or alternat- ing constructions. Dimitris Michelioudakis and Ioanna Sitaridou (this volume) compare the substitutes of the Ancient Greek dative in four different varieties of Greek and are able to establish some revealing correlations between their different syntactic properties. Thus, they show that those varieties where the dative DP exerts an intervention effect are also varieties that present a strong
- 20. Introduction [xv] version of the PCC. Those are also the varieties that possess a dative alter- nation between a case-marked DP and a prepositional one. They propose a typology based on minimal distinctions in the specification of inherent case that elegantly accounts for the relevant differences. Juan Romero (this vol- ume) presents a fresh look at an apparently low-level morphological variation in the gender specification of the dative clitic in some of the Iberian Spanish dialects: unlike in most of the Iberian Spanish dialects, northwestern ones seem to make a gender distinction (masculine/feminine) in the dative clitic paradigm. Interestingly, this feminine clitic, representing the indirect object, is possible only in those contexts where accusative is assigned. Romero convinc- ingly argues that this restriction is related to the one we see in the double object construction in English, which has the indirect object receiving accusa- tive case from the verb. A related asymmetry, but in a very different morpho- logical setting, concerns so-called dative displacement in Basque, whereby a dative-marked argument ends up controlling the agreement slot in the inflected verb that corresponds to the absolutive. This phenomenon, like the Spanish feminine dative clitics, or the dative alternations examined by Michelioudakis and Sitaridou, is prompted by the presence of animacy or person features in the dative-marked DP. Unlike in the dative alternation constructions, however, the predicate does not have to be ditransitive. Dative displacement in those cases is highly reminiscent of Differential Object Marking phenomena. Milan Rezac and Beatriz Fernández (this volume) closely examine four Basque varie- ties that present dative displacement, and they use microsyntactic comparison to sketch a preliminary map of the grammatical variables that enter into the determination of the actual forms. Differential Object Marking is typically associated to features that are not directly selected by the lexical predicate. Other cases of dative marking, how- ever, seem to be related to the event structure associated to the lexical verb. Case alternations involving dative therefore become a good testing ground for the relation between event structure and case marking (see Svenonius 2002). Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (this volume) and Hlíf Árnadóttir and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (this volume) examine the distribution of dative and accusative cases in the context of different predicate classes in several varieties of Icelandic. This comparative work results in reconsideration of the status of inherent case. 4. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE VOLUME Most of the contributions in the volume are set in a microparametric per- spective and examine two or more closely related dialectal variants. As such, the volume is able to provide very specific clues as to the exact factors that enter into the limited variation allowed in each case. In many cases, these chapters also include a reflection about the form of the parameters involved
- 21. [xvi] Introduction in variation as well as about the nature of parametric variation in general. We briefly summarize each of the chapters separately, stating their main contributions to the issues discussed in the book. Boban Arsenijevic’s article, “Evaluative Reflexions: Evaluative Dative Reflexive in Southeast Serbo-Croatian,” focuses on a type of nonselected clitic dative form in southeastern dialects of Serbo-Croatian that the author calls “evaluative dative reflexive.” The crucial component of this dative clitic is that it relates to the evaluative mood. The presence of the evaluative dative reflexive clitic contributes the meaning that the subject of the clause is a subject of evaluation of the underlying eventuality. The author argues that the relative position the evaluative dative reflexive occupies in the clause is highly reminiscent of evaluative mood as characterized by Cinque (1999). This evaluative reflexive is bound by the subject of the clause, which raises to a topic position. The author compares the Serbo-Croatian data with simi- lar datives in English, Syrian Arabic, and Palestinian Arabic. Nora Boneh and Léa Nash’s article, “Core and Noncore Datives in French,” analyzes nonselected or noncore datives, with particular focus on French. Against the widely held idea that noncore datives are selected by spe- cial applicative heads, they claim that those datives are merged as subjects of a stative predicate, itself part of a complex event with a resultant subevent or a locational endpoint. The extra noncore dative argument is licensed by a pro- cedure of lambda abstraction over a variable provided by material in the lower subevent. Boneh and Nash uncover an interesting set of restrictions on the kind of DP or modifier that stays under the scope of the VP in the presence of noncore datives: the material inside the VP must be able to be bound by the null operator that triggers lambda abstraction. It thus follows that objects such as nonpossessive DPs, proper nouns, or modifiers not containing a pro- nominal element block the possibility of a noncore dative in French. Their analysis, inspired partly by Roberge and Troberg (2009), requires the noncore dative to bind a variable in the scope of the stative predicate. Ricardo Etxepare and Bernard Oyharçabal’s chapter, “Datives and Adpositions in Northeastern Basque,” concentrates on two related differences that distinguish central and western Basque, on the one hand, and north- eastern Basque, on the other. In the latter, the domain of dative case mark- ing seems wider: it extends to DPs expressing purely spatial roles, such as goals of motion, and also to aspectual arguments such as complements of atelic aspectual verbs. In those contexts, the dative does not agree in person and number with the finite verb, an option that is otherwise not allowed for datives in Basque. This raises the question of the status of dative mark- ing in those dialects. They argue that the spatial dative cases in northeastern Basque are not different from what we see in canonical dative DPs: they are case suffixes attached to nominal phrases and expressing purely syn- tactic relations. The only difference is that the kind of functional support
- 22. Introduction [xvii] necessary to license case in verbal predicates can also be found internal to adpositional phrases, within certain conditions. Concretely, they capitalize on recent work by Koopman (2000), Tortora (2009), and Den Dikken (2010) and argue that the spatial dative cases of northeastern Basque are licensed in an aspectual projection internal to a phrase headed by a directional adpo- sition. The argument includes a detailed discussion of some of the aspects involved in the syntax of postpositional phrases in Basque. Case in Disguise: The authors of this chapter, Hlíf Árnadóttir and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, argue, following Legate (2008), that case assignment obeys potentially two conditions: a derivational one, whereby case relations are established in the syntax (abstract case), and an interface one (postsyntactic morphological case), which concerns its morphological realization. The latter is realized according to global morphological conditions that take into account the full set of morphologically realized cases in the sentence. Under this dou- ble determination of overt case, abstract case and morphological case may not be directly related. From this indirect relation arises the notion of “case in disguise,” which may obscure the underlying case relations established in the syntactic component. The authors account for an ongoing change in the case pattern of DAT-NOM predicates into a DAT-ACC case pattern, where the dative case serves to “disguise” abstract nominative case. Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, in “Dative v. Accusative and the Nature of Nonstructural Case,” examines the alternation between dative and accusative case in different predicate types in Icelandic and claims that case marking in Icelandic argues in favor of a case-marking typology that goes against the idea that inherent case cannot be assigned to themes (Woolford 2006). A subset of motion predicates in Icelandic (so-called predicates of translational motion) is shown to select only dative objects. While the semantic inter- pretation of those objects is entirely predictable, they are assigned inherent dative case. The chapter includes a discussion of dative/accusative alterna- tions in the complements of Icelandic verbs. Höskuldur Thráinsson’s chapter, “Ideal Speakers and Other Speakers: The Case of Dative and Some Other Cases,” is concerned with inter- and intraspeaker variation in the domain of subject and object case marking in Icelandic and Faroese. Based on the large-scale syntactic variation surveys IceDiasyn and FarDiaSyn, Thráinsson is able to point out some of the fine points of variation regarding the selection of case-endings in a population of speakers spanning from fifteen-year-olds to people between the ages of sixty and seventy. He observes that interspeaker variation in the time arrow, which brings about the spread of so-called Dative Sickness (the substitution of accu- sative case by dative in a particular class of so-called impersonal verbs), is accompanied by increasing intraspeaker variation. Thus, younger speakers tend overwhelmingly to accept both accusative and dative case-marking in the sub- ject position of the relevant verbs, whereas older speakers tend to only accept
- 23. [xviii] Introduction accusative marking. Thráinsson examines this pattern of increasing intraspeaker variation in the light of recent proposals regarding the way parameters are set. For Thráinsson, the increasing intraspeaker variation observed in younger gen- erations is hard to accommodate in a model of parameter setting that regards learners as settling relatively early in a grammar that is consistent and uniform in all respects. The data seem to point toward a model of parameter setting, advocated by Kroch (1989) and more recently (Yang 2000, 2004, 2010), that proceeds in a probabilistic fashion (within a limited hypothesis space) and may involve a degree of indeterminacy in the grammatical knowledge that is acquired, in the sense that the latter may involve more than one grammatical option, or differently put, more than one grammar. Tom Leu’s chapter, “Feminine Bleeds Dative: The Syntax of a Syncretism Pattern,” focuses on the morphological paradigm of case- and agreement-marking in German (singular) DPs. He argues that the patterns of syncretism that arise from the combination of case and gender feature exponence are better analyzed by postulating different syntactic positions for dative and genitive case-markers (gathered under the category oblique), on the one hand, and nominative-accusative ones, on the other; the latter are merged lower in the DP structure and are part of what is called adjectival agreement. Part of the evidence presented capitalizes on dialectal variation internal to German, with particular attention to Swiss German. One important conclusion of the analy- sis is that the correct analysis of adjectival agreement must be stated in the grammar independently of the distribution of dative/genitive morphology. Dimitris Michelioudakis and Ioanna Sitaridou’s chapter, “Syntactic Microvariation: Dative Constructions in Greek,” is a careful comparison of the status of the IO (the descent of the classical Greek dative) in several closely related varieties and subvarieties of Greek (particularly Pontic Greek). Michelioudakis and Sitaridou manage to scrutinize some of the most promi- nent theoretical issues regarding the relation between case-marked and PP IOs on the basis of minimally contrasting varieties and reach conclusions that, in the light of comparison, have general import. Their work thus constitutes a good example of a microvariation study. Michelioudakis and Sitaridou exam- ine some of the basic aspects of cross-dialectal variation in Greek, such as the availability of dative alternations, the relative syntactic position of objects and indirect objects, the existence of minimality effects in Agree/Move operations in the context of dative constructions, and the presence of PCC effects of varying strength. The correlations they find between those different aspects of variation suggest that the differences must be related to the nature of the case feature associated with the dative argument: the authors distin- guish between bona fide inherent cases, and inherent cases that seem to par- ticipate in Agree/Move relations. They also defend the idea that applicative morphemes do not select or introduce datives but, rather, attract DPs with an active case originating in a thematic position related to the verbal root.
