The document discusses indirect object clitic doubling constructions in Spanish and other languages. It proposes that these constructions involve an applicative head (Appl) that licenses the indirect object in its specifier position. This relationship between the indirect object and Appl allows Appl to form the basis for the clitic. The presence of Appl gives these constructions properties of both prepositional dative constructions and double object constructions, such as binding asymmetries and scope freezing effects.

1. Indirect Object Clitic Doubling
Constructions in Spanish and
the Applicative Head
Rebecca Woods
University of York
rlw523@york.ac.uk
LAGB 2012

2. Research Question
• Dative constructions come in two principal forms:
o prepositional construction (PC)
“The boy gave the ball to the dog”
o double-object construction (DOC)
“The boy gave the dog the ball”
• A minority of languages (around 28 out of 170, Siewierska, 1996) feature
dative alternation, using both of the above constructions. The others are
limited to one construction for all ditransitive verbs
• Some languages, like Greek, Romanian and Spanish, feature a third option
which resembles a PC but doubles the indirect object with a clitic:
o Indirect object clitic doubling construction (IODC)
Juan le envío el libro a su pariente
Juan CL sent the book to his relative
• This option is like a DOC in terms of its interpretation, but is like a PC in
terms of the movement which is permitted
• MY QUESTIONS:
o What forms the basis for the clitic?
o How does the clitic bring about the mixed characteristics of the IODC?

3. Ditransitive constructions
• Larson (1988, 1990)
– Transformational approach
PC = base form
DOC = formed by passive-like
movement of IO to Spec(lower)VP

4. Ditransitive constructions
• Pesetsky (1995); Harley (1997, 2002)
– “Alternative projection” approaches with
decomposed CAUSE predicates
PC = Locative feature on P DOC = “Have” feature on P

5. Ditransitive constructions
• Pylkkänen’s (2002, 2008) on low
Applicatives, Bruening (2010) incorporates
Appl
DOC: IO generated in SpecApplP, which
PC
intervenes between VoiceP/VP or vP/VP

6. PCs and DOCs: characteristics
• PCs
– DO can bind into IO, not vice versa
*John showed heri daughter to Maryi
– IO can be inanimate
– DO may be raised and passivized
• DOCs
– Scope freezing effects (NP1 takes wide scope)
– IO can bind into DO, not vice versa
*Lisa gave itsi author the booki
– Stronger sense of possession; IO must be a valid
recipient/benefactor
– DO may not be raised or passivized

7. The third option: IODCs
• Juan envió el libro a su pariente (PC)
Juan sent the book to his relative
• *Juan envió su pariente el libro (*DOC)
Juan sent his relative the book
• Juan le envió el libro a su pariente (IODC)
Juan CL sent the book to his relative

8. The third option: IODCs
Scope Binding IO animacy DO
Construction freezing asymmetry restriction DO passive unaccusative DO raising
PC N N N Y Y Y
Spanish DOC - - - - - -
IODC Y Y Y Y Y Y
PC N N N Y Y Y
Greek DOC Y Y Y ?N ?N N
IODC Y Y Y Y Y Y
PC N N N Y Y Y
English DOC Y Y Y N N N
IODC - - - - - -

9. The Applicative Head as Clitic
• Proposal
– The key difference in the structure of the DOC and
IODC as opposed to the PC is the Appl phrase
– Following Bruening (2010), the IO is generated in
SpecApplP
– Through the Spec-Head relationship in ApplP, Appl
forms the basis for the IO clitic
• Consequences
– The presence of Appl induces DOC-like restrictions on
the IO, scope and binding
– The movement of the clitic permits the DO to raise
within the vP, giving the surface structure of the PC

10. Characteristics of the clitic
• Does not match determiner paradigm – typical of
dative clitics in Romance languages (le in Spanish, lui in
French, etc.)
• Agrees with IO in number and case, but not gender
– Franco (2001) and Anagnostopoulou (2006) for evidence
that [+animate] overrides [+gender]
• Encodes possession relationship between DO and IO
– Clitics in other contexts e.g. inalienable possession
Le lavaron los manos a Luis
CL wash-3pl the hands of Luis

11. Movement of the clitic

12. Consequences
• Scope freezing
– Clitic takes on φ-features of IO, therefore has a Q-
feature to be valued by an appropriate scopal head
(cf. Beghelli and Stowell, 1997; Tsoulas, 2003)