- 24. Introduction [xix] Milan Rezac and Beatriz Fernández’s chapter, “Dative Displacement in Basque,” discusses differences across Basque dialects in the accessibility of datives to absolutive-type agreement. In most varieties, including Standard Basque, datives control a dedicated series of dative suffixes. In some varie- ties, however, their agreement “displaces” to take over morphology otherwise reserved for the absolutive, a phenomenon known as dative displacement. Rezac and Fernández examine in detail four dative displacement dialects in Basque with the aim of distinguishing the syntactic and the morphological factors that may enter in the determination of the forms showing displace- ment. Although they show that in many cases the arising forms could be accounted for by invoking either syntactic or purely morphological opera- tions, some conditioning factors are irreducibly syntactic. This corresponds to those cases where dative displacement is limited to particular subclasses of datives (goals of motion, or indirect objects of causativized verbs) whose marking is indistinguishable from that of other datives in the morphology. Juan Romero’s chapter, “Accusative Datives in Spanish,” explores the phenomenon of “laísmo” (the use of feminine dative clitics) in a subset of peninsular Spanish dialects. He shows that the traditional analysis of this phenomenon, traditionally interpreted as a low-level morphological varia- tion, is related in a nontrivial way to other syntactic dimensions of ditransi- tive constructions, such as the animate/inanimate status of the dative, the case-assigning properties of the predicate, and the argumental nature of the dative, all of them unexpected if only a gender distinction is at stake. Romero provides a convincing analysis of laista dialects that builds on some well-established properties of double object constructions: the idea that the object and the indirect object are part of a small clause, that the head of the small clause incorporates onto the verb, and that the higher verb only has a case to assign. In this context, standard dialects of Spanish incorporate the head of the indirect object to the verb in the form of the clitic le. On the basis of the ambiguous status of le as both a dative and an accusative clitic in standard Spanish, laísta dialects have reanalyzed certain instances of dative case/agreement involving feminine gender as cases of incorpora- tion. In this sense, laista dialects are a subset of leista ones, and the rela- tion between the different varieties can be described in terms of a “nested” microparametric option. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been partially supported by the following grants: Basque Government HM-2009-1-25, IT4-14-10 and GIC07/144-IT-210-07; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación FFI2008-00240/FILO and FFI2011-26906; Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-07-CORP-033.
- 25. [xx] Introduction REFERENCES Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Asbury, Anna. 2008. “The morphosyntax of case and adpositions.” PhD diss., Utrecht University. Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books. Baker, Mark. 2008. “The macroparameter in a microparametric world.” In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, Cedric. 2009. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. “Approaching parameters from below.” In Cedric Boeckx and Anna M. di Sciullo (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 205–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Caha, Pavel. 2009. “The nanosyntax of case.” PhD diss., Tromso. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative alternation in Spanish.” Probus 7: 5–30. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. “On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs.” In Cuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The car- tography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 74–126. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Etxepare, Ricardo. 2011. “Contact and change in a restrictive theory of parameters.” To appear in C. Picallo (ed.), Parameters and linguistic variation. New York: Oxford University Press. Gallego, Angel. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holmberg, Anders. 2000. “Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–484. Holmberg, Anders. 2010. “Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian.” Theoretical Linguistics 36(1): 1–48. Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 2005. “The Scandinavian languages.” In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of com- parative syntax, 420–458. New York: Oxford University Press. Jónsson, Johánnes Gisli. 1991. “Stylistic fronting in Icelandic.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax (Lund University) 48: 1–43. Kayne, Richard S. 1996. “Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks.” In J. Black and V. Montapanyane (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialect variation, ix–xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Kayne 2000: 3–9. Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard S. 2005. “Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French.” In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 3–69. New York: Oxford University Press. Koopman, Hilda. 2000. “Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles.” In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.” Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.
- 26. Introduction [xxi] Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. “Morphological and abstract case.” Linguistic Inquiry. 39 (1): 55–101. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. “Against a parameter-setting approach to language vari- ation.” In Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck, and Jeroen van Craenenbroek (eds.), Language Variation Yearbook, 4: 181–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages. A generative perspective on Linguistic Typology. New York: Oxford University Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2006. “A rejoinder to ‘On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer’ by Ian Roberts and Anders Holmberg.” Available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000248. Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. “The object agreement constraint.” NLLT 25 (2): 315–347. Pica, Pierre. 2001. “Introduction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: v–xii. Pylkkänen, Lyna. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rappaport, Hovav M., and Beth Levin. 2008. “The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. Rezac, Milan, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2011. “Abstract ergative case.” Ms. CNRS–University of the Basque Country. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the Left Periphery.” In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Roberge, Yves, and Michelle Troberg. 2009. “The high applicative syntax of the dativus commondi/incommodi in Romance.” Probus 21: 249–289. Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg. 2005. “On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer.” In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 538–553. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg. 2010. “Introduction: Parameters in minimalist the- ory.” In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. New York: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to gram- maticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Neil, and Ann Law. 2009. “On parametric (and non-parametric) variation.” Biolinguistics 3 (4): 332–343. Svenonius, Peter. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225. Tortora, C. 2009. “Aspect inside PLACE PPs.” In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of Spatial P, 273–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent Case, and argument structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 111–130. Yang, Charles. 2000. “Internal and external forces in language change.” Language Variation and Change 12 (3): 231–250. Yang, Charles. 2002. “Knowledge and learning in natural language.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yang, Charles. 2004. “Universal grammar, statistics or both?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (10): 451–456. Yang, Charles. 2010. “Three factors in language variation.” Lingua 120: 1160–1177.
- 27. This page intentionally left blank
- 29. This page intentionally left blank
- 30. CHAPTER 1 Evaluative Reflexions: Evaluative Ðative Reflexive in Southeast Serbo-Croatian BOBAN ARSENIJEVIĆ 1. INTRODUCTION The aim of this article is to present the relevant data and propose an anal- ysis for the expression that I refer to as the Evaluative Dative Reflexive (EDR), as it is used in the southeastern dialects of Serbo-Croatian (SESC). This expression belongs to the class of nonselected datives and is charac- terized by the semantic effects of a positive evaluation of the underlying eventuality, a low value on a certain scale (small quantity of the eventuality, its low informational relevance, etc.), and some additional restrictions intro- duced in section 3. I argue for an analysis at the syntax-semantics interface, in which the crucial component of this dative is that it relates to the evalu- ative mood, specifying that the subject of the clause is also the subject of evaluation. I show how this analysis, which focuses on specifying the evalu- ative aspect of the semantic contribution of EDR, derives other semantic effects as well as the syntactic properties of the expression. The article is organized as follows. In section 2, I present the class of nonselected datives—dative constituents which are not specified as typi- cal participants in the kind of eventualities denoted by the verb. Section 3 introduces data from SESC about a special type of nonselected datives—the Evaluative Dative Reflexive. Section 4 presents an analysis that I propose for this expression, and section 5 shows how the analysis copes with the prop- erties presented in section 3. Section 6 concludes. 2. NONSELECTED DATIVES Dative case, both cross-linguistically and in Serbo-Croatian (S-C), a dialect of which is in the center of interest of this article, shows a tendency to
- 31. [2] Variation in Datives appear on both selected and nonselected constituents. It is selected when the meaning of the verb (the type of eventualities it denotes) somehow introduces the presence of a participant that it expresses, and it is nonse- lected when no such relation with the verb can be observed. A typical use of the former type is to mark the recipient (1a) or the direction of some movement (1b), while a typical use of the latter is to mark the benefactive/ malfactive meaning (1c, d). (1) a. Jovan daje knjigu Mariji. S-C J.Nom gives book.Acc M.Dat “Jovan gives/is giving a/the book to Marija.” b. Jovan ide lekaru. J.Nom goes doctor.Dat “Jovan is going to (see) the doctor.” c. Jovan je otvorio vrata Mariji. J.Nom Aux opened door.Acc M.Dat “Jovan opened the door for Marija.” d. Jovan je Mariji postavio zamku. J.Nom Aux M.Dat set trap.Acc “J set a trap for Marija.” Other nonselected datives include the possessive dative (2a), the ethical dative (2b), the dative of interest (2c), and others (Horn 2008, Al Zahre & Boneh 2010). (2) a. Marija mu je videla sestru. S-C M.Nom he.DatCl Aux seen sister.Acc “Marija saw his sister.” b. Kako si mi? how Aux.2Sg me.Dat lit. “How are you to/for me?” c. Ja ti onda krenem na put. I you.DatCl then start_going on trip.Acc “And then I took a trip [information in which you are interested].” These traditional classes of nonselected datives are closely related to each other and are often hard to differentiate. This is already obvious in (2b and c), where the ethical dative could be seen as a pragmatically colored version of the benefactive (the speaker presents the well-being of the hearer as
- 32. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [3] something that she is concerned about, hence benefactive/malfactive, i.e., the speaker takes the information he is conveying to directly bear on the hearer, again as a kind of benefactive/malfactive role in this respect). Moreover, most examples of benefactive and malfactive datives involve the meaning of possession and vice versa, as illustrated in (3). (3) a. Jovan je Mariji slomio olovku. J.Nom Aux M.Dat broken pen.Acc “Jovan broke Marija’s pen [at her damage].” b. Marija je Jovanu namestila zglob. M.Nom Aux J.Dat set joint.Acc “Marija relocated Jovan’s joint [for his benefit].” Yet another type of nonselected datives is the Evaluative Dative Reflexive (EDR), as I call it in this article, also known as the Coreferential Dative (CD; Berman 1982, Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), Reflexive Dative (Borer 2005), Personal Dative (Horn 2008), and so on. (For arguments that EDR belongs to nonselected datives, see especially Horn 2008.) I decide to intro- duce a new term for the same element to an already long list, because I think that none of the existing terms points to an exclusive property of the phenomenon observed and hence is a potential source of confusion. It is indeed coreferential and reflexive, but indirect objects and benefactives can also be coreferential (with another nominal expression in the clause, or even just the subject) and reflexive; it involves a “personal attitude,” but this is not so straightforwardly read of the term Personal Dative and so on. As will be argued in this article, its evaluative contribution is its core charac- teristic, and along with its reflexivity, this characteristic distinguishes it from all other datives. While rare or totally absent in the standard S-C, EDR is highly fre- quent in some of its dialects, especially in the southeastern dialects of S-C (SESC). (From here on, unless otherwise specified, all examples are from this group of dialects, which behave uniformly in respect of the construction under discussion; most of the examples are from the dialect of the city of Niš, with around four hundred thousand inhabitants, which represents nearly half of the speakers of SESC.) (4) a. Jovan si sedi i gleda si film. J.Nom Refl.Dat sits and watches Refl.Dat movie.Acc “Jovan’s sitting and watching a movie [+EDR effects].”1 1 To specify the additional meaning contributed by the EDR, which is not contained in the English translation, I add “[+EDR effects]” to each translation rather than trying to paraphrase the effects.
- 33. [4] Variation in Datives b. Dao sam si još jedan ispit. given Aux.1Sg Refl.Dat more one exam “I took one more exam [+EDR effects].” It is in most relevant respects similar to the EDR in most other languages in which this phenomenon exists, as it is described in, among others, Horn (2008), for English, and Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) for Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew. Throughout the article, I consider EDR in different lan- guages essentially the same phenomenon, but with certain variations. In some cases, the differences may well be a matter of (im)precise observa- tions or descriptions, the risk of which is great due to the sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects playing a significant role in the use and interpretation of these expressions. Compared to the situation in other languages, SESC shows a greater variety of verbs (or verb classes) that appear in the EDR construction. This pattern of variation is not exceptional: it resembles the patterns in other domains, such as that of the classes of verbs used as inac- cusatives, as presented in Sorace (2000). While it is closely related to some of them, none of the traditional classes of nonselected datives may fully accommodate EDR, as it both escapes cer- tain properties of each of them and has properties of its own that are not typical for any of these classes. The following section lists its typical prop- erties, some of which are already described in the literature, and some of which are either observed for the first time, or characteristic only of the EDR as it is used in SESC. 3. PROPERTIES OF EDR As Horn (2008) describes it, EDR does not bear on the truth conditions of the sentence it appears in. The sentence is fully grammatical and semantically sound without the EDR. Yet, with the reflexive, its meaning is somewhat different. The difference—that is, the contribution of the reflexive—can be informally described through a number of components. Horn (2008: 172) provides the following: (5) a. They always co-occur with a quantified (patient/theme) direct object. b. They cannot be separated from the verb that precedes and case-marks them. c. They are most frequent/natural with monosyllabic “down-home”- type verbs (e.g., buy, get, build, shoot, get, catch, write, hire, cook).
- 34. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [5] d. They lack any external (PP) pronominal counterpart. e. They can occur in positions where a true indirect object is ruled out and can co-occur with (rather than substituting for) overt dative/indirect object. f. They are weak pronouns (Cardinaletti & Starke 1996, 1999; Bresnan 2001) and cannot be stressed or conjoined. g. They have no full NP counterpart. h. There’s no consistent thematic role for these elements. i. Most speakers have no absolute restriction against third-person pronominals, but some exhibit a residual person-based asym- metry: first > second > third j. They are nonarguments coreferring with the subject. k. They do not combine well with negated verbs. In what follows, I describe a number of properties of EDRs in SESC. Some of the properties given here (e.g., (5b, d, f, g, i, j)) are trivial or nonapplicable in SESC because it uses a reflexive, not a pronoun. Moreover, as will be shown, EDRs in SESC do not share all the properties of their English counterpart described by Horn—for instance, they can occur with any verb (against (5a, c, k)). The list in (6) summarizes the properties of EDR in SESC presented in this section (as specified in the following discussion, most of them have been observed for other languages where EDR is in use, by other authors). (6) a. They are always realized by a reflexive. b. The subject they are bound by has to involve some kind of intentionality. c. The eventuality in the respective clause is positively evaluated by the subject. d. They do not combine well with focal elements with an evalua- tive interpretation. e. Information conveyed by the respective sentence is implied to be of low relevance. f. The subject binding the EDR must be topical. g. The subject binding the EDR must be referential. f. They resist distribution over plural subjects.