13. Scopal Heads
Tsoulas , 2003; based on Beghelli and Stowell, 1997

14. Consequences
• Scope freezing
– Clitic takes on φ-features of IO, therefore has a Q-
feature to be valued by an appropriate scopal head
(cf. Beghelli and Stowell 1997, Tsoulas 2003)
– IO always takes wide scope:
IODC Juan le mandó a un pariente cada cuadro un>cada,
IO>DO Juan CL sent to a relative each painting *cada>un
IODC Juan le mandó cada cuadro a un pariente un>cada,
DO>IO Juan CL sent each painting to a relative *cada>un
PC Juan mandó cada cuadro a un pariente un>cada,
Juan sent each painting to a relative cada>un

15. Consequences (cont.)
• Binding asymmetries
IODC: La profesora le entregó su dibujo a cada niño
The teacher CL gave his/her drawing to each child
IODC: ?La profesora le entregó cada dibujo a su autor
The teacher CL gave each drawing to its author
PC: *La profesora entregó su dibujo a cada niño
The teacher gave his/her drawing to each child
• Animacy restrictions
PC: Juan envío el libro a Sonia / a Nueva York
Juan sent the book to Sonia / to New York
IODC: Juan le envío el libro a Sonia / *a Nueva York
Juan CL sent the book to Sonia / *to New York

16. Consequences (cont.)
• DO movement
– To achieve canonical DO>IO word order
• Both word orders unmarked in the IODC, unlike in PCs
• IO>DO underlying order
• DO>IO order motivated by EPP feature on v (cf. Torrego
(2002) on psych predicates
• Only DO is viable target to avoid feature clash in CP
• DO must be interpreted as specific
La abuela les entregó *(los) juguetes a los niños
The grandmother CL gave (the) toys to the children
La abuela les entregó a los niños juguetes
The grandmother CL gave to the children toys

17. Consequences (cont.)
• DO movement
– Passivisation and raising (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003 on Greek)
• Movement of the clitic in T -> DO and IO equally close for
attraction by EPP in T
• IO features on clitic in same minimal domain as the target of
movement
• Passivisation and unaccusative constructions licit in IODCs
(though not normally licit in DOCs)
El premio Nobel (le) fue concedido a Cela el año pasado
The Nobel Prize CL was awarded to Cela last year
[A los alumnos] *(les) gusta el libro
To the student CL pleased the book
Examples from Anagnostopoulou (2003)

18. Conclusion and next steps
• Most minimal method as does not rely on new/unnecessary
functional projections with no other interpretative effects, e.g. ClP
(Sportiche)
• Presence of Appl well-motivated as the locus of relations between
IO and DO
• Appl shown to be an overt inflection in Bantu languages; leading
towards cross-linguistic parameterisation
• Next steps – cross-linguistic application in applicatives generally and
DOC/IODCs more specifically
– Overt in Spanish, Greek (?), covert in English therefore no clitic
• IODCs in French?
“Sa grandmère leur a légué sa maison aux trois filles”
• Thank you for your time!

19. References
• Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Anagnostopoulou, E. (2006). Clitic doubling. In: M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax.
Malden, MA.: Blackwell, ch. 14.
• Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In: A. Szabolsci, ed. (1997). Ways
of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ch. 3.
• Bruening, B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: frozen Scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 233-273.
• Bruening, B. (2010). Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 519-562.
• Chomsky, N. (1995).The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds. Step by step:
Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp.89-155.
• Cuervo, M-C. (2003). Structural asymmetries but same word order. In: A.M. Di Sciullo, ed. Asymmetry in Grammar, vol. 1.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Franco, J. (2001). On the doubling of overt operators. In: J. Gutiérrez-Rexach and L. Silva-Villar, eds. Current issues in Spanish
syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.85-106.
• Harley, H. (1997). If you have, then you can give. In: B. Agbayani and S.-W. Tang, eds. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA.: CSLI. Available at:
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyHaveGiveWCCFL1996.pdf [last accessed 27 March 2012]
• Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 29-68. Available at:
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyGive2002.pdf [last accessed 27 March 2012]
• Larson, R.K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335-391.
• Larson, R.K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 589-632.
• Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In S.A. Mchombo, ed. Theoretical aspects
of Bantu grammar 1.Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications, pp.113-151.
• Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
• Torrego E. (2002). Arguments for a derivational approach to syntactic relations based on clitics. In: S.D. Epstein and T.D.
Seely, eds. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Cambridge: CUP, Ch. 10.
• Tsoulas, G. (2003). Floating quantifiers as overt scope markers. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 157-
180