- 35. [6] Variation in Datives I first describe the semantic and pragmatic ones, and then those that are (also) related to the syntax of this expression. Unlike its English counterparts described by Horn, but on a par with its counterparts in most other languages that display this phenomenon, EDR in SESC is always realized as a reflexive: that is, it is always anaphoric and bound by the clausal subject. Again on a par with its counterparts in other languages (Borer & Grodzinsky 1986), EDR in SESC cannot be stressed. And since pronominal elements that cannot take stress in SESC are real- ized as clitics, EDR in SESC is always a clitic. In other words, there is only one lexical item that realizes EDR in SESC: the dative form of the reflexive clitic, si. Al Zahre & Boneh (2010: 9) observe that EDR comes with an interpre- tation “involving some intentionality attributed to the referent of the subject DP.” Even when the subject is the undergoer or some other participant, its involvement still assumes some kind of intentionality, some awareness of the underlying eventuality.2 (7) a. Pera si zna odgovor. P Refl.Dat knows answer “Pera is having the answer ready [+EDR effects].” not the more literal: “Pera knows the answer [+EDR effects].” b. Grana (#si) plovi rekom. branch Refl.Dat sail river.Inst “The branch is floating down the river [+EDR effects].” [This sentence improves if the branch is personified.] Horn (2008: 181) talks about the following interpretive effect of the use of EDRs: “The speaker assumes that the action expressed has or would have a positive effect on the subject, typically satisfying the subject’s perceived intention or goals.” I argue that this is actually an evaluative effect: the sub- ject positively evaluates the eventuality, or more precisely the meaning of the entire PolP (the eventuality located with respect to the reference time 2 Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) argue that EDRs may only be used with a verb that has an external argument, and Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) show that this is actually not correct. It may be that Borer and Grodzinsky were misled exactly by the component of control described here, which is similar to the control typical of certain external argu- ments but is at the epistemic level rather than the level of event-participants. To illustrate the difference, let me note that, as Al Zahre and Boneh show, in Modern Hebrew, even stative and nonverbal predicates, including the individual-level ones, can be used with an EDR, as long as the subject holds some rather vague intentional control over them (though it is clearly not a controller in the sense of agency). The same holds in SESC.
- 36. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [7] and assigned a polarity). Information with a negative bias is pragmatically degraded, often infelicitous with the EDR.3 (8) a. Upao sam (#si) u rupu. fallen Aux.1Sg Refl.Dat in hole “I fell into a hole.” b. Pera (#si) slomio nogu. P.Nom Refl.Dat broken leg “Pera had his leg broken.” Both these examples are fine in contexts in which their subjects consider it good for themselves to fall into a hole and broke a leg, respectively. Nevertheless, I provide arguments that this is rather a tendency, with a sig- nificant number of exceptions. Not all negatively biased examples sound so bad with an EDR (see section 5 for examples and a discussion). To further illustrate the evaluative effect, observe the examples in (9). When the sentences are pronounced with a strong stress on mnogo “much,” they get an interpretation of a strong subjective evaluation that the newspa- per is judged as highly interesting. Intensifiers of this type do not combine with EDRs, because the EDR requires an evaluative interpretation but the evaluative interpretation is already reserved for the focal intensifier.4 (9) a. Čitam (#si) MNOGO interesantne novine! read Refl.Dat much interesting newspaper “I’m reading SUCH an interesting newspaper.” b. Pera (#si) video MNOGO dobar sat! P Refl.Dat saw much good watch “Pera saw SUCH a good watch.” [The sentence improves with a possessive/benefactive reading of the reflexive.] There is one more interpretive effect of EDR that involves attitude and is common for its use in all languages in which it is found. The speaker utter- ing the sentence containing the EDR considers the information conveyed by it to bear little relevance for the collocutors. In SESC, sentences 3 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, the evaluational restriction is another property that can be observed on other types of expressions as well. For instance, epi- thets tend to carry a negative evaluation, even though positively evaluated uses are not fully excluded. The source of the restriction is probably pragmatic in both cases, even though it is linked to different syntactic and semantic phenomena. 4 More precisely, the problem is that the EDR takes one subject of evaluation (the clausal subject) and the evaluative focal element another one (the speaker), which yields a conflict. See sections 4 and 5 for an explanation.
- 37. [8] Variation in Datives containing EDR have a kind of marginal, parenthetical intonation. They can- not be exclamative, and cannot involve a strong focal stress on the clausal polarity or one of the arguments. (10) a. Dobio sam si sat. /no strong focal stress/ gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch “I got a watch [+EDR effects].” b. #DOBIO SAM SI SAT! /strong focal stress on the sentence/ gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch c. #Dobio sam si SAT. /contrastive focal stress/ gotten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watch In other words, a sentence involving EDR cannot be felicitously used in a context where it brings in the information that the hearer is wondering about. Its content is always somehow digressive—beside the main line of exchange of information. Although the speaker assumes that the information is not relevant to the hearer, the hearer may well show interest in the information conveyed, and this is exactly what usually happens, and what probably is one prominent purpose of EDR—to smuggle into the discourse information that might be pragmatically (socially) inadequate, by attributing it a lower degree of relevance (usually simply because the speaker may be judged egocentric for introducing such information without a ground in the current set of topical issues). Al Zahre and Boneh (2010) report that in Syrian Arabic, EDRs can only be used if the eventuality involved is modified to have a small quantity (by adverbs and quantifiers such as šway “little,” kam “several,” or numerals marking a relatively small quantity). In other languages that display instances of EDR there is a similar tendency, though not necessarily with an overt marking. This is probably just a consequence of the marginal informational relevance of the contents of sentences involving EDRs. Observe the example in (11), where it is obvious that the quantification introduces only prag- matic information, without real quantity entailments. (11)a. Šta si radeo juče? what Aux2Sg done yesterday “What did you do yesterday?” b. Malo sam si jeo palačinke. little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat eaten pancakes “I ate pancakes [+EDR effects].” c. Kolko si pojeo? how_much Aux2Sg eaten_up “How much/many did you have?”
- 38. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [9] d. Uuu, mnogo, najmanje 20. many, fewest 20 “Huh, a lot, at least 20.” Finally, as an illustration of the pragmatic nature of this type of quantifica- tion, observe a typical exchange in the beginning of a colloquial conversa- tion in SESC in (12). (12) a. Šta se radi? what Refl.Acc does “What’s up?” / “What’s going on?” / “What are you doing?” b. Evo malo. Prtl.Deic5 little lit. “Here, a little.” [semantically empty, pragmatic content only] The response does not say what the person is doing; it only says that it is a little of whatever it is. There seems to be a pragmatic convention, the mechanisms of which should be looked for in sociolinguistics, that what- ever one is saying about oneself, it is by default of little relevance in the ongoing discourse, and one of the ways to express this is by a low degree quantification. This property interacts with the level of aspect. In SESC (and generally in S-C), only sentences involving imperfective verb forms can include an explicit quantification with an adverb such as malo “little.” With perfective verbs, this yields unacceptability. (13) a. Malo sam gledao TV. little Aux1Sg watched TV “I watched TV for a little while.” b. */# Malo sam pročitao novine. little Aux1Sg read_out newspaper ~“I read the newspaper for a little while.” However, when the sentence involves an EDR (or even when it does not, but the respective reading of malo “little” is suggested by the context or by the intonation), the use of malo “little” no longer depends on the aspectual properties of the verb. In such cases, malo “little” clearly specifies the degree of relevance of the information conveyed. 5 Evo is a deictic particle, similar in meaning to the Italian ecco. It refers to some- thing that the speaker is showing or presenting, and it can be used ostensively, but also in a more abstract way, to refer to some discourse-prominent object, event, tem- poral interval, or spatial location.
- 39. [10] Variation in Datives (14) a. Malo sam si gledao TV. little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat watched TV “I watched TV a little [+EDR effects].” b. Malo sam si pročitao novine. little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat read_out newspaper “I read the newspaper a little [+EDR effects].” These facts can be interpreted in two ways. One conclusion would be that EDR has nothing to do with aspect, as the quantification that is related to its meaning is at the level of informational relevance rather than at the level of aspect. The other would be that the use of EDR shifts the aspec- tual status of the verb to imperfective, thus making it compatible with the adverbs of the type of malo “little.” Again, only a precise description of the aspectual restrictions imposed by EDRs could provide an answer to this question, and as I propose an analysis that is orthogonal to the issues of aspect (although certain interactions are obvious), I do not devote a more elaborate discussion to this problem. Sentences involving an EDR come with restrictions on their information structure. The subject must be topical. This is already illustrated in (10), where the subject is a first-person pro that must be topical. Topic on other constituents yields unacceptability, as illustrated in (15) and (16).6 (15) a. Znaš onaj sati što smo videli? know.2Sg that watch Comp Aux1Pl seen “You know that watch that we saw?” b. Znam. Pera (#si) gai kupio!7 know.1Sg Pera Refl.Dat it.AccCl bought “I know. Pera bought it!” (16) a. On si pije kafu. /(contrastive) topic on the subject/ he Refl.Dat drinks coffee “He is drinking coffee [+EDR effects].” b. pro Pije si kafu. /topic on the subject, which is dropped/ pro drinks Refl.Dat coffee. “He is drinking coffee [+EDR effects].” 6 The type of topic in all these cases is the aboutness topic, which preferably coin- cides with the familiarity topic, in terms of Reinhart (1981). For more information on the structural “side effects” of topical constituents in S-C, see Arsenijević (2009). 7 In this article, I assume the EDR use for each dative reflexive used in the exam- ples. Sometimes another interpretation is available and yields different acceptability judgments (e.g., in this case, the example improves with a recipient interpretation of the dative reflexive clitic), but these other readings are ignored.
- 40. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [11] c. Kafu (#si) pije (on). /topical object/ coffee Refl.Dat drinks he “Coffee, he drinks.” Al Zahre & Boneh (2010: 17) find this requirement for a topical subject so striking that they “speculate that the CD [their term for EDR] is actually related to a topic in an A<prime>-position, itself associated with a thematic-argument.” As Al Zahre & Boneh (2010) observe, the subject of a clause involv- ing an EDR must be referential—that is, it cannot be arbitrary or generic. This is confirmed in SESC, as shown in literal translations of their Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew examples. The sentence in (17), on the intended interpretation with an arbitrary subject, cannot combine with an EDR. The EDR is fine if pro is interpreted as referential. (17) proARB popravili (#si) klimu. fixed Refl.Dat aircondition ‘’They fixed the aircondition.’ [on an arbitrary agent reading] EDRs seem to resist distribution over subjects and probably even distribution in general. They involve an effect of singularity: whatever interpretation is derived for the eventuality and its participants, the EDR subjects it to one evaluation. More precisely, they never combine with dis- tributed or iterative referential eventualities. The example in (18a) can be interpreted in only one way: that the speaker answered correctly each time and the speech therefore displays the positive evaluation, lower informational relevance, and other EDR effects. The other reading—in which for every rel- evant event in which the speaker gives the correct answer, the speech dis- plays the positive evaluation, lower informational relevance, and other EDR effects—is not available. The example in (18b) is similar: only the collective interpretation is available for the conjoined constituents (as a group, they are solving crosswords). The distributive interpretation, where each is solving crosswords, and each of these facts is evaluated as positive and marginally relevant—is out. In section 4, I speculate that this is a consequence of the tight relation between the evaluative effects and the discourse update. (18) a. Ja sam si svaki put tačno odgovorio. I Aux1Sg Refl.Dat each time correct answered “[EDR effects](I answered correctly each time).” *“Each time, [EDR effects](I answered correctly).” b. Pera i Mika si rešavaju ukrštene reči. P and M Refl.Dat solve crossed words “[EDR effects](Pera and Mika are solving crosswords).” *“[EDR effects](Pera is solving crosswords) and [EDR effects] (Mika is solving crosswords).”
- 41. [12] Variation in Datives While other authors do not make similar observations on the use of EDR in other languages, there are some observations that I consider related to this one. In particular, Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) note that EDRs (Reflexive Datives in their terminology) cannot be coordinated, Al Zahre & Boneh show that they cannot be associated with a group of coordinated verbs, and Borer (2005) argues that they only occur with atelic interpretations (but see Al Zahre & Boneh, who show that telicity does not play a role in the use of EDRs in Modern Hebrew). While the ban on coordination of EDRs can- not be tested in SESC, where EDR is a clitic and clitics generally do not coordinate, its ban in languages in which otherwise it would be expected, as well as the ban on coordination of eventualities, needs an explanation. As for the aspectual facts, the empirical situation is still quite unclear (see Al Zahre & Boneh), but it would not be surprising to find that they also derive from the singularity restriction on the evaluation time. Horn observes that in English, EDRs do not go well with negation. Although certain examples are attested, they are all licensed by what Horn refers to as a syntagmatic priming (the expression involving an EDR is liter- ally repeated in the negated sentence, from a sentence from the preceding discourse). Horn’s evidence is based on the quantitative data about antonym verbs as well as examples involving explicit negation, rather than on the unacceptability of negated examples, and I refer the reader to Horn’s article for the precise data. In SESC, EDRs are not (so) sensitive to negation, as long as it does not affect the positive evaluation of the sentential content by the subject. Examples of the type in (19) are well formed, although some speakers find some of them slightly degraded. (19)a. Ja si danas ne odo na poso. I Refl.Dat today not went on work “I didn’t go to work today [+EDR effects].” b. Pera si ni ogrebotinu ne dobi. P refl.Dat n_even scratch not got “Pera wasn’t even scratched [+EDR effects].” 4. THE ANALYSIS Previous accounts of the EDR were mostly based on the data from Modern Hebrew (Berman 1982, Borer & Grodzinsky 1986), with the exception of Al Zahre & Boneh (2010), who compare the Modern Hebrew data with those from Syrian Arabic, and Horn (2008), who uses the data from English. These analyses form two groups: the first tries to explain the effects of EDR
- 42. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [13] in terms of conventional implicature (Horn, and to some extent Al Zahre & Boneh); and the second links the EDR to the aspectual and argument struc- ture (all other accounts). An exception is the work of Al Zahre and Boneh, the aim of which is not to offer an analysis but to systematize the data, adding important new observations and generalizations, and correcting some old ones that turned out to be wrong. They show that at least the accounts focusing on the aspectual and argument structure are based on incomplete data and actually fail to explain the facts. Finally, the analysis in this article is similar in spirit to the analysis of Boneh and Nash (2010), who target French and who also argue that the dative element brings in a sense of affectedness, and that its attachment site is crucial for its interpretation. From the information available about their analysis, the main differences are that they assume the subject in EDR constructions to be the agent, which is not necessarily the case in SESC, and their analysis generates EDRs no higher than TP, while in the present analysis it goes to MoodP, or even ForceP; as will be presented soon, the present analysis also goes into more detail about the mechanics deriving the effects observed. For reasons of space, I do not discuss the earlier accounts in more detail; instead I refer the reader to Al Zahre & Boneh (2010), who provide a detailed discussion. In deriving the analysis of EDR in SESC, and probably also more uni- versally, I depart from the analysis proposed in Boneh and Nash (2010). Boneh and Nash argue convincingly that EDR (CDC in their terminology) is generated somewhere at the level of TP, that is, higher than vP and lower than CP. In this section, I first offer some additional arguments for the same claim and then propose a more precise location for EDRs: the projection of the evaluative mood (Cinque 1999’s Moodevaluative P). In section 5 I show how the particular syntactic and semantic properties of EDR presented in sec- tions 3 and 4 follow from generating EDR in this position. As shown in section 3, EDR has several pragmatic effects, including the marking of a low informational relevance. This effect is often employed to serve certain social relations between the speaker and the hearer, such as the introduction of oneself as a topic. In this way, EDR is similar to the inter- ested speaker dative (which is often grouped together with the ethical dative), expressed in S-C by a first-person dative clitic, and to the interested hearer dative (IHD), expressed by a second-person dative clitic. IHD thus refers to the hearer, indicating that the information conveyed, or the process of convey- ing it, is of a high relevance for the hearer, or even takes place for her benefit. The entire narration that includes (20) is somehow dedicated to the hearer. (20)Pera ti onda dohvati jabuku i baci je kroz prozor. P you.DatCl then catches apple and throws it through window “[FYI] Pera then catches the apple and throws it through the window.”
- 43. [14] Variation in Datives In SESC, in addition to the hearer-oriented relevance, it also marks a spe- cial social relation between the speaker and the hearer—they are in a close, almost intimate relation (a typical gesture that comes with the IHD is putting an arm on the hearer’s arm or shoulder). Note, in illustration, that IHD cannot take the form of a polite second person. (21)#Pera Vam dohvati jabuku P you_polite.Dat.Cl catches apple i baci je kroz prozor. and throws it through window “[FYI] Pera catches the apple and throws it through the window.” Next to the relevance and socially related effects, EDR and IHD are also similar in being restricted to the expression by only one lexical item. EDR is always lexically realized as a dative reflexive, and IHD as a dative-second per- son clitic. Strong pronouns, lexical nominals, or any other items are excluded. Assuming that IHD is expressing a set of features in the projection responsible for the performative force of the clause (ForceP), marking thus that the force of the clause goes in the hearer’s direction, we may speculate that EDR expresses a similar type of features, but specifying the direction of the clausal subject. This parallel explains (a) the restriction to clitics: clitics are light ele- ments without lexical content, realizing bundles of functional features, and that is why they have the capacity to realize not only arguments, but also contents of higher functional heads, such as Force; and (b) the restric- tion on EDRs to use in clauses where the subject is topical: only a topical subject may bind a reflexive generated in a position as high as ForceP. In semantic terms, while IHD marks that the force of the clause is directed toward the hearer, and hence of a special relevance for her, the orientation toward the subject, especially when the subject is in first person, marks that the information is relevant to the speaker, hence at least by implicature not particularly relevant to the hearer. There are, however, also certain facts indicating that these two elements are neither syntactically nor semantically identical. First, IHDs and EDRs may occur in the same sentence. (22) Mika ti si ustane i ode. M you.DatCl Refl.Dat gets_up and leaves “[FYI] Mika gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].” If they were generated in the same position, and contributing semantics of the same type, they should never co-occur in a sentence unless they were coordinated.
- 44. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [15] Second, while EDR frequently appears in embedded clauses, IHD never embeds. (23) Mika kaže da (*ti) (si) on lepo ustane i ode. M says comp you.DatCl Refl.Dat he nice gets_up and leaves “Mika says that [*FYI] he simply gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].” Since embedded clauses lack a fully specified force, this minimal pair sug- gests that IHD is indeed force-related, but that EDR sits not in ForceP but in some lower functional projection, as indicated by example (23), and also by example (24), which shows that the IHD cannot surface after the EDR. (24) Mika (ti) si (*ti) ustane i ode. M you.DatCl Refl.Dat you.DatCl gets_up and leaves “[FYI] Mika gets up and leaves [+EDR effect].” The lower bound can be determined by another type of nonselected dative— the benefactive. Let us assume with Pylkkänen (2002) that benefactives are generated somewhere at the level of vP, and observe (25). (25)Ček da si mu otvorim vrata. wait Comp Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door “Wait till I open the door for him [+EDR effect].” Finally, one sentence can have all three types of datives above, but only in the strict order IHD<EDR<Benefactive. (26)Ja ti si mu otvorim vrata... I you.Dat.Cl Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door “[FYI] I open the door for him [+EDR effect].” This tells us that indeed, as argued by Boneh and Nash (2010), EDR is base generated somewhere between CP (or, more precisely, ForceP) and vP—that is, within the IP layer (which I assume, with Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999, and a lot of subsequent work, to be constituted by the specification of the com- ponents such as polarity, mood, tense, and outer aspect, i.e., different types of MoodP, PolP, TP, AspP, and perhaps other related projections). The asymmetries are not really unexpected, considering that the descrip- tion of EDR involved specifying a number of different properties, some of which have nothing to do with force, while IHD seems to be restricted to the force-related effects. Moreover, the possibility of combining IHD and EDR in the same sentence, without a conflict, indicates that the relevance-related effect of one of them at the very least has to be cancelable; otherwise in
- 45. [16] Variation in Datives some cases the same sentence would be specified for contributing informa- tion that is at the same time relevant and irrelevant for the hearer. I propose, based on the semantics of EDRs, that, in a finer analysis of the IP layer, the right projection to generate them is Mood0 evaluative (which specifies the evaluative aspect of the mood; see Cinque 1999, and especially Liu 2007 for an implementation). The dative reflexive in this head intro- duces a variable that is bound by a c-commanding nominative subject and specifies the subject of evaluation (i.e., the one who evaluates the semantic contents of the structure in the complement). The direct interpretive effect is that the predicate of the eventuality is evaluated by the clausal subject. Other evaluators determined overtly or in the discourse are allowed, as long as the subject is also involved, and as long as the evaluation by the subject is exempted from any more general evaluation. We arrive at the analysis in (27a), illustrated by an example in (27b). (27)a. [Subji [ForceP [IHD] ... [MoodPeval [EDR]i [vP [v] [ApplP [Benefactive]]]]] b. Ja ti si mu otvorim vrata... I you.Dat.Cl Refl.Dat he.DatCl open door “[FYI] I open the door for him [+EDR effect].” [TopicP Ja [ForceP [ti]...[MoodP [si] [PolP ...[vP Ja [v] [ApplP [mu] [otvorim vrata]]]]]]] This, I argue, is the semantic entailment of the EDR: The eventuality is evaluated, and it is evaluated by the clausal subject. Other semantic and pragmatic effects, in particular: that this evaluation is positive, the lower degree of relevance of the information, the small quantity of the eventuality, the intentionality of the subject, and the ban on distributive interpretations all derive from this core property. 5. EXPLAINING (AND REEXAMINING) THE PROPERTIES OF EDR The positive interpretation of the eventuality is only an implicature from specifying that the subject is also a subject of evaluation, and of giving the subject’s evaluation a special status in this way. In over 70 percent of nearly 300 examples excerpted using Google, the subject is also the agent, and the controller of the evaluated eventuality. It is natural that if the evaluator holds control over the evaluated eventuality, she evaluates the eventuality as posi- tive for herself (else she would have stopped it, or controlledly pushed it in another direction). Sentences with EDRs involving other types of subjects inherit this generalized positive evaluation interpretation from those which
- 46. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [17] make a majority (note that the asymmetry in frequency is so strong that Borer & Grodzinsky 1986 had made a generalization that only eventualities with an external argument license the use of EDR; Al Zahre & Boneh 2010 showed that this generalization was wrong). In any case, the positive evalu- ation of the eventuality is not an absolute condition for the use of EDRs, as shown in the examples in (28), where those in (28b–f) are found via Google, and (28a) is from a live conversation. (28)a. Pao sam si ispit, sa’ću vi’m šta ću radim. fallen Aux1Sg Refl.Dat exam now I’ll see what to do “I failed the exam, now I’ll see what to do [+EDR effects].” b. Nego, nema veze, teb si ide to na savest... but n_have connection you.Dat Refl.Dat goes that on conscience “But, never mind, it goes to your conscience [+EDR effects]...” c. Kome se ne svidja nek si ide!! who.Dat Refl.Acc not like let Refl.Dat go.3Sg “Those who don’t like it may leave [+EDR effects].” d. Iz ovaj li moj dom da si idem? from this Q_Part mine home Comp Refl.Dat go.1Sg “Is it this home of mine that I have to leave? [+EDR effects]” e. ipak džabe Raka uči, on si ide kući... nevertheless in_vain R learns he Refl.Dat goes home “Nevertheless, Raka’s learning is in vain, he’s going home [+EDR effects]...” f. Nek si ide život... let Refl.Dat goes life lit. “Let go the life [+EDR effects]...” “Let my life be sacrificed (for a contextually given reward) [+EDR effects].” (used when a great sacrifice has to be made for a rather hedon- ist reason) In fact, almost one-third of the examples excerpted from the Internet can be judged more or less negative for the subject. In all these cases, however, there is a sense of the negative facts being (a) evaluated and (b) “none of the business of anyone else than the subject.” This is actually a rather gen- eral effect that comes with EDRs and that is also observed (though not as a general one, but as one of the pragmatic options) by Al Zahre & Boneh (2010: 25) as an “isolation effect.” This effect naturally follows from the present analysis, more precisely from the specification of the subject as a (singled-out, hence isolated) subject of evaluation.
- 47. [18] Variation in Datives I argue that exactly this effect of isolation of the clausal subject as a sub- ject of evaluation is what triggers the effect of a lower informational rel- evance of the sentence containing an EDR. As the subject is taken aside, as an evaluator, from the other relevant subjects of evaluation (most impor- tantly the interlocutors as the default evaluators), the information conveyed receives a special status in the discourse. It carries an evaluation that is not (necessarily) shared by the speaker and/or the hearer, and therefore less directly updates the discourse (i.e., updates it not with an evaluation of the facts, but with information about the subject’s evaluation of the facts). Moreover, the MoodPevaluative projection is closely related to the projection introducing evidentiality specification, MoodPevidential (see Liu 2007 for empir- ical evidence). Unless the evidential status of the sentence is explicitly speci- fied, this brings about an effect of indicating that the subject is the source of information. In itself, this gives a weak lower relevance effect, which can be made stronger when the pragmatic conditions are fulfilled, that is, when the speaker intends to make a stronger effect of this kind. One way to overtly mark this status is through adverbs and quantifiers that introduce the values from the lower sections of a scale. This is illustrated in (29), where the sentence with the adverbial malo “little” sounds more natural than the one without it, although both are fully acceptable. (29)a. Malo sam si jeo palačinke. little Aux1Sg Refl.Dat eaten pancakes “I ate pancakes a little [+EDR effects].” b. Jeo sam si palačinke. eaten Aux1Sg Refl.Dat pancakes “I ate pancakes [+EDR effects].” The sentence in (29a) is more appropriate when it is a digression or intro- duces a new topic into the discourse (which gives it a stronger low relevance effect). The one in (29b) is more natural as an answer to the question “What were you doing (at the relevant time)?”—that is, in a context in which it has some informational relevance (answers a question), which it degrades by its own implicature of low relevance. In languages like Syrian Arabic, where EDR necessarily requires the presence of an adverb or quantifier of this kind (Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), EDR has probably become part of a construction specialized to express meanings with a strong low relevance effect. The component of intentionality of the subject that binds the EDR (Al Zahre & Boneh 2010: 9) directly follows from the specification of the sub- ject as an (isolated) evaluator: trivially, intentionality is a necessary property of any possible subject of evaluation—it is a prerequisite of evaluation. The
- 48. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [19] very fact that the subject binds a variable that represents the evaluator forces an interpretation that attributes intentionality to the subject, even when the actual referent normally does not display intentionality, as illustrated by the example in (7b), repeated here as (30). (30) Grana (#si) plovi rekom. branch Refl.Dat sail river.Inst “The branch is floating down the river (#[+EDR effects]).” [This sentence improves if the branch is personified.] EDR effects do not distribute over subjects or times, as already discussed in section 3 in relation to examples in (18), repeated here as (31). Several other restrictions, such as the ban on coordination both of EDRs and of the respec- tive eventualities (Borer and Grodzinsky 1986), as well as the referentiality restrictions described in Al Zahre & Boneh (2010), subsume under this one. I speculate that the discourse status of evaluative attitudes is responsible for these effects. More precisely, (the discourse-representation of) the set of beliefs of the subject has to be updated by the evaluation introduced by EDR, and this effect cannot distribute (similar to the fact that force does not distribute). (31) a. Ja sam si svaki put tačno odgovorio. I Aux1Sg Refl.Dat each time correct answered “I answered correctly each time [+EDR effects].” b. Pera i Mika si rešavajuukrštene reči. P and M Refl.Dat solve crossed words “Pera and Mika are solving crosswords [+EDR effects].”8 This is also part of the explanation of a final property of EDRs discussed in this section, namely that the subject that binds the EDR has to be topi- cal. The direct discourse update of clauses involving an EDR (e.g., in the sense of file-card semantics of Heim 1982) are in the domain of the beliefs of the subject. If any other event participant were topical, that should also be the referent directly targeted by the discourse update, and the semantic contribution of EDR could not be realized. The restriction of EDRs’ realization by a reflexive is not an effect; rather, it is a core property of EDRs. Hence, rather than explaining why it holds, one could speculate on the ways in which it led to the independent estab- lishing of this element in mutually unrelated languages. The reasons are more pragmatic than grammatical. As Horn (2008) indicates, there was probably 8 Note, in further support of the weak low informational relevance effects, that this sentence cannot combine with adverbs such as malo “little,” and only in a very remote sense displays the low relevance effect.
- 49. [20] Variation in Datives a fortunate match between a niche in the set of frequent pragmatic patterns and the entailments of the particular syntactic structure with a referent with the evaluative capacity being both the evaluator and the controller of an event. This guaranteed a high frequency of the configuration, leading to its establishment as a construction, with the set of restrictions less directly related to its entailment varying across languages. There is also a syntactic condition that is fulfilled by the topical interpre- tation of the subject. In order to bind the dative reflexive, the subject needs to be higher than MoodPevaluative . Assuming that the subject normally moves only as high as TP, which is lower than MoodPevaluative (Cinque 1999), the subject must move higher up to get into a c-command relation with the EDR. This is achieved by its movement to TopicP. 6. CONCLUSION In this article, I presented the data about the Evaluative Dative Reflexive as it is used in southeastern Serbo-Croatian. It shares most of its properties with its counterparts from Modern Hebrew, Syrian Arabic, French, or dialects of English, but also differs from them in some interesting ways. I proposed an analysis according to which the semantic contribution of EDR is in specify- ing that the subject of the clause is a subject of evaluation of the underly- ing eventuality. Syntactically, it is generated in MoodPevaluative , where it realizes its semantic contribution and is bound by the subject, which moves up to TopicP. I showed how this analysis accounts for other presented properties of the EDR: the positive nature of the evaluation, the intentionality and the topical and collective interpretation of the subject, the low relevance of the information conveyed, and the reflexive nature of the EDR. The analysis should also apply to EDRs in other languages—possibly with small modifica- tions in the domains of variation (e.g., the obligatory use of a small-quantity adverb in Palestinian Arabic, as in Al Zahre & Boneh 2010), hopefully moti- vated by the different setting of syntactic parameters in these languages. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to the editors of this volume, and the organizers of the work- shop at which it was initiated for providing a great venue for the research on the aspects of variation in the use of datives, and to two anonymous reviewers for comments that have helped me to improve the article consid- erably. Funding from the following grants is gratefully acknowledged: “The origins of truth” (NWO 360-20-150) and “Natural language ontology and the semantic representation of abstract objects” (MICINN, FFI2010-15006, and JCI-2008-2699).
- 50. EVALUATIVE REFLEXIONS: EVALUATIVE DATIVE REFLEXIVE [21] REFERENCES Al-Zahre, Nisrine, and Nora Boneh. 2010. “Coreferential dative constructions in Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 2, 248–282. Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. “{Relative {conditional {correlative clauses}}}.” In Aniko Liptak (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically, 131–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Berman, Ruth. 1982. “Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 6: 35–59. Boneh, Nora, and Lea Nash. 2010. “Getting high.” Paper presented at the Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Barcelona, March 18–20, 2010. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticiza- tion: The case of Hebrew dative clitics.” In Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and seman- tics 19, 175–215. New York: Academic Press. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. “The emergence of the unmarked pronoun.” In Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 113–142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1996. “Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. A study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance.” In Hoskuldur Thräinsson, Samuel Epstein, and Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in Comparative Syntax II, 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heim, Irene. 1982. “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Horn, Laurence R. 2008. “‘I love me some him’: The landscape of nonargument datives.” In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 169–192. Available at www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/index_en.html. Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2007. “The V-qilai evaluative construction in Chinese.” UST Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 43–62. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing arguments.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–94. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the Left Periphery.” In Lilliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Sorace, Antonella. 2000. “Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs.” Language 76 (4): 859–890.
- 51. CHAPTER 2 Core and Noncore Datives in French NORA BONEH & LÉA NASH 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Distinguishing Properties Like many other languages, French expresses the goal argument of ditransi- tive verbs (1) and the optional dative, which is not thematically selected by the verb (2) in the same fashion, by means of a dative clitic. In what fol- lows we refer to optional datives as noncore datives, and to those attached to canonical ditransitive verbs as core datives. (1) a. Le syndic leur a envoyé des lettres recommendées. The property manager 3p.dat sent letters registered “The property manager sent them registered letters.” b. Marie lui a donné un baiser. Marie 3s.dat gave a kiss “Marie gave her/him a kiss.” c. Il lui a dit la vérité. He 3s.dat told the truth. “He told her/him the truth.” d. Le directrice lui a attribué une tache difficile. The headmistress 3s.dat allocated a task difficult “The headmistress gave her/him a difficult task.” (2) a. Le plombier leur a vidé un chauffe-eau. The plumber 3p.dat emptied a water-heater “The plumber emptied a water-heater for them.”
- 52. CORE AND NONCORE DATIVES IN FRENCH [23] b. La teinturier lui a massacré une chemise. The dry-cleaner 3s.dat destroyed a shirt “The dry-cleaner ruined her/his shirt (on her/him).” c. Hélène lui a peint son portail. Hélène 3s.dat painted his gate “Hélène painted the gate for her/him.” d. Marie lui a vomi sur ses coussins. Marie 3s.dat vomited on his cushions “Marie vomited on her/his cushions.” e. Elle lui a tiré dans le ventre. She 3s.dat shot in the belly “She shot her/him in the belly.” The constructions in (1) and (2) are also alike in that the datives co-occur in both sentences with direct objects. It has been long noted that noncore datives cannot appear when the verb is a bare intransitive, lacking VP addi- tional material (see Leclère 1976, Morin 1981, Herslund 1988, Rooryck 1988, Authier & Reed 1992, Lamiroy & Delbecque 1998, Roberge & Troberg 2007, Jouitteau & Rezac 2007): (3) a. Marie lui a bu *(trois pastis). Marie 3s.dat drank (three pastis) “Marie drank three glasses of pastis (on her/him).” b. Hélène lui a chanté *(sous ses fenêtres). Hélène 3s.dat sang (beneath his windows) “Hélène sang beneath her/his window (on her/him).” c. Marie lui a mangé *(avec les doigts)/(*rapidement). Marie 3s.dat ate (with the fingers)/(quickly) “Marie ate with her fingers (on her/him, aggravating her/him).” d. *Jean lui a chanté tout l’après-midi. Jean 3s.dat sang all afternoon long e. *Jean lui a chanté parce qu’il ne pouvait pas s’en empêcher. Jean 3s.dat sang because he couldn’t refrain from it f. *Jean lui a bu pour choquer ses invités. Jean 3s.dat drank to shock the guests The examples, adapted from Authier & Reed (1992), show that VP mate- rial has to be of a specific categorial and semantic type. Alongside DP arguments (3a), location and manner PPs are allowed (3b–c), but manner
- 53. [24] Variation in Datives adverbial phrases (3c), temporal adjuncts (3d), causation adjuncts (3e), or purpose clauses (3f) are not suitable VP material. Note that in the absence of a dative clitic, bare intransitives are fully acceptable. (4) a. Marie a bu (rapidement). “Marie drank quickly.” b. Hélène a chanté. “Hélène sang.” Beyond the superficial similarities in the form of the dative clitic and the obligatoriness of a certain type of VP material, core and noncore datives differ in several respects. The most proclaimed feature setting them apart is the ability to appear as full à-DPs (Leclère 1976, Rouveret & Vergnaud 1980, Barnes 1985, Rooryck 1988, Herschensohn 1992, Authier & Reed 1992, Roberge & Troberg 2009 a.o.). Whereas there are no restrictions on the availability of full à-DPs for core datives, noncore datives are most natu- ral as clitics; full à-DPs are awkward or plainly ungrammatical.1 (5) a. Le syndic a envoyé des lettres recommendées aux co-propriétaires. “The property manager sent registered letters to the apartment-owners.” b. Marie a donné un baiser à Jean. “Marie gave a kiss to Jean.” c. Il a dit la vérité à Jean. “He told the truth to Jean.” (6) a. *Le plombier a vidé un chauffe-eau aux co-propriétaires. The plumber emptied a water-heater to the apartment-owners b. *La teinturier a massacré une chemise à Marie. The dry-cleaner ruined a shirt to Marie c. *Ton fils a encore décapité trois poupées Barbie à ses petites camarades. Your son has again decapitated three Barbie dolls to/on his lit- tle friends d. *Marie a embrassé le front à Jean. Marie kissed the forehead to Jean e. *Elle a tiré dans le ventre à Jean. She shot in the belly to Jean 1 Like the other authors, we distinguish between clause-level à-DPs and adnominal ones. The latter is qualified as substandard French, e.g., la pipe à papa “Dad’s pipe.”
- 54. CORE AND NONCORE DATIVES IN FRENCH [25] Second, core datives can appear in nominalizations (7a), but noncore datives cannot (7b–c): (7) a. l’envoi des lettres aux co-propriétaires the sending the letters to the apartment-owners “the sending of the letters to the apartment-owners” b. *la vidange d’un chauffe-eau aux co-propriétaires the emptying of a water-heater to the apartment-owners c. *le repassage des chemises à nos fidèles clients the ironing of shirts to our devoted customers Third, noncore datives seem to differ from core datives in that they imply a notion of affectedness: the extra noncore participant is taken to be affected by the underlying event. In the examples above, this is reflected in the English translation by the expression “on her/him.”2 1.2 Previous Analyses Previous analyses tried to account for licensing conditions of noncore datives in the absence of semantic selection, or theta-role assignment. Positing an applicative analysis whereby an applicative head selects and licenses the non- core dative has gained popularity since the publication of Pylkkänen’s work (2002/2008). She establishes two kinds of applicatives: low applicatives, relat- ing two individuals and high applicatives relating an individual to an event. It has been shown on several grounds that assuming low applicatives fails to account for phenomena attesting that the introduced argument is in fact higher in the structural hierarchy (Nash 2006, Georgala et al. 2008), or does not take 2 Core and noncore datives also seem to differ as to whether or not they allow passivization of the internal argument (Rooryck 1988, ex. 9). Core datives, in (i), can co-occur with theme subjects in passives, but noncore datives, in (ii), cannot. However, speakers do not seem to be unanimous about these facts (Authier & Reed 1992). (i) a. Un livre lui a été donné. A book 3s.dat was given “A book was given to her/him.” b. Cet emploi lui a été attribué. This job 3s.dat was allocated “This job was allocated to her/him.” (ii) a. *Un gâteau leur a été cuit. A cake 3p.dat was cooked b. *Ce pull lui a été déchiré (par le gosse). This sweater 3s.dat was torn (by the kid)
- 55. Exploring the Variety of Random Documents with Different Content
- 56. First off, oblige predal felons to make restitution in kind: as to offenses against property, dollar for dollar under reasonably elastic legal limitations; and as to offenses against the person, very much as civil courts award damages for bodily injuries. At the same time, drag out and set down hard, those who make a business of beating equitable exchange. Bow out of reformative management all who would build cardinally to other than earnest, consecutive endeavor on the part of prisoners for occupational skill with which to meet the exactions of the free-life working day. Essentially, handcuff mawkish sentimentalists who cannot see the public security for oblique impulse to pamper flippant foragers. Spare imprisoned, sin-driven lads so much as suggestion of the like of pug-charged thrills, while ministering just common sense and Christ-like to their crying needs, and probably the ninety-and-nine of them won’t pack a gun and break for money bags. When the exceptional freebooter just won’t play fair, and just will go gun-hung for plunder, isolate him and keep him isolated. Do it both in and out of prison. There is no call upon the commonwealth to motivate for the commission of crime, through pyramiding upon clemency that is spurned.
- 57. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CRIMINAL TYPES *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE
- 58. THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
- 59. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
- 60. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
- 61. This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
- 62. with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
- 63. about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
- 64. damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
- 65. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
- 66. remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
- 67. small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
- 68. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
- 69. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com